# Good news for a local PCA church, Grape Juice to Wine in Lord's Supper



## Smeagol (Apr 4, 2019)

This may come as a shock to some (being cheeky), but yes there are more than a few PCA churches striving to be reformed and reforming.

I have some good news about a PCA church.

I have an update and a praise. Our session just approved our local congregation to move towards using wine in communion beginning in July. I know this may seem like a small deal to some, but the local congregation has never used wine before. I am excited and thankful for my Church, Session, and Pastor. The Pastor’s faithful preaching of a Lord’s Supper sermon was used to bring this change about. It was a blessing to see so many in the congregation have their opinions changed and conform to the word with little to no grumbling. It was equally a blessing to see how the local session supported the Pastor with side discussions with the sheep for a few weeks after the sermon to be peacemakers.

Reactions: Like 12


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 4, 2019)

Split tray or completely using wine?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 4, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Split tray or completely using wine?


Initially it will be split tray with hopes of moving to wine only. Scott you can still be a little happy like: . You don’t have to be like.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## earl40 (Apr 4, 2019)

How excellent....currently I am a 1/2 communicant at my local PCA church.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 4, 2019)

earl40 said:


> How excellent....currently I am a 1/2 communicant at my local PCA church.


No games. What do you mean?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 4, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Initially it will be split tray with hopes of moving to wine only. Scott you can still be a little happy like: . You don’t have to be like.



Oh, I am overwhelmed w joy w this news! Truly. Most churches that are transitioning will go with the split tray to begin with . It’s progress In the right direction.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 4, 2019)

I did respectfully push for “wine-only” privately with my Pastor; however that is just not the way the cookie crumbled and I am not the Pastor or an Elder. No point in me being upset about it because I still see it as a step forward.

At this point I am not sure how the juice will finally be removed since so many steps took place to make the change to an inner/outer ring split.

Personally, I have never been afforded the opportunity to use wine in communion and I am really excited about that regardless if I still see that beloved phony in the tray.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 4, 2019)

I sit in the balcony of our church. In the last row. My pastor has one of the elders bring my family separate little box with four little cups of wine in it. It’s almost Masonic! A few of the congregants that sit near us have asked ‘what is that the elders are bringing you?’

Reactions: Funny 2 | Sad 2


----------



## earl40 (Apr 4, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> No games. What do you mean?



No games.  My conscience will no longer allow me to partake of grape juice, which is the only thing our elders serve. So I simply eat the bread and pass on the "fruit of the vine". Also I plan on partaking every 6 months at a congregation which is faithful to Our Lord's command. Some will think I am being over scrupulous, but imagine using milk instead of water for baptism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 4, 2019)

We usually just reply, “we get the good stuff “

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 4, 2019)

earl40 said:


> No games.  My conscience will no longer allow me to partake of grape juice, which is the only thing our elders serve. So I simply eat the bread and pass on the fruit of the vine. Also I plan on partaking every 6 months at a congregation which is faithful to Our Lord's command. Some will think I am being over scrupulous, but imagine using milk instead of water for baptism.


Makes sense Earl. Thanks for sharing that.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 4, 2019)

My Pastor does agree with only serving wine; however, I think he was content with doing the split to, as he put it, “ to aid some members with a weaker conscience”. My Pastor has only been 3 years in with the church (his first). I think many Pastors will understand the dynamic of dealing with pre-existing traditions if you are new and trying to slowly keep reforming without everyone running off at once. Some things just take time, that’s not always good, but it is often reality.

Edit: P.S., I am a “wine-only” advocate, so don’t shoot the messenger.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 4, 2019)

“When somebody inquired whether, when a sick person wished to have the sacrament but could not tolerate wine on account of nausea, something else should be given in place of the wine, the doctor [Martin Luther] replied, ‘This question has often been put to me and I have always given this answer: One shouldn’t use anything else than wine. If a person can’t tolerate wine, omit it [the sacrament] altogether in order that no innovation may be made or introduced.'” — Martin Luther, “Table Talk” (Luther’s Works 54:438)

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Apr 4, 2019)

It is always worth rejoicing when a church takes steps to conform to the Scriptures. I pray more will follow suit. Threads like this make me more grateful that my small PCA church is wine-only. Praying that our new church does the same.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 4, 2019)

Moving to the appropriate forum. 
*Updates & Information*
This is the place to find updates and ask questions *about the Board.*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 4, 2019)

woohoo!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 4, 2019)

We use wine, but we have one member who is a recovered alcoholic. We are happy to provide grape juice for him as he is not able to drink any alcohol.

Reactions: Amen 2 | Sad 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Apr 4, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> I sit in the balcony of our church. In the last row. My pastor has one of the elders bring my family separate little box with four little cups of wine in it. It’s almost Masonic! A few of the congregants that sit near us have asked ‘what is that the elders are bringing you?’


Like the special meal on a flight.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Gabriel Barnes (Apr 4, 2019)

Rejoicing with you friend! As someone who has some background in the PCA (a former PCA member), I certainly understand what you mean. I was a member of a certain PCA church when the session decided under some study, and an unanimous decision to to _include _wine for the Lord's Supper. 

How do you think the congregation will take it?


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 4, 2019)

Gabriel Barnes said:


> Rejoicing with you friend! As someone who has some background in the PCA (a former PCA member), I certainly understand what you mean. I was a member of a certain PCA church when the session decided under some study, and an unanimous decision to to _include _wine for the Lord's Supper.
> 
> How do you think the congregation will take it?


I think/hope it is taken very well. It will likely not be a surprise. Timeline:

1. Session asked the Pastor, if he be willing, to give a sermon on the Lord's Supper the next time our congregation observed the supper.

2. Pastor wrote the sermon and discussed the sermon with the session so that they had a heads-up that he was going to preach that we should be using wine as 1 point of his sermon.

3. Session made a plan to intentionally discuss the matter (in a supportive manner) with members in the days/weeks after the sermon was delivered. Sermon was given 03/03/2019.(https://www.pearlpres.com/sermons/sermon/2019-03-03/food-and-drink-am-service)

4. Session reported that all was well in the congregation and a motion was made/approved this month to begin using wine (split tray) in July (currently we observe the supper once every other month).

P.S. Hard to tell if there will be any unsettled until it is actually implemented.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Apr 4, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I did respectfully push for “wine-only” privately with my Pastor; however that is just not the way the cookie crumbled and I am not the Pastor or an Elder. No point in me being upset about it because I still see it as a step forward.
> 
> At this point I am not sure how the juice will finally be removed since so many steps took place to make the change to an inner/outer ring split.
> 
> Personally, I have never been afforded the opportunity to use wine in communion and I am really excited about that regardless if I still see that beloved phony in the tray.



So, I guess any recovering alcoholics or people who can't have wine for medical reasons are just out of luck? Split-tray is always the best idea.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 4, 2019)

bookslover said:


> So, I guess any recovering alcoholics or people who can't have wine for medical reasons are just out of luck? Split-tray is always the best idea.


Richard,

*Personally I don't buy it, considering the amount in each cup. Both of those groups could likely take an even smaller sip.*

Further the idea of a split tray does not really find support from the Westminster Standards or the PCA BCO (See 58-5), nor in the Bible (their are two elements in the supper not 3). However, I still have sympathy for those who disagree and are sensitive in conscience, hence my own glad submission to my Pastor and Session. But if all things could be "Grant's Way", I support weekly observance-, unleavened bread-, wine-, breaking the bread-, and one cup, ).

After all, we would not remove the bread element for almonds for a recovering bread glutton

P.S. We are all recovering "Sin" addicts; however we do not let our prior sins dictate how we worship God in the sacraments especially since we have direct clear commands for "bread" and "wine" in scripture. Further our confessions (all historic reformed ones), the PCA, and OPC BCOs specifically state “WINE”. Grape Juice is not mentioned once in the Westminster Standards, Heidelberg, or the PCA/OPC BCOs. “Alcoholism” was likely present when the Westminster Standards and the other reformed confessions were written.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 4, 2019)

bookslover said:


> So, I guess any recovering alcoholics or people who can't have wine for medical reasons are just out of luck? Split-tray is always the best idea.



Grant said I could post in response Richard. I asked him because I didn’t want to derail the thread.

Alcoholism is a not the biblical term. Being on the PB we should use what God says. It should be called what it is - idolatry of alcohol. It is sin. Idolatry, however, should not ruin the blessedness God has given us in the celebration of Christ’s sacrifice for us.

Further, a split cup actually can be seen as divisive. Everyone partaking of the same thing is to symbolize our communion together. What you partake of is to be a sign of the same thing. To have 2 different elements for the cup is to show division amongst the body, correct? To those who can't have wine for allergy reasons, that should be taken up and determined by the Session on case by case basis. Such is “an exception to the principle/rule.”

At the end of the day we should not be asking, “how can we appease everyone?” Rather we should be asking, “What has Christ commanded?” Let’s do that lest we be consumed by our holy God.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## lynnie (Apr 5, 2019)

I'm not supposed to have any alcohol with my Graves disease meds because the meds are hard on the liver. I doubt a sip would hurt. But I see grape juice as embryonic wine. It seems to me like saying the early clump of cells isn't a baby, its just an unformed embryo, and we say no, from the moment of conception it is a baby. Well, that juice is unformed wine. Fetal wine. I rejoice in my savior and what he did as I swallow the fruit of the vine. He is the true vine. But I'm glad the OP is happy.

Reactions: Like 4 | Sad 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

lynnie said:


> I'm not supposed to have any alcohol with my Graves disease meds because the meds are hard on the liver. I doubt a sip would hurt. But I see grape juice as embryonic wine. It seems to me like saying the early clump of cells isn't a baby, its just an unformed embryo, and we say no, from the moment of conception it is a baby. Well, that juice is unformed wine. Fetal wine. I rejoice in my savior and what he did as I swallow the fruit of the vine. He is the true vine. But I'm glad the OP is happy.


Lynnie,

I am sorry to hear about your condition with Graves Disease. What a awful name for a disease. *I am glad you at least stated you could likely have a tiny sip*. There is likely more Alcohol per volume in vanilla extract than most communion wines.

No one who advocates wine-only on this thread supports abortion as we see it in our society. Likening the wine only advocates (this is a confessional Board) to those who have a murderous and unbiblical view on conception and abortion is not biblical and further is an invalid emotional comparison that I hope will be reconsidered.

A better example (if you want to use an embryo): In Mississippi you have to be a person 21 years of age to purchase alcohol, well an embryo is a person but still does not meet the Laws requirement. Similarly the Bible and the historic confessions speak of using “wine” in a cup. While grape juice is close (same fruit depending on the brand), it does not quite fit the command we have. It is missing a few important qualities we are intended to experience and needs to age. Hope that forms a more positive comparison.

Jesus did not give 2 elements to represent his blood in the supper, the historic confessions do not list 2 elements for His blood in the supper. The PCA & OPC BCOs clearly state wine. Even if someone one says “well we can still use grape juice”, then fine but at least admit our supporting documents prescribe wine.

My conscience with my vows to scripture, the Westminster Standards, and the PCA BCO binds me to using only wine because that is the word they all three use.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 5, 2019)

I have a question. Where exactly is the justification for the use of grape juice in the PCA and OPC?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 5, 2019)

Deleted response by myself. Useless drivel.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ZackF (Apr 5, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Useless drivel.



Are you going to have all of my posts deleted now?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 5, 2019)

ZackF said:


> Are you going to have all of my posts deleted now?



The useless drivel was my own....sometimes I pull the trigger without thinking.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

The addition of Grape Juice into the shaping of The Lord's Supper in the Church was nothing more than a cultural pressure (invasion) that many gave into.

Just because it is not a fresh cultural pressure, does not make the above any less true. Modern examples are adding rock bands, changing understandings of sexuality in society. How many are willing to admit that the grape juice invasion was a cultural pressure? The addition of un-fermented grape juice certainly was not a reforming to the scriptures.

As @Pergamum stated in another thread. Here in America we really have no excuse not to be using wine as the norm.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 5, 2019)

http://www.semperreformanda.com/?s=temperance+movement

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## lynnie (Apr 5, 2019)

I wonder. Back then there were no freezers and no canning facilities. If you grew grapes you could make wine, vinegar, and raisins. Passover was in spring long after harvest. Grape juice was not possible. When the confessions were written and the Reformers wrote their commentaries, it was the same way.

I would guess that right after they harvested grapes it was an annual treat to have fresh sweet juice. I would think that maybe they would even have had it at church gatherings for a couple sundays as long as the harvest lasted. In that heat, it would not keep long at all. Jesus was the vine, it was the fruit of the vine, the blood of the vine, fresh or fermented. 

Grant- OF COURSE I don't think anybody here is pro abortion. Yikes, that is not even up for discussion. I was merely referring to the juice as wine in embryonic beginning stages. Which it is! That's all. Please don't extrapolate your conclusion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Apr 5, 2019)

By the way, in my very early charismatic college days I remember a communion with coke and potato chips at somebody's house. By the reasoning some give about the elements, that was basic staple food in those days. I am glad the Lord is so gracious and patient with all of us as we are gradually sanctified. I wish people could happily partake today, even if they don't think the Lord's supper is perfect.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Grant- OF COURSE I don't think anybody here is pro abortion. Yikes, that is not even up for discussion. I was merely referring to the juice as wine in embryonic beginning stages. Which it is! That's all. Please don't extrapolate your conclusion.


Lynnie,

To be fair, you drew the comparison between the pro-abortion view (on embryos) and wine-only advocates not I.



lynnie said:


> *It seems to me like saying the early clump of cells isn't a baby*, its just an unformed embryo, and we say no, from the moment of conception it is a baby. Well, that juice is unformed wine.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

Fermentation begins when you crush grapes. This was by our Lord's design. Putting man-made "improvements" on an element of worship leads to the slippery road of idolatry. Our Lord picked a source that immediately began to ferment and turn into wine when crushed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> To be fair, you drew the comparison between the pro-abortion view (on embryos) and wine-only advocates not I.



hmmm I didn't read him that way at all. I'm not sure it is fair.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> hmmm I didn't read *him* that way at all. I'm not sure it is fair.


Brandon it was right here that I was referring to:



lynnie said:


> *It seems to me like saying the early clump of cells isn't a baby*, its just an unformed embryo, and we say no, from the moment of conception it is a baby. Well, that juice is unformed wine.



Also, me thinks Lynnie is a "she".


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant - thanks I sometimes look at the avatars and get mixed up who is who. My point is that the comparison didn't require the conclusion which you drew:



Grant Jones said:


> Likening the wine only advocates (this is a confessional Board) to those who have a murderous and unbiblical view on conception and abortion is not biblical and further is an invalid emotional comparison that I hope will be reconsidered.



A careful charitable reading is owed (confessional board like you say), and it seems (to me) misconstruing of words to insist your reading was fair.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> Grant - thanks I sometimes look at the avatars and get mixed up who is who. My point is that the comparison didn't require the conclusion which you drew:
> 
> 
> 
> A careful charitable reading is owed (confessional board like you say), and it seems (to me) misconstruing of words to insist your reading was fair.


I am willing to apologize if my responses have been uncharitable or unfair, however I do not think they have been. Moderators are welcome to weigh in. If unfairness is decided, then I would gladly apologize and delete the accused post.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 5, 2019)

Fair enough Grant. (with much love). For what it's worth I think one shared cup of wine is the ideal, but unity is the ideal as well - so it gets complicated. My 10 year old loves the wine, but my 12 nearly choked the first time she had it. We have an outer ring of juice, and I'm grateful for it (even if I'm encouraging her to learn to love the wine at the same time)


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> Fair enough Grant. (with much love). For what it's worth I think one shared cup of wine is the ideal, but unity is the ideal as well - so it gets complicated. My 10 year old loves the wine, but my 12 nearly choked the first time she had it. We have an outer ring of juice, and I'm grateful for it (even if I'm encouraging her to learn to love the wine at the same time)


Like @Romans922 has said, a LARGE piece of this discussion is we all take the SAME bread and the SAME wine.

The clear reading of our governing documents is not "split tray" or "grape juice" as a final method.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Fermentation begins when you crush grapes. This was by our Lord's design. Putting man-made "improvements" on an element of worship leads to the slippery road of idolatry. Our Lord picked a source that immediately began to ferment and turn into wine when you crushed it.



Huh? If fermentation begins when the grapes are crushed, then the sweet juice is the beginning of fermentation. In fact, if your tiny cup of grape juice has been sitting in a back room for a couple hours since it was prepared before the church service, it undoubtedly has a few yeast cells operating in fermentation already, even if it still tastes like juice. To refuse to take it because it isn't wine, well, Romans 15 and it is your conscience. But it isn't a very scientific position.

Bacterial growth is exponential. A nuclear bomb goes from one atom splitting to a mushroom cloud in only 80 generations of atoms splitting. A tiny cut on your leg can go to sepsis and death in 24 hours (bacteria split in 20 minutes). My optometrist died that way, and that fast. Your own little cup of juice is already starting to ferment if exposed to air even if you don't taste it yet. This should be a non issue if you ask me. The real problem is Christians against any alcohol ever , but that's another subject.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> A careful charitable reading is owed (confessional board like you say), and it seems (to me) misconstruing of words to insist your reading was fair.



Brandon,

I stated the above to make clear that the historic reformed confessions (even the baptist ones) use the word "Wine"; therefore, advocating for using wine as the element in the Lord's Supper is technically the confessional view.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Like @Romans922 has said a LARGE piece of this discussion is we all take the SAME bread and the SAME cup.



Sure, but I don't agree the split cup violates that principle necessarily. Similarly think the bread can be baked as multiple loaves, and that those loaves might have slight variations in their ingredients. Similarly I don't think all of the wine has to be poured from the same bottle, or even be the same type of wine (Although Francis Ford Coppola Diamond Collection Claret would be best).

I do agree that good red wine is the best and simplest way presenting the element, but not if it means certain worshippers abstain or participate as an unhappy minority. Whatever wine it is, it should make the heart glad . There is a way of getting everyone to drink the same type of wine that would make it a constant reminder of disunity rather than unity.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Huh? If fermentation begins when the grapes are crushed, then the sweet juice is the beginning of fermentation. In fact, if your tiny cup of grape juice has been sitting in a back room for a couple hours since it was prepared before the church service, it undoubtedly has a few yeast cells operating in fermentation already, even if it still tastes like juice.



No because it has been pasteurized. In theory it might after a VERY long time, due to reincorporation of bacteria from the environment (maybe). However you would be much more likely to get vinegar instead of wine. The fermentation of un-pasteurized grapes does occur once you start to crush. Yeast on the exterior is mixed with sugars on the interior and the "all you can eat" fermentation buffet begins.

Lynnie,

I have had formal education in the process of pasteurization and auditing such processes, so I ask for a least a little credit with regard to the science. (saying the qualifications as brief as I can). It's my job.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> Sure, but I don't agree the split cup violates that principle necessarily.



That's fine, but split "Tray" does not have support from the bible's account of the LS. Split tray does not have support from the BCO or Westminster Standards. As long as that is admitted I have no quibble.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 5, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Huh? If fermentation begins when the grapes are crushed, then the sweet juice is the beginning of fermentation. In fact, if your tiny cup of grape juice has been sitting in a back room for a couple hours since it was prepared before the church service, it undoubtedly has a few yeast cells operating in fermentation already, even if it still tastes like juice. To refuse to take it because it isn't wine, well, Romans 15 and it is your conscience. But it isn't a very scientific position.
> 
> Bacterial growth is exponential. A nuclear bomb goes from one atom splitting to a mushroom cloud in only 80 generations of atoms splitting. A tiny cut on your leg can go to sepsis and death in 24 hours (bacteria split in 20 minutes). My optometrist died that way, and that fast. Your own little cup of juice is already starting to ferment if exposed to air even if you don't taste it yet. This should be a non issue if you ask me. The real problem is Christians against any alcohol ever , but that's another subject.



Lynnie,

I'd encourage you to do your own research on this, if you'd like. Though from my research, speaking as factually as I can about grape juice without an opinion of it. Grape juice (as we think of it like Welch's) is a result of an invention in 1862 of pasteurization. Thomas Welch applied pasteurization to grapes (and its juice) in 1869. What pasteurization did for grapes (and its juice) was essentially not allow the fermentation process to start. Which is why if you leave today's Welch's grape juice out, it is not going to ferment. 

So I believe it is one thing to talk about a grape being crushed, and a totally different thing to talk about 2019 grape juice. Grape juice as we know it today did not exist prior to 1869. [This is not to speak of whether or not we should use wine/grape juice today, just trying to stick to the facts].


----------



## lynnie (Apr 5, 2019)

mistake.....


----------



## lynnie (Apr 5, 2019)

Romans922 said:


> Lynnie,
> 
> I'd encourage you to do your own research on this, if you'd like. Though from my research, speaking as factually as I can about grape juice without an opinion of it. Grape juice (as we think of it like Welch's) is a result of an invention in 1862 of pasteurization. Thomas Welch applied pasteurization to grapes (and its juice) in 1869. What pasteurization did for grapes (and its juice) was essentially not allow the fermentation process to start. Which is why if you leave today's Welch's grape juice out, it is not going to ferment.
> 
> So I believe it is one thing to talk about a grape being crushed, and a totally different thing to talk about 2019 grape juice. Grape juice as we know it today did not exist prior to 1869. [This is not to speak of whether or not we should use wine/grape juice today, just trying to stick to the facts].



No, there are ambient yeasts everywhere in the air. In a half hour of that tray sitting up front it has yeast and has started to ferment. What you want is the right sort of yeast to make wine, but any yeast will affect it. Talk to any ex jailbird who snuck juice back to his cell to try and ferment it. But I don't feel like arguing this further. I am horrified at the thought of people who refuse to take communion because it is juice. But never mind, God calls us to forbear with the conscience of others.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant- with all due respect I was a botany major and loved mycology (fungi). They are everywhere. What matters is getting the right sort of fungus for bread or wine. But you can't avoid them and they WILL be in any food left sitting out.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

lynnie said:


> I am horrified at the thought of people who refuse to take communion because it is juice. But never mind, God calls us to forbear with the conscience of others.



I hope I have not offended you and I have appreciated your input. My "legal age to buy alcohol" example is the best comparison I have.

P.S. Glad to know a fellow science major. My degree is in chemistry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Split tray does not have support from the BCO or Westminster Standards. As long as that is admitted I have no quibble.



There is no tray to be found whether split or whole in the BCO, Westminster, or the Bible. That is granted. The Confession says wine and the cup, which is why I said above common cup of wine is clearly the confessional choice to promote.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Grant- with all due respect I was a botany major and loved mycology (fungi). They are everywhere. What matters is getting the right sort of fungus for bread or wine. But you can't avoid them and they WILL be in any food left sitting out.


Pasteurized Grape juice, even if left out for 1/2 hour is not fermented grape juice. If it was Welch's would not have made it this long.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> There is no tray to be found whether split or whole in the BCO, Westminster, or the Bible. That is granted. The Confession says wine and the cup, which is why I said above common cup of wine is clearly the confessional choice to promote.


Brandon,

I know you know what I am getting at. You admitted yourself to believing wine is the element. I am not speaking about how to properly distribute the element. I speaking about the element. There is no support or evidence of 2 different elements being presented as the blood in the LS in any of our authoritative documents. I really don't get the over complication. "Bread" and "Wine".


----------



## bookslover (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> The addition of Grape Juice into the shaping of The Lord's Supper in the Church was nothing more than a cultural pressure (invasion) that many gave into.
> 
> Just because it is not a fresh cultural pressure, does not make the above any less true. Modern examples are adding rock bands, changing understandings of sexuality in society. How many are willing to admit that the grape juice invasion was a cultural pressure? The addition of un-fermented grape juice certainly was not a reforming to the scriptures.
> 
> As @Pergamum stated in another thread. Here in America we really have no excuse not to be using wine.



I think the addition of grape juice shows compassion for recovering alcoholics and people with medical conditions who can't have wine. We have a greater scientific understanding of these medical issues now than past generations did. So, split-tray is a good idea.

As for the one-cup idea: we also have a greater understanding of bacteria than the ancients did. Individual cups are a far, far better idea - especially during cold and flu season, but for other medical reasons, as well. No backwash!

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 5, 2019)

"and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants"

I agree with you. I think it's dead simple, but that doesn't mean uncomplicated. I would like to see the common cup of wine (weekly) come back into practice, but I'm afraid if I insisted upon it, I would be communing with myself most weeks.  

What the sign points me to helps me not to be too caught up in what the sign is made out of. Bread (check) Wine (check) Drinking into one Spirit (big check)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 5, 2019)

bookslover said:


> I think the addition of grape juice shows compassion for recovering alcoholics and people with medical conditions who can't have wine. We have a greater scientific understanding of these medical issues now than past generations did. So, split-tray is a good idea.



http://www.semperreformanda.com/2014/08/stumbling-a-brother-in-the-lords-supper/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Well just know that I have never abstained on the sole fact of only grape juice being offered.
> 
> P.S. I hope I have not offended you and I have appreciated your input. My "legal age to buy alcohol" example is the best comparison I have.
> 
> P.P.S. Glad to know a fellow science major. My degree is in chemistry.


I started out a chem major. Second year in organic I almost blew up the lab. They had to evacuate everybody. Turned out I had been given equipment with a hairline fracture and the prof told the class next day it wasnt my fault. They were all mad at me. Ptsd, ended up in botany, but I loved it.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

lynnie said:


> I started out a chem major. Second year in organic I almost blew up the lab. They had to evacuate everybody. Turned out I had been given equipment with a hairline fracture and the prof told the class next day it wasnt my fault. They were all mad at me. Ptsd, ended up in botany, but I loved it.



Let me guess, you were trying to make grape juice weren't you?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> What the sign points me to helps me not to be too caught up in what the sign is made out of.



Not quite for me, at least not with grape juice. And I don't think I am being "too" caught up. I am simply desiring to defend the confession's use of "wine" and some solid reasoning for those who wish to see grape juice excommunicated. The _components & characteristics_ of the elements take part in the reality pointing as well. Meditating on the below _components & characteristics_ of wine helps us to grasp specific _components & characteristics_ of the reality of the work of Christ.

There are things true of wine that point us to aspects of the reality, which grape juice is straight up missing:

*1.* Bitterness *&* Sweetness - The bitterness of what Christ endured (as you mentioned with your own child, there is a sense of pain in the drink). The wrath of God. The sweetness of salvation and reconciliation to God. The sweetness of victory.

*2.* Cleansing & Healing - The cleansing power of his blood (alcohol cleans). Likewise, the power to fight off infection (the corruption of our flesh).

*3.* A New Creation - Us being made a "new" creation after having bones crushed (crushing & fermentation makes regular juice something new) and also being made by that same work (bone breaking Holy Spirit work) to rejoice (wine brings joy to the heart). Psalm 51 (great to sing for communion in my opinion) Specifically Psalm 51:8 : _"Make me hear joy and gladness, That the bones You have broken may rejoice." - NKJV_
You see juice is already inside the corrupt grape (corrupt man), but once it is crushed (our flesh in and out) it is turned into something NEW.

These truths are beautiful and while they can still be preached over the juice they are distastefully missing from that sweet 100% Welch's concentrate. All this of course with the acknowledgment that we need the Holy Spirit in all things.


P.S. Even from a practical standpoint using “One Cup(s)” that all drink out of solves contamination issues as well.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant, those are interesting points to be sure, but they go beyond what is plain, and I wouldn't rest my case for wine/juice upon them. The power is in the substance of the thing signified, not the sign itself. Whether we interpret wine as "fruit of the vine" or "fermented red wine of a certain ABV", the purpose it to communicate the power of Jesus sacrifice. I know that we don't disagree there. I'll spend some more time considering the reasons you mentioned, but I'm not presently convinced that these dictate our use of one or the other.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hammondjones (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> *3.* A New Creation -



I like that. You can put new grape juice in old grape juice skins.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

hammondjones said:


> I like that. You can put new grape juice in old grape juice skins.


Excuse my density. Are you giving a complement to my point, or are you being sarcastic, Or both?


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> Grant, those are interesting points to be sure, but they go beyond what is plain, and I wouldn't rest my case for wine/juice upon them. The power is in the substance of the thing signified, not the sign itself. Whether we interpret wine as "fruit of the vine" or "fermented red wine of a certain ABV", the purpose it to communicate the power of Jesus sacrifice. I know that we don't disagree there. I'll spend some more time considering the reasons you mentioned, but I'm not presently convinced that these dictate our use of one or the other.



If you get time, listen to Adam’s sermon that I linked in Post # 21

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...e-to-wine-in-lords-supper.97779/#post-1195113

If my memory serves me well, I remember Pastor P drawing some similar points as well. And your right in that we agree the reality is superior to the sign.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 5, 2019)

I'm downloading it now. Thanks Grant!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> I'm downloading it now. Thanks Grant!


Thanks for the helpful discussion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hammondjones (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Excuse my density. Are you giving a complement to my point, or are you being sarcastic, Or both?



I'm not being sarcastic, rather sincere. I think it is a good point. And as a further comment, as you mentioned, wine is an apt representation of the new creation in a way that grape juice wouldn't be, as wine requires a new container. Something like, "The old can't contain the new". I'm not saying it makes sense outside my head. We can move along.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

hammondjones said:


> I'm not being sarcastic, rather sincere. I think it is a good point. And as a further comment, as you mentioned, wine is an apt representation of the new creation in a way that grape juice wouldn't be, as wine requires a new container. Something like, "The old can't contain the new". I'm not saying it makes sense outside my head. We can move along.


I see, my apologies. Further I agree with your side point and connection fully. Thanks for adding, as that had not crossed my mind.


----------



## hammondjones (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I see, my apologies.



Not at all, Mr. Jones. ~ Mr. Jones


----------



## timfost (Apr 5, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Not quite for me, at least not with grape juice. And I don't think I am being "too" caught up. I am simply desiring to defend the confession's use of "wine" and some solid reasoning for those who wish to see grape juice excommunicated. The _components & characteristics_ of the elements take part in the reality pointing as well. Meditating on the below _components & characteristics_ of wine helps us to grasp specific _components & characteristics_ of the reality of the work of Christ.
> 
> There are things true of wine that point us to aspects of the reality, which grape juice is straight up missing:
> 
> ...



Grant,

I think you look too much into symbolism here. It starts to get both subjective and speculative.

Bottom line: bread and wine would have been the most common staple foods present at each meal. NT sacraments are superior to old, in part, because of their simplicity. Painful and bloody circumcision was replaced with water baptism. Passover with the lamb (expensive, not a staple food in everyday diet) was replaced with the most common elements of the usual meal. 

Biblical wine would have normally been fermented since that was the only way to preserve it, especially at the time of Passover. Does that mean that the fruit of the vine was forbidden until so much time fermenting? I think this misses the point.

BTW, I'm glad your church switched to wine. I'm not saying these things to detract from that! I just want them to be in perspective.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 5, 2019)

timfost said:


> Grant,
> 
> I think you look too much into symbolism here. It starts to get both subjective and speculative.
> 
> ...


Tim,

Thanks for weighing in. The points I made are not original to me. I have read similar explanations in reformed commentaries and in modern day reformed sermons. I know there is often a temptation to read too much into a plain meaning, but there is more to wine than it just being the most common liquid in my book. Further, I too am still glad of the change, even if to split tray. My pastor faithfully preached that wine is the proper element. The session and congregation are making a step in the right direction on this matter and oh how beautiful it is to witness and be a part of a body willing to be shaped by the word.

P.S. Admittedly #2 would be the biggest stretch. Even if you think all points invalid, both of our confessions say “wine”.

P.P.S. I have also heard some great reformed symbolism expressed towards communion bread (both leavened and unleavened for that matter).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 7, 2019)

lynnie said:


> If fermentation begins when the grapes are crushed, then the sweet juice is the beginning of fermentation. In fact, if your tiny cup of grape juice has been sitting in a back room for a couple hours since it was prepared before the church service, it undoubtedly has a few yeast cells operating in fermentation already, even if it still tastes like juice. To refuse to take it because it isn't wine, well, Romans 15 and it is your conscience. But it isn't a very scientific position.



Is this perhaps the continuum fallacy? From an article (only using to pull out this example), an example how you can throw doubt between "beard" and "beardless" by this reasoning:

One may throw doubt on the reality of a beard by a process beginning by asking whether a man with one hair on his chin has a beard. The answer is clearly 'No.' Then one may ask whether with two hairs on his chin a man has a beard. Again the answer must be 'No.' So again with 'three,' 'four,' etc. At no point can our opponent say 'Yes,' for if he has answered 'No' for, let us say, twenty-nine hairs, and 'Yes' for thirty, it is easy to pour scorn on the suggestion that the difference between twenty-nine and thirty hairs is the difference between not having and having a beard. Yet by this process of adding one hair at a time we can reach a number of hairs which would undoubtedly make up a beard. The trouble lies in the fact that the difference between a beard and no beard is like the difference between white and grey in the fact that one can pass by continuous steps from one to the other.​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 7, 2019)

Intent is everything.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 7, 2019)

I see no problem with the split tray. My sister is highly allergic to alcohol and cannot have even a sip of it. It’s good that her church has the split tray

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 7, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> I see no problem with the split tray. My sister is highly allergic to alcohol and cannot have even a sip of it. It’s good that her church has the split tray


Sarah, I’m glad your sister’s congregation has an accommodation for her. Allergic reactions are serious And I am glad to know that she has a way to still partake of the Lord’s supper. The disappointing part is that grape juice used in the Lord’s supper doesn’t find it current place in the church as a response to allergic reactions ( a valid exception in my opinion) , but rather from the idea that alcohol is the devil’s drink (Putting it briefly).

Side-note: (as she might like the flavor and other benefits of wine) they do make de-alcoholized fermented wine. Seems there is a slight flavor profile difference. However it retains a lot of the same qualities of wine since it is still fermented. Seems to be a market for it.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 7, 2019)

Here is one reformed source (Thomas Boston) outlining symbolism
with alcoholic wine and the blood of Christ. He also does this for the bread.

https://archive.org/stream/wholeworksoflate02bost#page/484/mode/2up


Also John a Lasco has an excellent description of the symbolism of the bread (which he says could also be said of the wine) in the 1555 version “Form and Method” . At the very least it may serve as edifying reading for your Lord’s Day observance.

P.S. I could not find an online version of the 1555 Form and Method or I would have shared the specific text .


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 8, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Here is one reformed source (Thomas Boston) outlining symbolism
> with alcoholic wine and the blood of Christ. He also does this for the bread.



LOL the first line speaking of bread: "lastly it is a sort of food that healthy people will never loath." - Obviously Thomas Boston didn't see 2019 coming. 

I do think the symbolism is rich and interesting, even if a bit stretched in places.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

I thought the below article (From a PCA Pastor) was well laid out. It seems the congregation still uses some juice; however, it is clear from the article that he sees symbolism in wine that the juice is wholly missing.

http://www.gpcweb.org/why-do-we-use-wine-in-communion-


----------



## Logan (Apr 11, 2019)

timfost said:


> Grant,
> Biblical wine would have normally been fermented since that was the only way to preserve it, especially at the time of Passover. Does that mean that the fruit of the vine was forbidden until so much time fermenting? I think this misses the point.



I've felt compelled to say something similar to this in the past. Regardless of which side you come down on it bothers me to anachronistically read the confessions and commentaries in this way. It has been stated repeatedly that the confessions say "wine". Given the time period and the technology available, what else would it say?

Only if a confession/commentary said something like "only fermented wine is to be used" would that be valuable information to add. As it stands, quoting the confessions with respect to fermented vs unfermented is of very limited value and certainly shouldn't be a basis for calling someone unconfessional if they allow unfermented.

I do believe that fermented wine may very well be the proper element, yet I do find it at least gives me pause to consider that Scripture never uses the term for wine (which it uses elsewhere) with respect to the Supper, but rather "fruit of the vine".

I sympathize with the desire to be true to scripture. But if the process of pasteurization between squeezing and drinking disqualifies it from being acceptable, then I wonder why other processes in modern wine-making wouldn't also disqualify it. Perhaps this is overly analytical, but if it's merely the presence of alcohol that qualifies it, then I tend to agree that the point is really being missed.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost (Apr 11, 2019)

Logan said:


> I've felt compelled to say something similar to this in the past. Regardless of which side you come down on it bothers me to anachronistically read the confessions and commentaries in this way. It has been stated repeatedly that the confessions say "wine". Given the time period and the technology available, what else would it say?
> 
> Only if a confession/commentary said something like "only fermented wine is to be used" would that be valuable information to add. As it stands, quoting the confessions with respect to fermented vs unfermented is of very limited value and certainly shouldn't be a basis for calling someone unconfessional if they allow unfermented.
> 
> ...



Right on. Also, it should be noted that "sour wine" (vinegar) is also fermented, though not alcoholic. If we get too caught up in the process and composition, we're missing the point. Our church uses unleavened (gluten free) bread. I'm pretty sure that the first Lord's supper used unleavened bread, but I highly doubt it was gluten free. 

If we get too caught up in these details, I fear that we turn a beautifully simple sacrament into a legalistic ritual.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Is this acceptable?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

Logan said:


> But if the process of pasteurization between squeezing and drinking disqualifies it from being acceptable, then I wonder why other processes in modern wine-making wouldn't also disqualify it. Perhaps this is overly analytical.


Logan, our Lord could have certainly brought about un-fermented grape juice if that’s what he wanted to have in the supper. But that’s not how he designed the fruit of the vine nor is that what is commanded in scripture to use. There are a few people on this thread that are trying to put an = between wine and grape juice. Not only do we not have an account from scripture, but even our culture recognizes a difference between wine and grape juice. It is regulated by different laws and it has different qualities. So from perspectives inside the church and outside the church they are certainly two different things. This still creates the problem of having three elements instead of two. Also, as previously shown in this thread through a couple links, the language of unfermented versus fermented, is not a unique discussion to the time since the invention of Welches grape juice. The confessions did not use this specific language “fruit of the vine“. They used the word wine specifically. Further the PCA BCO, which is a much more modern document, uses the word wine as does the OPC. I feel confident that they use the word wine because they believed that that was the proper biblical element. Wine and grape juice are not the same thing. This acknowledgment does not require one to be reformed or confessional or even a Christian. If anything proves that there’s not an = between Wine and grape juice it would be the split tray method.

There is a reason our Lord commanded wine. He could have commanded water, he could have commanded milk, but he commanded wine. He could have commanded fresh squeezed grape juice, but He didn’t. 1. Do you believe that wine is the actual element used in scripture? 2. Do you believe that wine is the proper element for today?

Surely our Lord was not handcuffed in his command because man’s technology had not evolved enough.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> Is this acceptable?


I’m not exactly sure what that is. If you do not find this product acceptable please explain why?


----------



## Logan (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> There is a reason our Lord commanded wine. He could have commanded water, he could have commanded milk, but he commanded wine.



Are you certain? You might be convinced that is what is meant but be careful not to go beyond what Scripture states.

Edit: and please note that I say this as one who is just trying to be careful. I stated earlier that I believe wine may very well be the proper element, I just want to be cautious about dogmatism over something that really doesn't seem all that cut and dry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I’m not exactly sure what that is. If you do not find this product acceptable please explain why?



It's wine Grant, but I'm just ribbing you. I don't think anyone here would use that even though it does tick all the boxes as far as fermentation goes.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

Logan said:


> Are you certain?


Yes, for a few reasons, but one is based on Paul’s account in Corinthians. I am very certain it was not pasteurized grape juice.


----------



## timfost (Apr 11, 2019)

How about white wine in general?


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> It's wine Grant, but I'm just ribbing you. I don't think anyone here would use that even though it does tick all the boxes as far as fermentation goes.


Why would you not use it?


----------



## timfost (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Why would you not use it?



All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Why would you not use it?


Maybe you couldn't see the picture clearly - It's Blue Hawaiian flavored (and colored)


----------



## Logan (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Yes, for a few reasons, but one is based on Paul’s account in Corinthians. I am very certain it was not pasteurize great juice.



No, but you're conflating a couple of things here, Grant. Practice does not necessarily equate to precept. Just be cautious.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> Maybe you couldn't see the picture clearly - It's Blue Hawaiian flavored (and colored)


 So we can disqualify based off of color, but we can’t disqualify based off of fermentation ( Aside from the fact of what our confession and book of church order say)? Madness!


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

It is strange to feel dog piled on a confessional board for supporting the position that we should just be using wine in the Lord’s supper, unless there’s some form of extreme medical condition.


----------



## timfost (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> It is strange to feel dog piled on a confessional board for supporting the position that we should just be using wine in the Lord’s supper, unless there’s some form of extreme medical condition.



Grant,

You must realize that none of us have an issue with wine. This is not our contention. Our contention is with dogmatic exclusion of anything that doesn't meet your strict criteria. I've been to OPC churches that used grape juice. Are they in violation of their confessional standards, or by practice does the OPC (PCA, etc.) define it inclusively?

I think it's great that your church is moving towards wine. I am not as thrilled about your dogmatic approach to such a strict understanding of the element. 

Does this help?

Blessings, brother.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> It is strange to feel dog piled on a confessional board for supporting the position that we should just be using wine in the Lord’s supper, unless there’s some form of extreme medical condition.



I'm sorry you feel dog-piled. Again, please note that I don't disagree with the use of wine. I freely admit that I'm an engineer and try to be objective even when I have a strong opinion though. And I think some of the claims being made are arguing from non-objectivity, given the evidence we possess.

Regarding your comment about "confessional board" I suggest you re-read what I said regarding the confessions. I think it anachronistic to say fermentation is a "confessional" position. It may be, but I don't think you can prove that without something more explicit. Regardless, I think you're reading me a good bit differently than how I'm trying to communicate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant if one were to prefer Blue Hawaiian fermented wine to pasteurized grape juice, I would say he is indeed missing the entire point of the sign. I am willing to defend that vehemently. The point of the supper is not to exhibit the superiority of fermentation it's to exhibit the superiority of Christ's blood. It must show forth His death above all else.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

Anyway you slice it from scripture, from our confessions, from the mentioned book of church orders, From culture, and even from government wine and grape juice are not the same thing. Therefore the commanded 2 elements become 3 because man has a “better” way. I digress.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> Grant if one were to prefer Blue Hawaiian fermented wine to pasteurized grape juice, I would say he is indeed missing the entire point of the sign. I am willing to defend that vehemently. The point of the supper is not to exhibit the superiority of fermentation it's to exhibit the superiority of Christ's blood. It must show forth His death above all else.


And again you’re not willing to give up the color for the symbolism. We just disagree, and that’s OK by me because now I’m at PB Junior.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> And again you’re not willing to give up the color for the symbolism. We just disagree, and that’s OK by me


I don't understand, are you saying I should give that up? Congrats on making Junior  I've given up on ever getting out of the freshman phase.


----------



## timfost (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> Grant if one were to prefer Blue Hawaiian fermented wine to pasteurized grape juice, I would say he is indeed missing the entire point of the sign. I am willing to defend that vehemently. The point of the supper is not to exhibit the superiority of fermentation it's to exhibit the superiority of Christ's blood. It must show forth His death above all else.



Amen! We use a sweet table wine at our church. I'm not in any way opposed to a dry red wine or something along those lines, but that may be more distracting than something that is helpful. We choose to use the sweet table wine because in our opinion, with the needs of our particular congregation, we feel that this is the most helpful (even though I personally enjoy dry red wines the most). And why are we considering what is most helpful in this regard? Because we are looking out for the souls of those entrusted to our care. We are seeking to build up their hearts, not pose an unnecessary distraction. The member who had previous troubles with alcohol mentioned that he might have to go to another church to receive communion. He was not morally opposed to wine as such, but in his particular situation it was not helpful and he was not able to partake with a clear conscience. When I heard this, I immediately spoke with other members of our consistory and had it arranged for him to receive grape juice the following communion Sunday. In his circumstance, this was incredibly encouraging and allowed him to partake with rejoicing. I fear that trying to convince him or insist that he take take wine would have been a violation of my office as his elder. Why should one parish for whom Christ died?


----------



## Logan (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Anyway you slice it from scripture, from our confessions, from the mentioned book of church orders, From culture, and even from government wine and grape juice are not the same thing. Therefore the commanded 2 elements become 3 because man has a “better” way. I digress.



Grant, I feel like this is a bit surreal but I don't think you are really understanding what is being said. You're responding to things that really _aren't_ being said.

You're reading it as willful disobedience to an explicit command to use "wine" (specifically fermented). Without being facetious, I have to ask if you're really certain the _command_ is to use wine?

Why do all three synoptic gospels only say "fruit of the vine", a phrase (even in Greek) which to my knowledge is used for nothing else but the cup at the Lord's Supper. So the _command_, as I see it, is to use the "fruit of the vine".

Now, the _practice_ in 1 Cor 11 certainly indicates drunkenness was an abuse at some of their gatherings, but all that can be proved from this is that at least at some of their gatherings (maybe all), they used fermented wine. But given _that there was no other technology available, _all you can logically infer from the _practice_ is that wine was _used_. I don't see how you can state dogmatically that it was all that was _allowed_.

I have no doubt that the _practice_ for almost all of church history, was some kind of fermented wine. But that really doesn't inform certainty on the _command. _Just trying to be objective here. Objectivity is not the same as defending a position.

Edit: (and for the record, I'm glad the PCA church you are in is moving in the direction of wine).

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> I don't understand, are you saying I should give that up? Congrats on making Junior  I've given up on ever getting out of the freshman phase.


In order for your line of thinking to be consistent then yes. Essentially what you’re telling me is that it must be a certain color right?. Yet you are not willing to see and require the symbolism that comes from wine. So according to you blue wine is invalid because of the color, but pasteurized grape juice is permissible because of the color.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> It must show forth His death above all else.



The question isn't about wine then, it is about grape juice if I'm understanding the unintentional 'dog pile.'

So I guess the question has to be and boils down to this: "Does grape juice show forth Christ's death in connection with what Scripture says?" If so, what about grape juice shows forth His death?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

Logan said:


> Grant, I feel like this is a bit surreal but I don't think you are really understanding what is being said. You're responding to things that really _aren't_ being said.
> 
> You're reading it as willful disobedience to an explicit command to use "wine" (specifically fermented). Without being facetious, I have to ask if you're really certain the _command_ is to use wine?
> 
> ...


 Logan,

I am not going to spend anymore time defending that wine was used in scripture during the Lords supper to someone who also has stated that they believe that it was wine. I mean this respectfully and am stating such because I do not see this back-and-forth adding clarity.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant, I'm saying that blue fermented drink is not fruit of the vine in any meaningful way, whereas grape juice is fruit of the vine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> Grant, I'm saying that blue fermented drink is not fruit of the vine in any meaningful way, whereas grape juice is fruit of the vine.


I could not read the label from your photo from my iPhone. Was it not made from grapes?


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I could not read the label from your photo from my iPhone. Was it not made from grapes?



I do not know, but it is wine in all of the legal and technical senses you've raised


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

But it tastes like a Sonic drink


----------



## timfost (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Logan,
> 
> This is going to be my last post in response to yours. I am not going to spend anymore time defending that wine was used in scripture during the Lords supper to someone who also has stated that they believe that it was wine. I mean this respectfully and am stating such because I do not see this back-and-forth adding clarity.



Grant,

Please try to hear Logan's argument. His argument is essentially that practice does not necessarily equal precept. Proving that wine was used does little to communicate that it was fermented grape juice containing alcohol that was necessarily commanded, nor is the confessional use of the term necessarily as restrictive as you insist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> I do not know, but it is wine in all of the legal and technical senses you've raised


If you don’t know then how do you know that it is fermented grape juice? Which is my technical definition for fruit of the vine.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> But it tastes like a Sonic drink


So is taste now also a valid qualifier? 

Some might say that grape juice taste like a sonic drink for that matter.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> If you don’t know then how do you know that it is fermented grape juice? Which is my technical definition for fruit of the vine.



Interesting...Curious? What about white wine?


----------



## timfost (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> If you don’t know then how do you know that it is fermented grape juice? Which is my technical definition for fruit of the vine.



This is also a perfectly acceptable definition for red wine vinegar.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

timfost said:


> Grant,
> 
> Please try to hear Logan's argument. His argument is essentially that practice does not necessarily equal precept. Proving that wine was used does little to communicate that it was fermented grape juice containing alcohol that was necessarily commanded, nor is the confessional use of the term necessarily as restrictive as you insist.


Tim, why does your church not use grape juice 100%?


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> Interesting...Curious? What about white wine?


Does scripture give us a color? Our confession? BCO? If it can be shown otherwise that it should be a particular color, then I would likely be OK with the natural white or red.

However the fact that some of the symbolism is the shed blood of Christ does lean me to prefer a one color over the other.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 11, 2019)

How so? The Westminster standards don't use "fruit of the vine" but "wine"?
And the WLC says more, that it is wine "by the appointment of Jesus Christ". Now, what churches have done subsequently is another matter; but what the Westminster divines intended, they could have meant nothing other than what that word meant to them which is if I'm understanding the argument a more restrictive term than fruit of the vine. Next someone is going to say that "day" doesn't mean "day" in WCF 4.1. 
And my apologies if this was already addressed. 


timfost said:


> nor is the confessional use of the term necessarily as restrictive as you insist.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Tim, why does your church not use grape juice 100%?



Because we (the elders) answer to God for the souls of those entrusted to our care. In most of our history, we have used 100% wine. In all of our history we have used the fruit of the vine.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

timfost said:


> Because we (the elders) answer to God for the souls of those entrusted to our care. In most of our history, we have used 100% wine. In all of our history we have used the fruit of the vine.


Maybe, but I’m not sure if you’re using biblical context to define fruit of the vine.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> However the fact that some of the symbolism is the shed blood of Christ does lean me to prefer a one color over the other.



This is perhaps the dividing line between us. I see the shed blood as the ultimate and primary image which the element conveys. All other considerations are subordinate to that. I believe pasteurized juice is problematic, but not as problematic as disunity in the body at the supper over the circumstance of the particular ABV of the fruit of the vine. My reasoning flows from there.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

But one should ask, if Jesus used wine, the apostles used wine (1 Cor. 11) and the early church used wine...and if all of church history until 1869 shows they also used wine (fermented), the Scriptures communicate wine, our confessional documents say wine then what standard then is used to say, "grape juice is okay"?

Some keep using the phrase "fruit of the vine" as the that includes pasteurized grape juice when used in Scripture . So what did fruit of the vine mean in the context of Scripture? What did it mean to Jesus? What did it mean to Paul? It didn't mean grape juice, it couldn't.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant, I think you need to take a break. This thread is exploding. If you're interested in some analysis of the term "fruit of the vine" in Scripture, here are a couple of resources: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/juice-is-not-the-element.94717/page-5#post-1156108

I would add: Christ speaks of _this_ fruit of the vine in the gospels; not merely _a_ or _the_.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> So what did fruit of the vine mean in the context of Scripture? What did it mean to Jesus? What did it mean to Paul? It didn't mean grape juice, it couldn't.



Nor could it have meant tiny little plastic cups, but I'm willing to press for slow steady reform because I think the issue of split-tray is not primary. (not unimportant mind you). 

Intinction I'll fight about; the split-tray not so much.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> Grant, I think you need to take a break. This thread is exploding. If you're interested in some analysis of the term "fruit of the vine" in Scripture, here are a couple of resources: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/juice-is-not-the-element.94717/page-5#post-1156108
> 
> I would add: Christ speaks of _this_ fruit of the vine in the gospels; not merely _a_ or _the_.


I really am fine. If there are posts that seem uncharitable I will happily delete them. I’m not angry and I do feel that this is some good discussion, because sadly this is something that even modern reformed churches can’t come to an agreement on. I am open to being convinced that split tray is the best method, but please at least try to cite sources from scripture, the confession, or the book of church order that I subscribe to as a member and a deacon in the PCA. 

@Logan , @timfost , @littlepeople :
I am not angry at any of you brothers, if this was conveyed in any of my post please let me know. In the very least this has been a fruitful discussion because it has caused me to deal with common modern objections.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I really am fine. If there are posts that seem uncharitable I will happily delete them.


Oh, I didn't mean posts that seemed uncharitable or angry. I did not detect any of that. I just meant: this thread went from 3.5 pages to 5 pages in a quick space. Is that a good use of time? That is your judgment to make for yourself; I was simply observing. It is also difficult to keep up with conversation in a thread that moves so quickly, and generally, better responses can be made when one sits and thinks for a time before posting. Again, you know yourself, so you can judge yourself. I was merely saying what I thought. I am glad you are finding some good use in the thread!


----------



## Logan (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Some keep using the phrase "fruit of the vine" as the that includes pasteurized grape juice when used in Scripture . So what did fruit of the vine mean in the context of Scripture? What did it mean to Jesus? What did it mean to Paul? It didn't mean grape juice, it couldn't.



Now I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but could you at least objectively allow for the possibility that the reason the Spirit used this phrase only three times in Scriptures (and all regarding the institution of the Lord's supper, rather than the practice), instead of the more specific and common "oinos" was to be more general than the exact thing that was used, which none of us know how to replicate anyway? Is it possible that the Spirit worded it that way on purpose? I know I can't bring _myself_ to rule out that possibility.

"Greet one another with a holy kiss" had a very definite meaning to those it was addressed to. No Reformed commentator I know understands it the same way the first readers would have read it, but as a general principle. Could it possibly be that the same applies to "fruit of the vine"? That question leaves me unwilling to be dogmatic that fermented wine is the _only_ allowable element.

And no, I appreciate your respect Grant, but I do feel like you are repeatedly missing the points being made. When I say I see a problem with Position A, I am not necessarily arguing _for_ Position B or _against_ Position A. Just objectively identifying some areas it may be good not to be dogmatic about.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> this thread went from 3.5 pages to 5 pages in a quick space. Is that a good use of time?


When I am riding in a car, yes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> @littlepeople are you guys having an evening service in two Sundays? We may pay a visit.



Yessir! I'll look forward to seeing you. (we don't have evening service on the first Lord's Day of each month. WRT to the post above - I haven't taken you to be angry. I do urge caution with the pinning your interlocutors into positions they never intended. (3 elements, pro-abortion). It doesn't advance the discussion to have to stop to defend your good name against such.


----------



## Logan (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant, there were two minutes between my post and your response. Respectfully, I don't think you really processed it and you most certainly missed the point, particularly the first paragraph and I'm not convinced that you could describe my arguments yet (meaning, you still don't understand them). Which I am sorry for as I intended them to be helpful but instead they seem to be misread or misinterpreted, as I believe were timfost's and littlepeople's too. Regardless, I need to spend my time on more productive things right now.

Edit, and please don't think that is meant in a bitter or upset way. I have no hard feelings at all. Perplexity more than anything.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

Logan said:


> Grant, there were two minutes between my post and your response. Respectfully, I don't think you really processed it and you most certainly missed the point, particularly the first paragraph and I'm not convinced that you could describe my arguments yet (meaning, you still don't understand them). Which I am sorry for as I intended them to be helpful but instead they seem to be misread or misinterpreted. Regardless, I need to spend my time on more productive things right now.


Dear Brother,

I do understand your arguments. I respect you enough to read each and every one of your post, in fact I normally read everyone’s post 2 to 3 (minimum) times before I reply, which is not difficult to do considering the length of your post even if my response time was two minutes. We just disagree on the objectivity to be allowed based on the evidence of scripture. The most clear example that we have of the Lord’s supper with in the context of a local church gathering is from 1 Corinthians 11.

Just because I disagree with your approach, does not mean that I don’t understand what you were trying to say. I am a somewhat educated man (in my mind at least) so unless were having a discussion about biomedical engineering , let’s assume that we can both read and understand each other’s post.

As I stated above, in my opinion all of the scriptural evidence is in favor of fruit of the vine being interpreted as fermented grape juice. The word wine was not arbitrarily chosen for the Westminster standards or the book of church order. The above sources, and my own study thereof, have bound my conscience to the opinion that wine should be the only element used unless there is some extreme medical condition and even then there should be much caution and sessional unity.

If my quick response time is going to be viewed as not giving a charitable reading and as not understanding what one is saying, then I have no issue in remaining silent. Forgive me brother, but No, I am not interested in being objective just for the sake of objectivity in light of the fact that I am already convinced that the bible, the confession, and the BCO all rule in favor of wine. I am willing to be convinced that we should be using both, but So far I remain unconvinced by the sources provided thus far.

P.S. I am convinced by the authoritative documents that I have mentioned and here I stand. Wine and Bread are the 2 elements commanded. Under normal circumstances we should use none else.


----------



## Logan (Apr 11, 2019)

No, it's not at all that I think you're unintelligent. In fact, I commented to Tim that I normally appreciate how fair-minded and open you are to various views and I find this conversation a bit surreal.

_Only if_ you think it is worthwhile, try this experiment. I'll attempt to state your position, and you attempt to state a convincing critique from my position.

Grant:"The Scriptures use the phrase 'fruit of the vine' to describe the cup at its institution but the early believers would only have known this to mean fermented wine, as would have been almost universally the understanding of Christians to the 19th century. The confessions knew of no other drink. Therefore, wine is what was instituted." 

Is that a fair summary of your position?

Logan's or Tim's critique: (you fill in)


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

Logan said:


> No, it's not at all that I think you're unintelligent. In fact, I commented to Tim that I normally appreciate how fair-minded and open you are to various views and I find this conversation a bit surreal.
> 
> _Only if_ you think it is worthwhile, try this experiment. I'll attempt to state your position, and you attempt to state a convincing critique from my position.
> 
> ...


Give me until this afternoon, once I reach my destination I will take the time to reply from my laptop.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

Logan said:


> _Only if_ you think it is worthwhile, try this experiment.



We shall see.



Logan said:


> Grant:"The Scriptures use the phrase 'fruit of the vine' to describe the cup at its institution but the early believers would only have known this to mean fermented wine, as would have been almost universally the understanding of Christians to the 19th century. The confessions knew of no other drink. Therefore, wine is what was instituted."



My own position, based on my convictions of the scriptures and my denominations confession and BCO:

There are 2 elements that were commanded in the Lord's Supper in scripture:

1) Bread

2) The fruit of the vine

_*During the Lord’s Supper, all communicates should partake of the same bread and the same fruit of the vine*_

As I read the passages dealing with the Lord’s Supper, fermented alcoholic grape juice is likely the Bibles own definition of fruit of the vine. The Westminster Standards use the word wine as does the PCA/OPC BCO, this indicates that the Westminster Assembly and the authors of the mentioned BCOs likely feel the best way for us to understand “fruit of the vine” is as “wine”. Bottom line, wine is what is commanded. Do I believe modern grape juice can be rightly considered what the bible (and other mentioned sources) state to be “fruit of the vine”? *No* (I have stated why in this thread already). Do I think those who use grape juice are still partaking in the Lord’s Supper? *Yes*, and I sure hope any hint of error does not invalidate our worship. Those using grape juice need sanctification in this area (assuming wine is available) as we all do on some level. All of our services likely have error, but we cannot and should not allow this to diminish our joy in Christ and the intercession of the Holy Spirit nor should that Joy be used as an excuse to be disobedient.

In rare circumstances (given by user @OPC'n ) I will yield that a session has some authority to try and apply wisdom to the circumstance. This should be so rare that it could even look like @Scott Bushey 's situation except in reverse (maybe minus the holy box).



Logan said:


> Logan's or Tim's critique: (you fill in)



To be clear, I still think you first need to summarize your own position. I think you would agree with my personal opinion summary with at least 1 exception. You do not seem to see any error if there is a full substitution or a splitting addition in adding grape juice. In your opinion it would seem "fruit of the vine" could also potentially permit what is known today as grape juice. Tim mentioned the concept of “practice” and “precept”. I CAN understand that; however, I believe wine was both practice and precept and I suspect you would disagree with me here. Admittedly, Logan, you have stated that you are not necessarily defending a certain position, this makes it difficult to critique your actual position.



timfost said:


> I am not as thrilled about your dogmatic approach to such a strict understanding of the element.



Tim, I do not believe I am being any stricter, in my opinion, than the Westminster Standards or the BCO. I will gladly stand corrected.

At the end of the day this is the question we disagree on:

When one uses “grape juice” in the Lord’s Supper, is that specific detail erroneous in itself? I think my answer is “Yes”, and I think (unless corrected) that Logan, Tim, and Brandon would say “No”. You men believe (I think) that modern grape juice fits the definition of the commanded element of “fruit of the vine” in the Lord’s Supper.

If you have any assumptions about potential conclusions of my reasoning, then I ask you to give me specific clear questions (or scenarios).


----------



## Logan (Apr 11, 2019)

Thanks for being willing to take some time.

No, I wasn't asking for a critique of my position (I actually don't think I've stated one yet). I attempted to state a fair summary of yours that you would agree with (and would be interested to see how you would re-word it) and was asking if you would then critique that summary as if from my perspective.

In other words, we reverse roles to make sure we understand each other.

Sorry I didn't get this posted before you wrote up your last post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 11, 2019)

I hope we can all agree that it is unfair to say that “the people that abstain because there is zero wine are being more strict (and in error)” than the people who abstain from the Lord’s supper because there is zero grape juice.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> When one uses “grape juice” in the Lord’s Supper, is that specific detail erroneous in itself? I think my answer is “Yes”, and I think (unless corrected) that Logan, Tim, and Brandon would say “No”. You men believe (I think) that modern grape juice fits the definition of the commanded element of “fruit of the vine” in the Lord’s Supper.



I hesitate to add too much that might lead to back and forth, but since you asked...

I think juice is problematic as I mentioned before. There's no doubt that grape juice is not the BEST or clearest manner of expressing the command. In my mind it is a parallel of baptism by immersion. Allowable, but not A-OK. 

So: is it an error? Yes. Is the degree of error serious enough to insist 100% conformity from the sheep?: no


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 11, 2019)

There are some resources at the PCA historical center related to the discussion BTW:

http://www.pcahistory.org/bco/dfw/58/wine.html


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 12, 2019)

Here is a good angle for being objective and still trying to think on this:

If we believe the Lord’s Supper is best served by sharing a cup such as 1 cup or a few being passed out to “share”, then doesn’t it show forth the intelligence of God that he would have wine as the element since it has qualities which can kill harmful contagious bacteria? From a Food safety standpoint unfermented grape juice has a much higher likelihood of sickening people and does not contain the quality of killing bacteria in the way alcohol does.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 12, 2019)

Logan said:


> Thanks for being willing to take some time.
> 
> No, I wasn't asking for a critique of my position (I actually don't think I've stated one yet). I attempted to state a fair summary of yours that you would agree with (and would be interested to see how you would re-word it) and was asking if you would then critique that summary as if from my perspective.
> 
> ...


 So the 2nd half of your request:

I think your critique of me is that though I read wine in the Westminster and BCO (and I see it implied in scripture, Jesus said “do this”), I should be more open to saying that grape juice counts as a proper element because scripture (from your point of view) does not dogmatically command wine.

This however is what I cannot do with my current understanding.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 12, 2019)

littlepeople said:


> There are some resources at the PCA historical center related to the discussion BTW:
> 
> http://www.pcahistory.org/bco/dfw/58/wine.html


This was such a conflicting read. It began by specifically stating that, BIBLICALLY, the only proper elements in the Lords supper are bread and specifically “ fermented grape juice“. Then by the end of the article it said but sessions can use unfermented if “THEY” choose. It also pointed to the the supposed “danger” of alcohol. The problem is Paul pointed out the “danger” as well, which was found with the people and not the wine, however he demanded self-discipline from the people. The wine was not the thing needing to change, it is their (and our) hearts and minds.

At least this does support a “why” answer to practice in the PCA. Thanks for sharing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 12, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> This was such a conflicting read. It began by specifically stating that, BIBLICALLY, the only proper elements in the Lords supper are bread and specifically “ fermented grape juice“. Then by the end of the article it said but sessions can use unfermented if “THEY” choose. It also pointed to the the supposed “danger” of alcohol. The problem is Paul pointed out the “danger” as well, which was found with the people and not the wine, however he demanded self-discipline from the people. The wine was not the thing needing to change, it is their (and our) hearts and minds.
> 
> At least this does support a “why” answer to practice in the PCA. Thanks for sharing.



We in the PCA should revisit this issue, in that if I am not mistaken we do not include the section on The Lord's Supper in our book of order. What a great opportunity to correct the error of the past.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 12, 2019)

earl40 said:


> We in the PCA should revisit this issue, in that if I am not mistaken we do not include the section on The Lord's Supper in our book of order. What a great opportunity to correct the error of the past.


Actually, it is one of the few chapters that is constitutional. "BCO 56, 57 and 58 have been given full constitutional authority by the Eleventh General Assembly after being submitted to the Presbyteries and receiving the necessary two-thirds (2/3) approval of the Presbyteries."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 12, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> If we believe the Lord’s Supper is best served by sharing a cup such as 1 cup or a few being passed out to “share”, then doesn’t it show forth the intelligence of God that he would have wine as the element since it has qualities which can kill harmful contagious bacteria?



Yes, Bingo.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 12, 2019)

I don't have the link. But some years ago I stumbled on a Lutheran discussion of this and a dentist said flat out, that the claims germs are not spread in wine are not true. I'll add, if you don't carve up the bread (which we do; Gillespie condemns that practice in his EPC) or have those Chiclets things, the germ spread is huge in comparison to a common cup, in handling and tearing the bread. Wash your hands folks.



Grant Jones said:


> Here is a good angle for being objective and still trying to think on this:
> 
> If we believe the Lord’s Supper is best served by sharing a cup such as 1 cup or a few being passed out to “share”, then doesn’t it show forth the intelligence of God that he would have wine as the element since it has qualities which can kill harmful contagious bacteria? From a Food safety standpoint unfermented grape juice has a much higher likelihood of sickening people and does not contain the quality of killing bacteria in the way alcohol does.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 12, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> that the claims germs are not spread in wine are not true.


Well to be fair I did not say that wine eliminates all germs, or the spreading there of. However I think James was on to something when he mentioned having a little wine to help the stomach.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 12, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Wash your hands folks.



Come on Chris don’t you see the Christian unity in us all passing salmonella on to one another and not only sharing the same bread and wine, but also sharing the same toilet facilities.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 12, 2019)

To me the argument is a non starter; much like if silver is used for the cup it is germy free. I think all that can be said is that wine is safer in some respects than juice because juice is more perishable. Back when our church did all juice (now it is mostly wine with a few specifically served juice) and someone figured they'd save time in the morning by pouring all the thimbles the night before (my old church used 3 ounce shot glasses), the juice had grown mold by the next morning. They served the supper with just the bread. This was before I was there or I'm pretty sure I would still not be "over" that solution.


Grant Jones said:


> Well to be fair I did not say that wine eliminates all germs, or the spreading there of. However I think James was on to something when he mentioned having a little wine to help the stomach.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 12, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Come on Chris don’t you see the Christian unity in us all passing salmonella on to one another and not only sharing the same bread and wine, but also sharing the same toilet facilities.


I'm not convinced of a common cup as commanded circumstance, but I freely admit my germaphobia here. If my church went common cup, I would be like, okay, but I'm first in line.

Reactions: Amen 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 12, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> “When somebody inquired whether, when a sick person wished to have the sacrament but could not tolerate wine on account of nausea, something else should be given in place of the wine, the doctor [Martin Luther] replied, ‘This question has often been put to me and I have always given this answer: One shouldn’t use anything else than wine. If a person can’t tolerate wine, omit it [the sacrament] altogether in order that no innovation may be made or introduced.'” — Martin Luther, “Table Talk” (Luther’s Works 54:438)


Scott,

In reading back over the thread, I wanted to speak to this. I was encouraged by this quote from Luther. Why? Well in my own experience of reading many of the reformers and various liturgies, the thing I find most unique to Luther is how much it seemed his heart was always concerned with the conscience of his fellow brothers/sisters. It is often encouraging and challenging to hear Luther hold conscience to such a high standard within church practice. Further it is encouraging to know that he took the above stand on wine, knowing his HIGH regard for the conscience of fellow saints.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 12, 2019)

@Afterthought’s link above looks profitable. I’ve been thinking about Christ’s use of the phrase fruit of the vine and all the many allusions to the vine and the fruit of it in the OT- always the vine is a grape vine, and many times with the link between the wine and the cheering of the heart. That association is all through Scripture. It can only be fermented to cheer the heart. Several prophetic allusions in the OT re: the vine and Christ; Genesis 49:11-12 is particularly striking. He had alluded to himself as the Vine in John 15:1. He was about to be crushed; the fruit of the Vine poured out. Perhaps the reason he used the unusual phrase found only here wasn’t to provide the alternative of unfermented grape drink to our minds, but to recall to mind all the OT allusions to the vine including the crushing and the cheering. As bread calls to mind the sustaining of life.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Apr 12, 2019)

That's entirely possible Jeri, thanks for sharing. I didn't mean to imply that it was to bring unfermented grape juice to our minds, but rather that it may be a more general term that encompasses more.

Regardless. Some random thoughts:
I say this as someone who would probably prefer wine in communion but without trying to be facetious or overly analytical, I really wonder what it is qualifies wine as acceptable. I've heard in this thread that blue wine that tastes like a Sonic drink may fit the qualifications if it is fermented. But _why_ is fermentation so important? What about non-alcoholic wine (fermented but filtered to remove the alcohol)? 

Can we really say that all the innovations and new processes, new strains of grapes, etc. to make wine in our day are completely acceptable (things never even possible in the apostle's day) but then turn around and say this one process that prevents fermentation disqualifies it as the fruit of the vine? I am really having a hard time understanding.

Might it even be possible that the grape juice of our day is closer to some of the wine of Jerusalem than our wine is? I don't argue _for_ grape juice but I do wonder at how some argue _against_ it.

I can't get past the fact that none of us really knows what the wine was like in Jesus' day. Some say it was made from boiled grape paste, some that it had far less alcohol, some that Jewish was different from Corinthian, and I'm extremely reticent to put restrictions upon the qualifications when we aren't given any in Scripture. Wine is safe, but is only wine a command? I just hesitate to dogmatically affirm given our imperfect knowledge and judgment and don't share the certainty some have that they know the answer.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 12, 2019)

Logan said:


> I've heard in this thread that blue wine that tastes like a Sonic drink may fit the qualifications if it is fermented.


Where? I nor Brandon ever stated that it should be used. The example was used at first as a joke and then to try and understand why one would disqualify it.

Sidebar: Thank you for replying and at least letting us see more of where you are coming from. There’s nothing wrong with your conscience not being able to be as dogmatic that we should just be using wine only. But likewise we must be accepting that other brothers and sisters do you have a dogmatic opinion that we should be using wine only in the Lord supper.


----------



## Logan (Apr 12, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Where? I nor Brandon ever stated that it should be used.



Not "should" be but "could" be. Perhaps I missed some underlying inside joke but reading back through the thread you seemed to not have any problem with color or taste as long as it was "fermented grape juice. Which is my technical definition for fruit of the vine." The distinct impression was that if it fit that qualification, taste and color were unimportant. If you meant something entirely different throughout that interchange of a dozen or so posts, then I apologize.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 12, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> He had alluded to himself as the Vine in John 15:1. He was about to be crushed; the fruit of the Vine poured out. Perhaps the reason he used the unusual phrase found only here wasn’t to provide the alternative of unfermented grape drink to our minds, but to recall to mind all the OT allusions to the vine including the crushing and the cheering. As bread calls to mind the sustaining of life.


Good points. MW once spoke of the Bible having a "bread and wine" theology (thereby showing bread and wine to be the elements). He did not elaborate, but this might be part of what he had in mind. I know that "bread and wine" are also found elsewhere together in the Scriptures, such as Psalm 4.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 12, 2019)

Logan said:


> Not "should" be but "could" be. Perhaps I missed some underlying inside joke but reading back through the thread you seemed to not have any problem with color or taste as long as it was "fermented grape juice. Which is my technical definition for fruit of the vine." The distinct impression was that if it fit that qualification, taste and color were unimportant. If you meant something entirely different throughout that interchange of a dozen or so posts, then I apologize.


You totally missed my point. There was no joke except the initial picture. As I expressed early on I think all of the qualities of wine are important and I think many of the qualities have symbolism, color, taste, the way it is made, the alcohol, and the fermentation. In fact, I was initially critiqued by Tim for seeing too much symbolism.

Brandon pointed out that it would be no good because of color and taste, I then simply (but likely overly) pointed out what I interpreted to be an inconsistency.

I never once stated that some blue Hawaiian mixed fruit wine was acceptable. I will delete my last 2 responses to you if you want to remove the comment from your reply to Jeri.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 12, 2019)

Aside from the NT examples, using bread and wine also connects us all the way back to Abraham and Melchizedek. When I first read that account in Genesis my brain popped and then when I read Hebrews connect the priesthood of Melchizedek to Christ my brain popped twice


----------



## timfost (Apr 13, 2019)

Grant,

While I would continue cautioning against extremes, I think on a practical level we mostly agree. 

We both agree that wine is best.

We both agree that grape juice can be allowed in certain circumstances. (I'm guessing you would rather grape juice than milk, for example, suggesting that you see a similarity between wine and grape juice that makes them somewhat comparable for this purpose.)

We would not refuse the cup of it was grape juice, suggesting by practice that though not ideal, it is legitimate and we believe we are partaking if the cup.

Is this fair? If so, think on a practical level, we are in agreement.


----------



## KMK (Apr 14, 2019)

Let's take a break for the Lord's Day and pick it up on Monday. The Moderators need a break.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 15, 2019)

timfost said:


> Grant,
> 
> While I would continue cautioning against extremes, I think on a practical level we mostly agree.
> 
> ...


Tim,

I appreciate the questions. Admittedly, I am still working out some of my own conclusions. I will try to show my current full hand below:

Most of this “wine vs. grape juice” discussion on the Lord’s Supper has never really been on my mind as formerly having most of my church & church leadership experience in the SBC. In the SBC I mostly tried to defend against those who believed drinking any alcohol to be sinful. So most of my own historical experience with the pro-grape juice crowds have been groups who are teetotalers, at least publicly, that demonize alcohol. As expected, most of my Lord’s Supper experience has been with juice and crackers.

When I moved to the PCA (approx. 2.5 years ago), the discussion came up for me again as my Pastor shared with me his 5-10yr vision for our congregation (Lord Willing). One change was to have wine in the Lord’s Supper. After a year in membership I began to be prepped for officer training (specifically for the office of deacon). During this time, I became more convicted that we should only be using bread and wine. I hope that gives some more background.

I do not simply have the opinion that “wine in best”. To be more precise, I would say “wine is what is commanded and is what should be used”. Unless there is some economic shortage of grapes or wine, I do not see really any solid argumentation to use an alternative. Hopefully that clarifies my stance if I was unclear before. Unfermented grape juice does not check the box (for me) of scriptures definition of “fruit of the vine”. Further it does not check the box of the Westminster Standards and BCO that I subscribe to.

I am not sure that I would say that grape juice “can” be allowed. In most all cases I would say wine and bread are what is to be allowed. However, I can also acknowledge that some may have a serious allergic reaction. I do not believe I could insist on wine at the expense of a brother/sister *asphyxiating *during a Lord’s Supper administration. Further, in reading scripture and the reformers, while it is highly sinful to take the supper in wrong manner, it can equally be sinful to neglect the supper for the wrong reasons (assuming you have the proper elements). Because of this I would likely be willing to find an alternate for someone that has a serious allergic reaction. This type of allergic reaction is not very common, but it can be extremely serious. However, I do not buy the “alcoholism” argumentation. That sin has likely existed as long as wine was known to man. Mankind has a knack for turning things intended for reflecting the beauty of our Lord into sinful disgusting idols (I fall into that group myself btw). Please know that I do not say that as someone cold or inexperienced with the affects of dealing with alcoholism in a personal way.

So technically, you might can say in one circumstance I would be “for” and alternative. However, that would still not constitute split tray, rather wine only with an accommodation based on a serious health condition. @Ryan&Amber2013 & @alexandermsmith , in another recent thread on the Lord’s Supper, have expressed that based on their own conscience and trying to be wise, they abstain from alcohol all of the time *EXCEPT* at the Lord’s Table. I’ll add that I believe that to be very commendable on many levels. I condemn attitudes that call a brother’s (like @earl40 & @Scott Bushey ) abstaining from lack of wine to be something “horrific”. If they can be labeled horrific, what would one label those who skip the supper (with no medical condition) because they want grape juice (rhetorical)?

I think as I have changed in my understanding of the supper and what is commanded, I would/will likely abstain from the Lord’s Supper if there is no wine; especially, if we were not in some type of economic shortage. In other words, if a congregation was serving grape juice only and I knew there was not some type of massive stretch of wine shortage, I would likely abstain. If un-fermented grape juice was the only available fruit of the vine in the land, I would take the juice. Though I have a preference, I would not abstain over 1 table, 1 cup, sitting, standing, but when we start to mess with the 2 elements (bread and wine), that is when abstaining comes to mind (aside from sin and disputes).

I see no reason to catch “eye ball popping legalist looks” for my stance, especially while the brothers/sisters who choose to abstain because there is no “grape juice” are seen as perfectly acceptable. Tim, I know you do not think me to be a sinful legalist, but if we are honest the “wine-only grumps” in a grape-juice Lord’s Supper congregation often get unjustly labeled as the black pharisaic sheep.

I think that answers all your questions. It is hard to tell where we would land on practical matters without a specific example. In the example you provided from your own congregation I would not have raised division or disruptive arguments if I was just a member. However, if I were an elder, I would not have voted to allow for grape juice in that specific scenario considering you used wine-only prior, and further being the reason was unrelated to a serious medical allergy. I do not mean that as a critique or to be argumentative, rather I am simply giving you my honest and humble 2 cents. I would have even submitted as an elder if out-voted, but at least would have peacefully stated my objection.


@Andrew P.C. said it best here and his wording is often the cry of my inward self during these discussions:

“What Christ has instituted shall not be taken away by one’s own conscience.”

https://puritanboard.com/threads/th...e-who-abstained-from-wine.97847/#post-1196046


Paul says the following the context of 1 Corinthians 11 (I hope none dispute that wine was used in this congregation):
In v.23 Paul says: “F_or I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…”(NKJV)._ I want to follow Paul’s example of trying to follow and deliver (teach) what was received on the night before the betrayal of Christ. I believe wine was no arbitrary selection and that it contains intended symbolism as does the bread (we likely agree to symbolism, just to a different extent).

*Finally*, I love you brother and I hope you can see I tried to take some time to sit down and ponder your questions in my above response. I mean every word cautiously and with much respect and thankfulness for you striving to serve the bride as a faithful elder. If one could fit my preferences into 1 category, I prefer how the Free Church of Scotland (continuing) and the RPCGA conduct the Lord’s Supper. Now I believe I have shown my full hand.


*P.S.* *@Moderators, I am truly sorry if my thread has caused a lot of annoying “watching”. I would love to at least get a PM from a moderator on any advice and wisdom for my future post. If the “watching” of a more debate-style thread is normal, then let me know that I need not worry. I totally understand and agree with locking debate threads on the Lord’s Day. IF something about the thread (my post) was erroneous or unwise then I would love to be challenged to grow as a poster by the wisdom that has been granted to the moderators/admins. Hopefully, I have left no room for words to be put in my mouth. I will sign off this thread so long as that does not occur. *

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost (Apr 15, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Tim,
> 
> I appreciate the questions. Admittedly, I am still working out some of my own conclusions. I will try to show my current full hand below:
> 
> ...



Thank you very much for taking the time to explain.

Blessings, brother

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Apr 15, 2019)

Grant, just as a follow-up, I didn't feel like you adequately captured my position but that's okay. I've had my say and am not going to worry about it.

Not looking for a response to this but here are a couple of things I found interesting from sites dealing with wine history (not Christian and not interested in what was used in the Supper). One says it was often



> Bitter, salty and inhumanely vinegary...a thick, dark, syrupy gloop...it seems that the ancients dealt with the issue by mixing wine and water to prevent intoxication. Homer’s Odyssey mentions a ratio of 20 parts water to one part wine, Pliny states a ratio of eight parts water to one part wine was the norm, and Athenaeus writes in a play that three parts water to one part wine was customary.



Another states


> Ancient wine would scarcely be recognizable to us as wine. Yes, it was made from the fermented juice of grapes, but what Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and others drank, was not wine as we know it. For a start, it wasn’t clear and bright, like most modern wine, but heavy in sediment and suspended matter: grape skins, twigs, seeds, insects and other vegetal and animal material caught in the bunches of grapes when they were crushed or attracted to the must. Then, wine was seldom drunk straight. The Greeks regarded anyone who drank wine straight as Barbarians and, at the very least, they themselves diluted wine with water. At symposia, the drinking gatherings of upper-class Greek men, the wine was diluted until it was between 25 and 40 per cent of the beverage...
> 
> Throughout the ancient world where there is evidence of wine – in China, the Middle East or the Mediterranean region – wine was drunk as a cocktail. It was mixed variously with beer, fruit and berry wines, herbs, spices, sea-water, and other substances. At a royal banquet in Turkey, about 700 BC, the guests drank a beverage composed of grape wine, barley beer and honey mead, all mixed together.



The point being that _if_ this is an accurate description of what the term "wine" could mean, then it seems the term can encompass a good bit and if it really was mixed with a variety of other things like beer and sea water, may not be so narrowly defined as modern "wine" is...which then feeds back into my personal musings on what actually qualifies "wine."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2019)

Interesting Hodge quote (Systematics Vol 3) I found on my webpage that dates the temperance movement back to the second century:



> Some of the Reformed theologians raise the question whether in places where bread and wine cannot be obtained, it is lawful to use in their stead other articles of nourishment, the most allied to them in nature? This question they answer affirmatively; while they insist that the command of Christ and the practice of the Apostles should be strictly adhered to where such adherence is possible.
> 
> By wine as prescribed to be used in this ordinance, is to be understood “the juice of the grape;” and “the juice of the grape” in that state which was, and is, in common use, and in the state in which it was known as wine. The wine of the Bible was a manufactured article. It was not the juice of the grape as it exists in the fruit, but that juice submitted to such a process of fermentation as secured its preservation and gave it the qualities ascribed to it in Scripture. That οἶνος in the Bible, when unqualified by such terms as _new_, or _sweet_, means the fermented juice of the grape, is hardly an open question. It has never been questioned in the Church, if we except a few Christians of the present day. And it may safely be said that there is not a scholar on the continent of Europe, who has the least doubt on the subject. Those in the early Church, whose zeal for temperance led them to exclude wine from the Lord’s table, were consistent enough to substitute water. They were called Tatiani, from the name of their leader, or Encratitæ, Hydroparastatæ, or Aquarii, from their principles. They not only abstained from the use of wine and denounced as “improbos atque impios” those who drank it, but they also repudiated animal food and marriage, regarding the devil as their author.629 They soon disappeared from history. The plain meaning of the Bible on this subject has controlled the mind of the Church, and it is to be hoped will continue to control it till the end of time.630
> 
> In most churches, the wine used in the Lord’s Supper is mixed with water. The reasons assigned for this custom, are, (1.) That 617the eucharist having been instituted at the table of the Paschal supper, and the wine used in the Passover being mixed with water, it is morally certain that the wine used by Christ when instituting this sacrament, was also thus mixed. Hence it was inferred that his disciples in all ages should follow his example. That the Paschal cup contained wine mixed with water rests on the authority of Jewish writers. “It was the general practice of the Jews to dilute their wine with water. ‘Their wine was very strong,’ says an ancient Jewish writer,631 ‘and not fit for drinking unless water was mixed with it.’



More here on Tatian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Apr 21, 2019)

Could you guys imagine a handful of faithful priests sitting around outside the temple having a discussion even remotely close to this one? No? Why not? Because absolute adherence to the pattern set down by God's word was engrained into them, lest they be struck dead.

With the entrance of the New Covenant came wonderful simplicity. Out with the animal sacrifices, the oil, the salt, the incense, etc. However, three corporeal substances remain in use, by God's command, in the New Covenant: water, bread, and wine.

If fear of God kept the priests of old from deviating from the pattern given by God, how much _more_ should Christ's pattern be upheld in the New Covenant? Is it not an abuse of grace for a minister to suppose there is less precision required of him, than was required of the priests of old? Yet, this is the common perception, I think.

Always act upon first principles and leave the consequences to God. This is not to say second principles are of no importance, only that they should never be allowed to take the helm of the ship.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 24, 2019)

XVIII. _What rites are to be used in the celebration of the Lord's supper_.

Concerning rites and ceremonies in the celebration of the Lord's supper, we say only this, that those are principally to be allowed of, which come nearest to the apostolical simplicity.

Girolamo Zanchi, _De religione christiana fides – Confession of Christian Religion_, ed. Luca Baschera and Christian Moser (1585; 2 vols, Leiden: Brill, 2007), XVI.XVIII, 1: 319.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (May 16, 2019)

I decided to take a trip to the Principal’s office

In the 1800s when some were pressing for Reformed churches to begin the new practice of using unfermented grape juice after Welch had invented it, theologian A.A. Hodge was adamant:

“The contents of the cup were wine. This is known to have been ‘the juice of the grape,’ not in its original state as freshly expressed, but as prepared in the form of wine for permanent use among the Jews. ‘Wine,’ according to the absolutely unanimous, unexceptional testimony of every scholar and missionary, is in its essence ‘fermented grape juice.’ Nothing else is wine. The use of ‘wine’ is precisely what is commanded by Christ in his example and his authoritative institution of this holy ordinance. Whoever puts away true and real wine, or fermented grape juice, on moral grounds, from the Lord’s Supper sets himself up as more moral than the Son of God who reigns over his conscience, and than the Saviour of souls who redeemed him. There has been absolutely universal consent on this subject in the Christian Church until modern times, when the practice has been opposed, not upon change of evidence, but solely on prudential considerations.“

Reactions: Like 4


----------

