# Missions and Sacraments: What if there is No WINE in the Culture?



## N. Eshelman (Aug 7, 2013)

A question for you all: 

Let's presume that wine is required in the Lord's Supper for proper administration. 

In a missionary context, what does one do if the culture to which we are ministering does not have wine or even grapes?


----------



## JML (Aug 7, 2013)

The two choices would be:

1. Do not practice the Lord's Supper
2. Find the next best juice substitute for grape juice which resembles it in color and thus is identifiable with blood.

I would personally vote for option #2 as I do not think that #1 would be proper.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 7, 2013)

I would answer this in a couple of ways. First, it is clear that Jesus used wine when he instituted the Lord's Supper, and so it is altogether fitting and proper to do the same. However, if we are to take the wine as merely being a symbol, then what is important is what is symbolized, and not so much the symbol itself. Jesus likely used wine because it was readily available and was red, like blood. On the other hand, it is possible that there is some significance in the wine itself, i.e. its purifying properties, in which case wine would be necessary. Overall, I would have to say that the Lord knows our hearts and also our circumstances, and so if wine is truly not available, then he would certainly not forbid a substitute.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 7, 2013)

Is there truly a culture where wine is unknown? I am fascinated by how scripture has used things known in all times and cultures, like bread.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 7, 2013)

There are cultures that do not know wine or grapes. 

Or bread.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 8, 2013)

Can we receive wisdom from an ancient Christian text such as the Didache? The author(s) declared that baptisms should be performed by immersion in cold, flowing water. If flowing water was unavailable, standing would do. If no cold, then warm. If no immersion, then pouring. If extreme sickness, then sprinkling. Whether we agree with the order or not, two principles come through:

1. Christians, from the earliest times, have sought to perform the sacraments in the most symbolically rich manner.

2. Christians have given their blessing to celebrations that, for a variety of reasons, fall short of that ideal.

Can we not do the same?


----------



## MarieP (Aug 8, 2013)

CharlieJ said:


> 1. Christians, from the earliest times, have sought to perform the sacraments in the most symbolically rich manner.
> 2. Christians have given their blessing to celebrations that, for a variety of reasons, fall short of that ideal.
> Can we not do the same?



I'm soooo tempted to say something here, but it would just derail the thread 




Pergamum said:


> There are cultures that do not know wine or grapes.
> 
> Or bread.



Only you would run across this...

What did you use as the alternative?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 8, 2013)

CharlieJ said:


> Can we receive wisdom from an ancient Christian text such as the Didache? The author(s) declared that baptisms should be performed by immersion in cold, flowing water. If flowing water was unavailable, standing would do. If no cold, then warm. If no immersion, then pouring. If extreme sickness, then sprinkling. Whether we agree with the order or not, two principles come through:
> 
> 1. Christians, from the earliest times, have sought to perform the sacraments in the most symbolically rich manner.
> 
> ...



I will ignore the potential can of worms that you have opened up about mode of baptism, and just say that I agree with you in principle, but what truly constitutes unavailability?


----------



## SRoper (Aug 8, 2013)

CharlieJ said:


> Can we receive wisdom from an ancient Christian text such as the Didache? The author(s) declared that baptisms should be performed by immersion in cold, flowing water. If flowing water was unavailable, standing would do. If no cold, then warm. If no immersion, then pouring. If extreme sickness, then sprinkling. Whether we agree with the order or not, two principles come through:
> 
> 1. Christians, from the earliest times, have sought to perform the sacraments in the most symbolically rich manner.
> 
> ...



It seems to me that the comparison to the Didache is not legitimate. We are given no instruction in Scripture on the quantity or temperature of the water or the mode of washing in baptism. This is all man's tradition. We are given instruction about the elements in the Lord's Supper--bread and the fruit of the vine. Unless one wants to make the case that we must celebrate the Lord's Supper at some certain interval (in which case we would have two obligations in tension), I don't see how we can ignore our Lord's instruction and innovate with the elements we use (I say this as an advocate of weekly communion). If we don't have the prescribed elements available, we are providentially hindered from the celebration of the sacrament.

Those who advocate for changing the elements when required rightly understand the gravity of being hindered from the Lord's Supper. However, the better response is to ensure that our brothers and sisters are supplied with the bread and wine they need. (Even many of our churches in America are apparently unable to procure the later).


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Aug 8, 2013)

I agree with bringing up the Didache as an example of order by the earliest teaching of the church on one of the sacraments. 
When the scripture is not explicit on the manner of doing something we have to use the judgment the Spirit gives us in carrying out whatever it may be we are doing, with the best discernment and exegesis of the scripture we have. 
In this case, where there is no wine or grape juice then you find the closest liquid you can to partake of in remembrance of our Lords shed blood. 
Now if you have access to wine/grape juice and bread but decide to partake of potato chips and soda to try to be cool (like some youth groups I have heard of) then I would say it was blasphemous. 

On a side note: the Didache says nothing about being sick, just like it doesn't even mention the word "infant", but it does say that the one to be baptized should fast a day or two before. (Cheap shot...I know but I had to)


----------



## MW (Aug 8, 2013)

Acts 8:36, "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"

The sacramental element must be available in order for the sacramental action to be performed. Non-negotiable! These elements were clearly instituted because they are such commonplace things.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Aug 8, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Acts 8:36, "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"
> 
> The sacramental element must be available in order for the sacramental action to be performed. Non-negotiable! These elements were clearly instituted because they are such commonplace things.



So does it have to be fresh water or can one be baptized in salt water? The scripture is not clear.


----------



## MW (Aug 8, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> So does it have to be fresh water or can one be baptized in salt water? The scripture is not clear.



The Scripture is clear -- water!


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Aug 8, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> 5-Point Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > So does it have to be fresh water or can one be baptized in salt water? The scripture is not clear.
> ...



Amen! Just trying to make a point that the water in itself does NOT have any redeeming/saving quality to it but is used symbolically. Just as the fruit of the vine/cup is taken in remembrance of the new covenant in Christ blood. 
Therefore it is better to do in remembrance than not. 
Again the OP was stating that there is NO WINE OR GRAPE-JUICE in that area. Not that he wants to substitute it just because.


----------



## MW (Aug 8, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> Therefore it is better to do in remembrance than not.



It is better to do WHAT in remembrance? THIS. And THIS is? "Giving and receiving BREAD and WINE." Where there is no giving and receiving BREAD and WINE, there is nothing to DO in remembrance. Where the sacramental elements are not available there can be no sacramental action. People have houses to eat and drink in; if they desire to have a meal in company with others they can eat and drink what they please there. But Jesus Christ is the great high priest over the house of God, and the Lord's supper is administered and received seeking His benediction; therefore nothing besides His will is acceptable. We must not make ourselves servants to another.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Aug 9, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> 5-Point Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore it is better to do in remembrance than not.
> ...



"THIS" is partaking of the cup in remembering the new covenant in the blood of our Saviour that was shed for the remission of sins. I would not substitute wine or grape juice for any other liquid unless it was impossible to get. But if I was a missionary to an indigenous tribe in the New Hebrides and there is only pomegranate juice and no possibility of getting wine, I would not lose the opportunity to institute and teach baptized believers the rich graces of partaking in the Lord's Supper just because I did not have wine. The importance is the blood that is being symbolized not the symbol itself. 
Do you also believe that it must be fermented wine in order for the sacrament to be instituted correctly? If you do then I would like to leave our dispute where it is now. I do not see us agreeing therefore it would not be expedient for us to continue.


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> I would not lose the opportunity



The opportunity to do what? The commission is to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ commands. Teaching people that they can alter the most sacred institutions of Christ for their own benefit is not an open door which the Lord provides.

Wine is wine, not grape juice.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Aug 9, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Wine is wine, not grape juice.



In 32 years of attending various churches I have yet to partake of wine in the Lord's Supper. 
And Baptism is upon repentance and profession of faith as it is clearly stated in scripture. Regardless it is not something to break fellowship over. Good day to you sir.


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> In 32 years of attending various churches I have yet to partake of wine in the Lord's Supper.



Scripture, not custom, is the rule.



5-Point Baptist said:


> And Baptism is upon repentance and profession of faith as it is clearly stated in scripture.



You must just be throwing that out there because I don't see any reference to the qualifications for baptism in this thread.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Aug 9, 2013)

CharlieJ said:


> Can we receive wisdom from an ancient Christian text such as the Didache? The author(s) declared that baptisms should be performed by immersion in cold, flowing water. If flowing water was unavailable, standing would do. If no cold, then warm. If no immersion, then pouring. If extreme sickness, then sprinkling. Whether we agree with the order or not, two principles come through:
> 
> 1. Christians, from the earliest times, have sought to perform the sacraments in the most symbolically rich manner.
> 
> ...



Here is the reference to baptism. 

My point is, that just as you believe using wine is essential according to scripture, I believe that repentance and profession of faith is essential before baptism according to scripture. 
So I will go on using grape juice in the Lord's Supper and you keep baptizing infants that have not repented and believed.
On essentials unity on nonessentials charity.


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> My point is, that just as you believe using wine is essential according to scripture, I believe that repentance and profession of faith is essential before baptism according to scripture.
> So I will go on using grape juice in the Lord's Supper and you keep baptizing infants that have not repented and believed.



I believe Scripture requires the baptism of infants and the use of wine and insist on both. You believe Scripture does not require the baptism of infants nor the use of wine, but require Scripture to be followed in one instance and not another. The comparison is not equal.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Aug 9, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> 5-Point Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > My point is, that just as you believe using wine is essential according to scripture, I believe that repentance and profession of faith is essential before baptism according to scripture.
> ...



I believe what the cup signifies and represents (shed blood of Christ) is what is of main importance not wether fermented wine or unfermented wine (grape juice) is used. 
I can remember the Lord's shedding of blood in the new covenant without the cup containing wine. 

I believe that nowhere in scripture do you plainly see or hear of an infant being baptized (it must be inferred). The command is to repent and be baptized. It is impossible for an infant to repent and believe. 

We can go round and round but we will end up saying the same thing in a different manner.


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> I believe that nowhere in scripture do you plainly see or hear of an infant being baptized (it must be inferred). The command is to repent and be baptized. It is impossible for an infant to repent and believe.



(I don't know how you know it is impossible for an infant to repent and believe unless you think those actions are bound to some kind of mental development).

To keep on track -- in this case I believe Scripture requires infant baptism, you believe it doesn't require it, and we both follow our Scriptural convictions. In the case of the element in the Lord's supper, we both believe wine is the instituted element, but only one of us thinks it necessary to follow Scriptural convictions. The point was, there is no real comparison between the two issues.

I don't doubt that you can "remember the Lord's shedding of blood in the new covenant without the cup containing wine." The fact is, you can remember this without participating in the Lord's supper at all. The Lord's supper itself is the remembrance of Christ for the corporate body. What is instituted constitutes that remembrance. What you can do individually and subjectively has no bearing on the corporate and objective nature of the sacrament.


----------



## Andres (Aug 9, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> I believe what the cup signifies and represents (shed blood of Christ) is what is of main importance not wether fermented wine or unfermented wine (grape juice) is used.



My apologies in advance for going off-topic, but I would add that wine is representative of the bitter and sweet cup that Christ tasted in the crucifixion as well (wine has a distinct taste to it that grape juice lacks).


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 9, 2013)

MarieP said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Christians, from the earliest times, have sought to perform the sacraments in the most symbolically rich manner.
> ...



Some Melanesian tribal cultures know neither wine nor bread. My tribe is one of them. 

The closest equivalents would be sago (from the pounded pulp of a type of palm tree) and fruit juice.

Opinions vary as to what should be done when taking the Lord's Supper with these remote tribal groups. Import wine and make bread? Or be okay with the nearest local equivalents?

Our policy has been to use fruit juice and sago bread if we cannot make bread. We have about 4 or 5 locals who believe, exhibit changed lives and sufficient doctrinal knowledge, and who have been baptized and whom we have judged to be able to partake of the Lord's Supper. We have concluded that denying the supper due to lack of elements was a worse evil than to use the nearest local equivalents. I have been criticized (by several TRs) for not making great efforts to import wine and flattened bread. However, I rarely see TRs on the mission field, so I don't bother with the criticisms much.

Some fruit of some vine is used. Some type of bread-like substance is used. 

Bread can be made from wheat, oats, barley, etc. Should we call wafers or pancake-shaped cooked sago "bread," too? Or must bread come from a grain? 

Also, if leavened bread is baked, is that good enough since the Jews seemed to use unleavened bread. And is red wine okay or was raisin wine used during the last supper?

I recall one of the early church councils forbidding the use of water for the Lord's Supper, but I forget which one. It seems that this council said wine was the only thing to be used for the liquid element. But, this council sprang out of a European culture that knew of wine-making.

I favor trying to get the elements as close to the original. At the original institution, the apostles sang a hymn, and went out and it was night, and so I suppose a night-time partaking is more biblical, too. From one cup it seems. And not saltine crackers. But, I am not sure the validity of the ordinance rests in mirroring the original institution in all the particular details. 

Though, we wouldn't balk if someone was baptized in muddy water or salt-water, but we might if they were baptized in soda or milk. So, it does seem the elements matter.

Finally, the 1689 Baptist Confession states (in chapter 30): 



> Paragraph 5. The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, in other words, the body and blood of Christ,7 albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.8
> 7 1 Cor. 11:27
> 8 1 Cor. 11:26-28


----------



## Cymro (Aug 9, 2013)

Whilst bread and wine are the ideal symbols to be used, if in the providence of God they are
unavailable then the nearest equivalent ought to be used, otherwise there is a suspension of
a strengthening ordinance to those who are qualified. In Wales during the 19th century the 
temperance movement started in the churches because of the hold that drink had upon mainly
the working class. There were many glorious deliverances from its evil as they experienced so
great salvation. Because any taste of liquor, or even the smell could cause these new converts
to stumble, red grape juice was introduced. It still pertains in some churches today.
I know a Free Church officer who was amazingly converted from extreme alcoholism, who 
told me that it was a daily battle, and that he only put the cup of wine to his lips fearing
swallowing it. He believed God looked on the intention and his willing heart. 
Then there is a Free Church I preach at, where an American sister bakes unleavened bread
for the Lord's supper, whilst others in the denomination use ordinary leavened bread. Could 
we not liken this debate to the case of eating or not eating meats offered to idols?
"But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat. are we the better, if we eat not,
are we the worse.
As to the question of the baptism of infants not plainly recorded in the NT, what need when the
practice and proof is so replete in the OT. But that is another issue.
"In mercy with Thy servant deal,
Thy laws me teach and show.
I am Thy servant, wisdom give,
that I Thy laws may know.


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2013)

Cymro said:


> Could we not liken this debate to the case of eating or not eating meats offered to idols?



No, not in any sense. An idol is nothing; Jesus Christ is Lord of all. What kind of meat one eats is indifferent and to be governed purely by the rule of expediency. Do THIS is a commandment and a matter of necessity. We are bound to partake of these elements because Christ commands them. No office-bearer has the right to steal away the believer's sure confidence that he is observing the Lord's own ordinance and seeking the Lord in the way of His appointment.

Those who love Christ will keep His commandments. Those who are truly sent by Christ to teach others will feel themselves bound to teach them to observe all things whatsoever He commands.

This is a positive institution. It is purely a matter of special revelation. It rests on no reason other than the will of the King and Lawgiver of the church. To set aside His will as the rule of our action is to put the will of another in His place.

The "remembrance" is first and foremost an objective and corporate action before there can be any subjective and individual benefit drawn from it. There is no strength to be consciously sought from a corrupted ordinance. It is one thing for God to overrule the fault in us and to bless the ordinance notwithstanding our negligence or disobedience. It is a tempting of God to seek His blessing when we deliberately depart from His way.

Disobedience must be resisted in its first rising. The mystery of iniquity advanced from the smallest beginnings by putting the will of another in the place of Christ.


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2013)

Thomas Manton, Works, 6:302:

"Of what moment soever the controversies were, if the things that are taken to be errors be imposed as a condition of communion, a Christian cannot join himself with them. Certainly it is no sin to abstain from the communion of any church on earth, where the conditions of its communion are apparently unlawful and against conscience, though it may be the matters in debate be not of great moment."


----------



## Herald (Aug 10, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > Can we receive wisdom from an ancient Christian text such as the Didache? The author(s) declared that baptisms should be performed by immersion in cold, flowing water. If flowing water was unavailable, standing would do. If no cold, then warm. If no immersion, then pouring. If extreme sickness, then sprinkling. Whether we agree with the order or not, two principles come through:
> ...



We err when we think it is okay to agree to disagree when truth is at stake. If a debate reaches an impasse it may be expedient to disengage in peace, but never at the cost of sacrificing the truth. 

Sent fron my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


----------



## psycheives (Aug 10, 2013)

Thank you Rev Matthew Winzer for your carefully considered analysis. I came to reading this thread believing just as my dear brother Jason did that "doing the supper at least as a memorial" was preferable to "skipping the supper altogether" but have come to see the truth and come to believe differently now. I have read your views and come to fully agree that we must first obey God and since God did not say "If there are no elements, you can change it", we must not by the authority of man assume we have the authority to change what God has commanded. This discussion has been very edifying for me and I have written these notes down and will never forget them or partake again of an improper supper that is done for the benefit of man and not in obedience to God. Thanks be to God for using you to show me the truth! 

My brother Jason, I used to go to a church that only did a wafer and grape juice but since came to realize I needed to find a solid church. I uprooted my life, quit my job and relocated 10 hours away to an area with Reformed Churches. The first time I took the Lord's Supper with real wine (and I NEVER drink), I felt so refreshed and thrilled that I was finally participating in HIS Supper and not a man made/altered ordinance substitute. If we believe the supper is a means of grace, as the WCF, 3 Forms and LBC all teach, the elements do matter. How can we hope for a blessing when we change what God commanded? If the wine can be changed to grape juice, then it can totally be changed to coke and chips. Let us obey God and not man.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 10, 2013)

> If the wine can be changed to grape juice, then it can totally be changed to coke and chips.



That is not solid reasoning.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 10, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> I have been criticized (by several TRs) for not making great efforts to import wine and flattened bread. However, I rarely see TRs on the mission field, so I don't bother with the criticisms much.



Ouch!


----------



## Jack K (Aug 10, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> > If the wine can be changed to grape juice, then it can totally be changed to coke and chips.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not solid reasoning.



I have to add my agreement with Pergamum on this one. The premise that God commanded wine to be used is relatively weak, because the text never says "wine" in any the the accounts of the Supper's institution. It says "cup" and "fruit of the vine."

Now, I believe wine is a good way to go. We can be quite certain that wine is what Jesus used, and we have many other Scripture references to wine that would seem to connect to the imagery in the Supper. But that's not the same as if Jesus had specifically referenced "wine." We aren't commanded to try to recreate the upper room experience when we celebrate the Supper, nor to replace Jesus' words with some we feel better fit the rest of Scripture and his cultural context. Those who choose to serve grape juice rather than, say, Coke have picked the juice because it is "fruit of the vine." They are paying close attention to Jesus' exact words. To suggest that their approach is no different from choosing to serve Coke is incorrect. Even if you believe Scripture calls for wine, to say that grape juice servers are disregarding Scripture to such an extent that they might as well serve Coke is taking the accusation too far.

--------

In answer to the original question... If a society has something that passes as "bread" (whether or not it uses the exact grain we suspect Jesus used the first time, baked the same way), and if they drink a "fruit of the vine" (whether or not it's the same variety of grape Jesus used, aged the same amount of time), it seems clearly right to use these. Jesus' exact words allow for that much latitude, and we must believe that he chose his words with precision. Where such food and drink doesn't exist, I'd be uncomfortable substituting something "similar." But I will leave it to the missionary who's there, with feet on the ground, to determine what exactly is "bread" and "fruit of the vine."


----------



## KMK (Aug 11, 2013)

Jack K said:


> "fruit of the vine."



According to everything I have read, this was a Hebrew phrase used for 'wine set apart for sacred use'. In other words,, Jesus' original audience would have known he meant wine.


----------



## KMK (Aug 11, 2013)

SolaScriptura said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I have been criticized (by several TRs) for not making great efforts to import wine and flattened bread. However, I rarely see TRs on the mission field, so I don't bother with the criticisms much.
> ...



What is a 'TR'?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 11, 2013)

SolaScriptura said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I have been criticized (by several TRs) for not making great efforts to import wine and flattened bread. However, I rarely see TRs on the mission field, so I don't bother with the criticisms much.
> ...



Ben,

The flip-side (which is perhaps even worse) is that there are many evangelical missionaries that should not be there in the first place. In an ideal world, the mission field would be flooded by confessionally sound (or just sound) missionaries who can process these hard issues theologically. I do think it is worthy to discuss how more reformed missionaries can be sent out.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Aug 11, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> In an ideal world, the mission field would be flooded by confessionally sound (or just sound) missionaries who can process these hard issues theologically. I do think it is worthy to discuss how more reformed missionaries can be sent out.



It seems that today many think of missions as a 2-week trip to build a home for the poor in a foreign culture. Indeed, sound missionaries seem to be lacking.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 11, 2013)

CuriousNdenver said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > In an ideal world, the mission field would be flooded by confessionally sound (or just sound) missionaries who can process these hard issues theologically. I do think it is worthy to discuss how more reformed missionaries can be sent out.
> ...



I know several sound and reformed missionaries who are lacking funds, or who have come off the field due to insufficient support. Will God be pleased to add more solid missionaries if the ones already sent are struggling due to lack of support?


----------



## Jack K (Aug 11, 2013)

KMK said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > "fruit of the vine."
> ...



Yes, I've heard and read the same. It doesn't change the fact that the particular words he chose can be read in a way that leaves some room to maneuver. Did he fail to account for this, or did he do so intentionally?

I've heard people insist that in the context of the Passover "bread" must have referred to unleavened bread, so Jesus' words require the use of unleavened bread. I've heard others insist that in the context of Pentecost when the Jerusalem church is first reported to be breaking bread together "bread" must have referred to leavened bread, and therefore leavened bread must be used. Well, Jesus just said "bread." He left room for it to be either. This is a case where we need to take his words at face value or, at the very least, not condemn those who choose to do so.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 11, 2013)

Even in English, "fruit of the vine" is poetical. No one writes poetry about grape juice.


----------



## psycheives (Aug 11, 2013)

Jack K said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > > If the wine can be changed to grape juice, then it can totally be changed to coke and chips.
> ...



Jack and Pergamum, I see your point and agree that grape juice to coke is a poor example, as "grape juice" might still qualify as "fruit of the vine" - unless as Ken said, "wine" could be the only correct meaning of "fruit of the vine". So apple juice to coke would be similar because apples have nothing to do with any vine. 

Jack, I thank you for taking the time to not only correct my poor understanding but for especially explaining it to me. A correction with no explanation of where my reasoning was faulty leaves me just wondering "why did he disagree?" Thank you for showing me the truth.


----------



## kodos (Aug 11, 2013)

SRoper said:


> Even in English, "fruit of the vine" is poetical. No one writes poetry about grape juice.



Have nothing to contribute to this discussion, but "no one writes poetry about grape juice" cracked me up


----------



## Edward (Aug 11, 2013)

KMK said:


> What is a 'TR'?



It can be either an insult or a badge of honor or merely descriptive, short for "Totally Reformed" or "Truly Reformed" and opposed to BR or "Broadly Reformed". 

Depending on who is talking, it can range from someone who is a strict subscriptionist to one who is quite legalistic. 

And I'm trying to be somewhat neutral on this description.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 11, 2013)

Edward said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > What is a 'TR'?
> ...



Aw... Edward, you're being so nice to everyone. Let's tell it like it is.

Depending on the speaker, "TR" either means: One who refuses to be taken in by modern inventions, holding firm to centuries-old Reformed teachings, the confessions, and proven biblical practices even when they are no longer popular.

Or it means: One who is picky, stubborn, and has a holier-than-thou attitude about his stricter adherance to outdated Reformed practices.

It might also be that maybe, just maybe, there's a touch of the truth in both definitions.


----------



## Edward (Aug 11, 2013)

Jack K said:


> Edward, you're being so nice to everyone. Let's tell it like it is.



Yes, the moderators are going to think that my account has been hacked. 

My only quibble with your definition is the negative should probably substitute 'his understanding of' for 'outdated'.


----------



## KMK (Aug 11, 2013)

Jack K said:


> It doesn't change the fact that the particular words he chose can be read in a way that leaves some room to maneuver.



So, every time a biblical author uses a hebrewism it is for the purpose of allowing 'room to maneuver'?


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 11, 2013)

SRoper said:


> Even in English, "fruit of the vine" is poetical. No one writes poetry about grape juice.



Yes, apt and funny. 

And, even more to the point, in those days grape juice was only grape juice for a few minutes after crushing. It immediately would begin to ferment.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 11, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Wine is wine, not grape juice.


Rev. Winzer, this is a matter of serious import to me. I have only once taken communion with real wine, and that was in a paedocommuion Church, so this means that I have never taken part in a valid communion. Is this a matter over which I should separate myself and my family from the Church in which all my children were baptized? There are no other Churches in my area who do use wine that I know of, so this would be a real problem. Should I simply refrain from partaking and wait upon the Lord to provide a faithful communion?


----------



## Jack K (Aug 11, 2013)

Edward said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Edward, you're being so nice to everyone. Let's tell it like it is.
> ...



Yes, I was trying to phrase it from the non-TRer's point of view, with the mindset some will have.


----------



## Edward (Aug 11, 2013)

Jack K said:


> Yes, I was trying to phrase it from the non-TRer's point of view.



I'm not sure that some non-TRs would agree that the 'Reformed practices' are outdated - they would also claim to follow them. It's is the TR's interpretation and practice that they would take issue with, not the practices themselves.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 11, 2013)

KMK said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't change the fact that the particular words he chose can be read in a way that leaves some room to maneuver.
> ...



Yes, I get that point and it's a good one. We ought to try to understand a text as the people of that day would have understood it. But we really can't be sure, can we, what hearers in Jesus' day would have thought of a bottle of Welch's Grape Juice. It seems to me that they very well might have lumped it into the same category as wine, perhaps not being as preoccupied with the whole alcoholic/non-alcoholic thing as we are. So I'm not ready to declare grape juice Communion invalid based on how we think those hearers would have understood the phrase and would have viewed the juice. There remain many other good reasons that commend the use of wine, but some folks here are starting to think they've never taken part in a valid Supper based on reading a word into the text ("fermented") that Jesus never uttered.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 11, 2013)

Edward said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I was trying to phrase it from the non-TRer's point of view.
> ...



I'm sure. Folks are all over the map. I was just trying to present two exagerrated mindsets, so we could look at ourselves with a little wry humor.


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2013)

Being liberal and charitable towards others is very commendable, but being liberal with someone else's property in order to show charity to another is criminal. The elements are not ours; they are the Lord's. The Reformed Confessions and Catechisms are in no doubt that "bread" and "wine" are the two elements of the Lord's supper. The doubt is only arising from a contrary practice which was introduced for the purpose of being over-wise and over-scrupulous with the use of one of God's good gifts. Whether one uses this gift in private is his own choice (I myself abstain); but once the Lord Jesus was pleased to set it apart for the use of His own worship, to commemorate His own death, and to strengthen the faith of His people in the gracious benefits which He has purchased for them, this choice was taken away from men and made a matter of positive institution which men neglect to their own detriment.


----------



## KMK (Aug 11, 2013)

Jack K said:


> So I'm not ready to declare grape juice Communion invalid



I didn't declare it 'invalid' either. What I do think is invalid is the wide-spread argument that Jesus intentionally used a Hebrewism (fruit of the vine) because he knew that 1800 years later a teetotaler would invent a a pasteurization process for grapes that would _finally_ allow Communion to be taken the right way. I don't know whether you yourself hold to that argument or not, but it seems like that is where you are heading.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 11, 2013)

I’m not sure using grape juice makes it not the Lord’s supper (but I could get there), but it is certainly a corruption. Mr. Winzer has made the case from prescription, that we are commanded to do “This” in taking bread and wine. It could also be argued from the example of Christ. George Gillespie in his _Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_ (2013, forthcoming, D.V.), frames this argument (particularly applying it to aspects of the Lord’s supper, p. 388):we hold, that not only we ought to obey the particular precepts of the Word of God, but that also _we are bound to imitate Christ, and the commendable example of His apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us:_[SUP][SUP][1][/SUP][/SUP] which ground, as it has been of a long time held and confirmed by them of our side, so never could, nor ever shall, our opposites subvert it. It is long since the _Abridgement_ confirmed and strengthened it, out of those places of Scripture: “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children” (Eph. 5:1); “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1); “And ye became followers of us and of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:6); “Brethren, be followers together of me” (Phil. 3:17).[SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][/SUP]​This ground is also at length pressed by Cyprian, who shows that, in the holy supper of the Lord, Christ alone is to be followed by us; that we are to do what He did; and that we ought not to take heed what any man has done before us, but what Christ did, who is before all.[SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][/SUP]​This could be teased out more; but there is simply no reason to vary from Christ’s example here. There was no special reason or circumstance that can be reasonably argued for the choice of wine that would allow arguing it should not be strictly imitated. e.g. we don’t insist the Lord’s Supper be held at night in an upper room to be the Lord’s Supper.

It can also be argued that the church has no authority to make such a change as replacing wine with grape juice. Gillespie writes:Three conditions I find necessarily requisite in such a thing as the church has power to prescribe by her laws: 1. It must be only a circumstance of divine worship; no substantial part of it; no sacred significant and efficacious ceremony. For the order and decency left to the definition of the church, as concerning the particulars of it, comprehends no more but mere circumstances. (p. 260) [Wine is the prescribed sacramental element; the type of liquid is not a circumstance]

2. That which the church may lawfully prescribe by her laws and ordinances, as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such things as were not determinable by Scripture, on that reason which Camero has given us, namely, because _individua_ are _infinita_. We mean not in any wise to circumscribe the infinite power and wisdom of God, only we speak upon supposition of the bounds and limits which God did set to His written Word, within which he would have it contained, and over which he thought fit that it should not exceed. The case being thus put, as it is, we say truly of those several and changeable circumstances which are left to the determination of the church, that, being almost infinite, they were not particularly determinable in Scripture; for the particular definition of those occurring circumstances which were to be rightly ordered in the works of God’s service to the end of the world, and that ever according to the exigency of every present occasion and different case, should have filled the whole world with books. But as for other things pertaining to God’s worship, which are not to be reckoned among the circumstances of it, they being in number neither many, nor in change various, were most easily and conveniently determinable in Scripture. Now, since God would have His Word (which is our rule in the works of his service) not to be delivered by tradition, but to be written and sealed unto us, that by this means, for obviating Satanical subtilty, and succoring human imbecility, we might have a more certain way for conservation of true religion, and for the instauration [_restoration_] of it when it fails among men, how can we but assure ourselves that every such acceptable thing pertaining any way to religion, which was particularly and conveniently determinable in Scripture, is indeed determined in it; and consequently, that no such thing as is not a mere alterable circumstance is left to the determination of the church? (262–262) [again, the sacramental elements are among those few easily enumerated parts of worship; they are not circumstances that fall within the church’s power to change or vary.]
​3. If the church prescribe anything lawfully, so that she prescribe no more than she has power given her to prescribe, her ordinance must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant given for the satisfaction of tender consciences. (262). [this was more a problem in Gillespie’s day when unbiblical worship practices were being defended simply by “you have to obey us.”]​ 

[SUP][SUP][1][/SUP][/SUP] . [Cf. An Abridgement of the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese (1617) 71.]


[SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][/SUP] . [Cf. An Abridgement (1617) 71, margin note. The ministers of Lincoln also adduced 2 Thessalonians 3:7. “For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you….”]


[SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][/SUP] . Lib. 2, epist. 3. [Cf. Cyprian, Letter 62, ANF 5.362, ¶14.]


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2013)

Regarding the idea of making it invalid, as noted, "It is one thing for God to overrule the fault in us and to bless the ordinance notwithstanding our negligence or disobedience. It is a tempting of God to seek His blessing when we deliberately depart from His way." I think it is important to make sure we have a right understanding of and attitude towards the Lord's ordinances and to glorify His jealousy for His own worship. What God might do to overrule man's negligence or disobedience is His prerogative, but it is certain that His overruling providence is not our rule of action.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 12, 2013)

KMK said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm not ready to declare grape juice Communion invalid
> ...



No, I like some good wine from time to time, and I'm not arguing for grape juice out of some anti-alcohol bias. In fact, I'm not arguing _for_ grape juice over wine at all, just noting that it doesn't seem obviously out of line with the words of institution.

The fact that some churches may be opting for grape juice out of misplaced motives does not necessarily make grape juice wrong, per se. I wonder if our culture's preoccupation with alcoholic drink, prohibition and teetotalism creates a distinction between wine and grape juice that really isn't as big as we're inclined to think it is. Maybe today's grape juice is just another fruit of the vine, no better than the wine of centuries ago but not different enough to be out of bounds, either.

I like wine for the Supper. The whole meal feels richer that way. But I also know that my personal likes are not the issue, and that it's important to be careful not to impose more stringent boundaries than Scripture requires, because if we do so we (1) wrongly cause some believers to think they've been missing out on the blessings conferred in the Supper and (2) risk redefining the elements and what they signify away from what Christ intended and toward something narrower. You see, to insist on too narrow a definition of "fruit of the vine" is just as wrong and dangerous as to allow a definition that's too wide. You and I may end up disagreeing on what latitude those words encompass, but I too am trying to be meticulous and get it right.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Aug 12, 2013)

Thank you for this discussion; I am learning from it.



NaphtaliPress said:


> 2. That which the church may lawfully prescribe by her laws and ordinances, as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such things as were not determinable by Scripture, on that reason which Camero has given us, namely, because individua are infinita. We mean not in any wise to circumscribe the infinite power and wisdom of God, only we speak upon supposition of the bounds and limits which God did set to His written Word, within which he would have it contained, and over which he thought fit that it should not exceed. The case being thus put, as it is, we say truly of those several and changeable circumstances which are left to the determination of the church, that, being almost infinite, they were not particularly determinable in Scripture; for the particular definition of those occurring circumstances which were to be rightly ordered in the works of God’s service to the end of the world, and that ever according to the exigency of every present occasion and different case, should have filled the whole world with books. But as for other things pertaining to God’s worship, which are not to be reckoned among the circumstances of it, they being in number neither many, nor in change various, were most easily and conveniently determinable in Scripture. Now, since God would have His Word (which is our rule in the works of his service) not to be delivered by tradition, but to be written and sealed unto us, that by this means, for obviating Satanical subtilty, and succoring human imbecility, we might have a more certain way for conservation of true religion, and for the instauration [restoration] of it when it fails among men, how can we but assure ourselves that every such acceptable thing pertaining any way to religion, which was particularly and conveniently determinable in Scripture, is indeed determined in it; and consequently, that no such thing as is not a mere alterable circumstance is left to the determination of the church? (262–262) [again, the sacramental elements are among those few easily enumerated parts of worship; they are not circumstances that fall within the church’s power to change or vary.]
> 3. If the church prescribe anything lawfully, so that she prescribe no more than she has power given her to prescribe, her ordinance must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant given for the satisfaction of tender consciences. (262). [this was more a problem in Gillespie’s day when unbiblical worship practices were being defended simply by “you have to obey us.”]



However, I am having a hard time getting my hands around this section. Are you able to break it into more bite-sized chunks for a novice?

Also, may I deduce from this whole discussion that intinction is an issue that many may also debate, and that some faithful (otherwise) churches may practice intinction? Please forgive me if it is inappropriate to ask this question in this thread, and let me know where it would be better placed. It is something I am struggling with as I search for a church and this thread brought it to my mind. The churches in question do provide wine for the Lord's Supper.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 12, 2013)

Melanie,
Gillespie says the same thing distinguishing for instance elements of worship vs. circumstances, in another place perhaps more clearly:Besides all this, there is nothing which any way pertains to the worship of God left to the determination of human laws, beside the mere circumstances, which neither have any holiness in them, forasmuch as they have no other use and praise in sacred than they have in civil things, nor yet were particularly determinable in Scripture, because they are infinite; but sacred, significant ceremonies, such as [the sign of the cross], kneeling [in the act of receiving the sacraments], surplice, holy days, bishopping [confirmation], etc., which have no use and praise except in religion only, and which, also, were most easily determinable (yet not determined) within those bounds which the wisdom of God did set to His written Word, are such things as God never left to the determination of any human law (epistle To all the Reformed Churches, 16).​Intinction is adding something unbiblically to the observance of the Lord's supper, so it too is a corruption of God's prescribed worship. If it is optional (i.e. you don't have to intinct) that is one thing; but if that is the only way they do it, I would not partake. If they use wine, at least they are not changing the sacramental elements, but they are not observing the sacramental actions prescribed (drinking the wine, eating the bread) as I think Mr. Winzer or others have made the distinction on threads on that particular subject. But it would be best to engage that subject on a different or new thread.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 12, 2013)

A question: one of the marks of a true church is the sacraments. If we decide we must separate from churches that use grape juice out of a confused understanding (for we must not have communion with them, for they do not properly administer the sacraments), would we not be determining that they are false churches? 



Jack K said:


> (2) risk redefining the elements and what they signify away from what Christ intended and toward something narrower.


I personally can't see how it is also not an error to believe the signification of the elements is such that we wind up unable commune with more than a terribly small percentage of Christ's church. Yet if so, I am sure it is a sincere one, and that Christ often blesses in spite of it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 12, 2013)

Here is an old but still relevant article; it predates Welches so the author was dealing with Temperance movement folks who would insist on water or anything instead of wine.
Danger of Being Over Wise | Naphtali Press


----------



## KMK (Aug 12, 2013)

Jack K said:


> The fact that some churches may be opting for grape juice out of misplaced motives does not necessarily make grape juice wrong, per se.



Is there a church out there that uses grape juice for any other motive? It seems to me that it would be easier to find wine out in the mission field rather than pasteurized grape juice, but I will defer to those with more experience.


----------



## THE W (Aug 12, 2013)

Very interesting thread.

So we're arguing for or against the need for fermentation right?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 12, 2013)

I have heard the wine in Jesus' day was mixed with water.

Thus, if wine is to be used and not water in the Supper, what parts of each is permissible?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 12, 2013)

So when Christ turned the water into wine at the marriage feast, since some hearsay says the custom was to dilute it, He turned it into that diluted wine?
Rather, is such a dilution not viewed by God as a corruption? "your silver has become dross, your wine mixed with water" Isaiah 1:22
Would Christ have used something in the ordinance He instituted that symbolized corruption? I don't thinks so.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 12, 2013)

Chris,

I was not referring to this first miracle of Jesus (which seemed to occur at a wedding feast and not the Passover...but is significant for the strong wine produced and the fact that the guests had well drunk of the beverage), but I was referring to what I read was the normal custom of the time for the celebration of the Passover. 

Do we know if the Passover cup was diluted in Ancient Near East custom or if it was unmixed wine? And what bearing does that have on this discussion?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 12, 2013)

I don't know and I would say it has no bearing on the conversation; we have nothing in the text to tell us and I would seriously wonder if Christ would use diluted wine given the reference given.


----------



## KMK (Aug 12, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> Chris,
> 
> I was not referring to this first miracle of Jesus (which seemed to occur at a wedding feast and not the Passover...but is significant for the strong wine produced and the fact that the guests had well drunk of the beverage), but I was referring to what I read was the normal custom of the time for the celebration of the Passover.
> 
> Do we know if the Passover cup was diluted in Ancient Near East custom or if it was unmixed wine? And what bearing does that have on this discussion?



I hear this question raised often, but never with any conclusive answer. If there was any conclusive evidence that the Jews routinely used wine mixed with water in the Passover it seems like it would have been brought forth by now. This debate has been going on for over a hundred years. To propose that it might have contained water as an argument in favor of grape juice is quite a stretch.


----------



## Philip (Aug 12, 2013)

KMK said:


> Is there a church out there that uses grape juice for any other motive?



How about because the school your church meets in does not allow alcohol on the premises? Or is alcohol-removed wine (which is not mere grape juice) all right? How alcoholic does the wine need to be? Does brandy count?



KMK said:


> It seems to me that it would be easier to find wine out in the mission field rather than pasteurized grape juice, but I will defer to those with more experience.



The original question had to do with areas where grapes as such are unknown. I could see a missionary in a warmer clime becoming a vintner, but that seems like it could become a burden very fast.


----------



## KMK (Aug 12, 2013)

Philip said:


> How about because the school your church meets in does not allow alcohol on the premises?



Is this an hypothetical or actual situation? If the elders of this church believe wine should be used, then they should look for a different building. If they do not believe wine should be used, then it is irrelevant to this conversation.




Philip said:


> The original question had to do with areas where grapes as such are unknown. I could see a missionary in a warmer clime becoming a vintner, but that seems like it could become a burden very fast.



I agree that missionary work must be a burden. I admire those who are called to be missionaries.


----------



## Philip (Aug 12, 2013)

KMK said:


> Is this an hypothetical or actual situation?



An actual one for many congregations. 



KMK said:


> If the elders of this church believe wine should be used, then they should look for a different building.



Much easier said than done. Most churches in my area cannot afford their own building, due to high property values. In addition, schools are the only readily-available venue, particularly if it grows beyond one hundred regular attendees. The alternative to grape juice, for many churches in my area (including my own) is not to serve communion at all.



KMK said:


> I agree that missionary work must be a burden. I admire those who are called to be missionaries.



I see no warrant in the Bible for vintnering as a requirement for missions. It's very easy to make this a requirement from Loudoun County, Virginia, Southern Cali, or any other place known for its wine, but I can't see that in Scripture.


----------



## KMK (Aug 12, 2013)

Philip said:


> Much easier said than done



It may be easier said than done, but if the elders are convinced that it should be wine I don't see how they have a choice. If they are are not convinced that it must be wine then it is not relevant to my point.



Philip said:


> I see no warrant in the Bible for vintnering as a requirement for missions.



But you do see a warrant for the use of pasteurized grape juice. I understand. I am saying that if a church is convinced that it should be wine, then it needs to be wine regardless of how difficult it might make other things. It is better to skip it than to go against the conscience. 

If a church is not convinced it should wine, grape juice, water, or 7-Up, then there really is no problem.


----------



## MW (Aug 12, 2013)

a mere housewife said:


> A question: one of the marks of a true church is the sacraments. If we decide we must separate from churches that use grape juice out of a confused understanding (for we must not have communion with them, for they do not properly administer the sacraments), would we not be determining that they are false churches?



It is unhelpful to jump straight to the idea of separation, and especially of declaring a church to be a false church (we can recognise a mixture even in true churches, and living in a free society gives us the choice of a church we deem to be more pure). First, the issue does not warrant separation in and of itself. If one becomes convinced that wine in the communion is necessary then nothing should be done until the sincerity of that conviction is tested at the next opportunity to participate in communion. Faced with the practical dilemma of not being able to participate and obey the Lord's own commandment will require further action.

Further action may include sharing one's dilemma with pastor or elders, and they might take it under advisement. Think the best of them, and act in the hope it can be remedied. Should that prove fruitless one might officially write to the Session (especially if the practice is a part of the subordinate standards of the church), and should that fail one may appeal to the Presbytery. One certainly should not prejudge the oversight of the church or think the worst of them.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 12, 2013)

Thank you, Rev. Winzer. It's good to better understand how that conviction would play out.


----------



## Philip (Aug 12, 2013)

KMK said:


> But you do see a warrant for the use of pasteurized grape juice.



I see the alcoholic content of the fruit of the vine as a circumstance of worship, not an element, yes.


----------



## THE W (Aug 15, 2013)

Doesn't seem like fermented grape juice was mandated but rather what was available at the time. A cultural thing. 

Sent from my SCH-R530M using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------

