# Should we use wine during the Lord's Supper if 15% of members are in recovery



## matthew11v25 (Aug 14, 2009)

This may have been fleshed out else where...if so please point me in the right direction. This may be a better fit in another forum...

Our church supports an alcohol and drug recovery program which makes up about 15% of church membership. Our church gives the option of wine or grape juice on the same tray. It is known that those in recovery struggle when the elements are passed around.

Our session is in discussion on this, but would you:

1. Keep wine as an option based on Biblical command 

or

2. Use only grape juice as an option to keep those from struggling that are members.


----------



## KMK (Aug 14, 2009)

Option 1.

I am not convinced that a thimble full of wine actually causes anyone to stumble. That seems to be taken for granted these days but I am unaware of any scientific (or biblical for that matter) evidence. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, however.


----------



## Michael (Aug 14, 2009)

I'm not sure it's a matter of choice but more a matter of authority. By what authority should we change the elements of the Lord's Supper?


----------



## Edward (Aug 14, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> I'm not sure it's a matter of choice but more a matter of authority. By what authority should we change the elements of the Lord's Supper?



What's the minimum percentage of alcohol allowed by scripture?


----------



## Theognome (Aug 14, 2009)

100% of your membership is in recovery from the dominion of sin. If wine is a problem for some before the Lord's table, then abstaining from it is wise- until they learn that it is the heart of man, and not dumb objects, that are the root of sin.

Theognome


----------



## Hamalas (Aug 14, 2009)

Use the wine, as Scripture commands.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 14, 2009)

Theognome said:


> 100% of your membership is in recovery from the dominion of sin. If wine is a problem for some before the Lord's table, then abstaining from it is wise- until they learn that it is the heart of man, and not dumb objects, that are the root of sin.
> 
> Theognome



I wholeheartedly agree. I would rather give the third option, the table is to be all wine, and those that are in recovery need to practice self control. We are all in recovery of one kind or another. Should the churches with 15% of the people in recovery from sexual sin separate the men from the women so as not to tempt those who are susceptible (which might be everyone but eunuchs and the very old)?

While it might be more difficult for a person that is particularly susceptible to drunkenness to have a small sip of wine during the table, it might be worse for them to not partake of the LS because the elements are not as commanded. The RPW takes precedence over weakness, and the LS is a means of grace in which those that are having problems with self-control might gain strength. If 15% need extra help, then perhaps they should stay after the service for 6 to 8 hours with those who are strong to wait until the minimal amount of alcohol is metabolized so they no longer have any physical excuse for sin.

Remember, alcohol is not sin in itself, so this is not the same thing as flee the adulterous woman. If someone is truly recovered, they will not need to flee alcohol, they will exercise self-control in the midst of it.


----------



## dudley (Aug 14, 2009)

*Wine is the bilical command*

My presbyterian congregation celebrates The Lords Supper on the first Sunday of each month during both our worship services. We serve wine and grapjuice. I take the inner cups filled with wine however there are a small number in our congration who take the thimble cup from the outer rim where there is a few thimbles of grape juice. But I think as most on this forum that wine is the bilical command.

Dudley


----------



## Roldan (Aug 14, 2009)

Were there no alcoholics in the New Testament that converted?


----------



## Theognome (Aug 14, 2009)

Roldan said:


> Were there no alcoholics in the New Testament that converted?



During the time the NT was written, drunkards were called 'sinners', and sinners were constantly being converted. Modern humanism calls it 'Alcoholism', and that it is a disease- thus sin is not involved. So no, there were no alcoholics converted in the NT.

Theognome


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 14, 2009)

Didn't we just have a thread on the bread of the Lord's Supper. If we allow variance in bread, why not in the cup?


----------



## Theognome (Aug 14, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Didn't we just have a thread on the bread of the Lord's Supper. If we allow variance in bread, why not in the cup?



Unrelated issues, actually. The use of grape juice didn't even exist until Dr. Welch first pasteurized the stuff in the late 19th century. Even then, it didn't catch on in evangelical circles until the Temperance Movement took hold of the Church. Simply put, the whole use of grape juice at the LS is, in it's most basic argument, that drunkeness isn't a sin- it's a disease; and that is a bold-face denial of the Word of God. 

Theognome


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 14, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Didn't we just have a thread on the bread of the Lord's Supper. If we allow variance in bread, why not in the cup?



Pergy,

I appreciate the thought, and while I don't think "we" should allow variance in the bread (if you look at my responses, it is not my decision to make, it is the elders that make it) even those that argued the bread could be leavened, the almost universal position was that wine ought to be used as it is commanded.


----------



## Hamalas (Aug 14, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Didn't we just have a thread on the bread of the Lord's Supper. If we allow variance in bread, why not in the cup?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but variance in the bread is still basically bread. We're not talking about using a different brand of wine, we're talking about not using wine at all! Grape juice is not a variant of wine it is something totally different. (If you disagree just try to serve wine to the kids in the nursery and tell all those angry parents that it's just a different kind of grape juice! ) That is clearly unbiblical, and as Theognome pointed out, a *very* recent innovation.


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 15, 2009)

Our church had a wonderful dinner tonight with a visiting missionary. A family in our church who makes wine brought me a bottle with a custom label.


> Preacher's Reserve
> Valentine's Creek
> For the Totally Depraved, Unconditionally Elect sinner who
> by Limited Atonement was drawn by Irresistible Grace in the
> ...





Back to the topic - We discussed that when we went to wine. Problems with alcohol are a repercussion of sin and do not dictate the normal practices of the church of Christ. They have to deal with the repercussions of their sin and overcome them. Therefore, we do not cater to them. If we did then we would have to cater to everyone in some manner.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 15, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't we just have a thread on the bread of the Lord's Supper. If we allow variance in bread, why not in the cup?
> ...



Can we dilute the wine then with water? We are not changing it to juice, but only adding water to it? This seems akin to the differences in using varying kinds of bread. It's still wine, just extra-weak.


----------



## KMK (Aug 15, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> Our church had a wonderful dinner tonight with a visiting missionary. A family in our church who makes wine brought me a bottle with a custom label.
> 
> 
> > Preacher's Reserve
> ...



I am in the minority in that I don't think we should necessarily 'avoid' temptation anyway. James says, "Blessed is the man that 'endureth' temptation."


----------



## KMK (Aug 15, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



What is the benefit of it being 'weak'?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 15, 2009)

KMK said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Hamalas said:
> ...



What is the benefit of it being strong?


----------



## Whitefield (Aug 15, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> Grape juice is not a variant of wine it is something totally different.



Could you define for me the moment the juice of squeezed grapes (grape juice) becomes wine? Is it when there is .001% alcohol?


----------



## KMK (Aug 15, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



You said you wanted to dilute the wine with water. Why go to the extra effort to change the wine before it is served?


----------



## KMK (Aug 15, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > Grape juice is not a variant of wine it is something totally different.
> ...



When it has the ability to make you drunk?


----------



## Whitefield (Aug 15, 2009)

KMK said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Hamalas said:
> ...



Ok.


----------



## Webservant (Aug 15, 2009)

Couple of points here. I remember when I was a kid whenever my dad would go "on the wagon" if he had one drop of alcohol it would cause him to stumble, so I am tempted to make a knee-jerk statement here: if the lack of alcohol in the "wine" doesn't cause it to be improperly used in communion (I don't know whether it does or not) then perhaps it's best to just use grape juice. In his case, the love of alcohol was perceived as a disease, but really there were other issues going on. The alcohol brought him great comfort and that's what he really wanted - so in his case, there was a repentance issue, not just of the sin of overindulgence but of idolatry.

There were others in this thread who asked when wine becomes wine. I have read (and cannot locate a supporting link) that wine back in ancient times was frequently watered down and could have been much weaker than what we have now. I have also heard that it was useful because while water could be stagnant and foul, wine, due to the alcohol, was less likely to make one sick. I am sure someone here can confirm or disprove that.


----------



## TimV (Aug 15, 2009)

> Just as it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight, so a skillfully composed story delights the ears of those who read the work. Let this, then, be the end.



From 2 Maccabees 15, written about 150 years BC, Rich.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Aug 15, 2009)

Should they use bread if 15% are obese due to carb addiction?

-----Added 8/15/2009 at 11:11:27 EST-----

cap locks on.... sorry


----------



## Bookmeister (Aug 15, 2009)

I was an alcoholic for 15 years before converted and called to the ministry. I drink wine during the LS and have a glass during meals sometimes and a beer at the game. Alcoholism is sin, not a disease. If someone is struggling with a bit of wine during the Lords Supper, when his focus should be on Christ and his finished work, then there are clearly other issues that need to be focused on with this brother or sister.


----------



## Edward (Aug 15, 2009)

KMK said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Hamalas said:
> ...



Thanks. I had asked essentially the same question up at post 4, and hadn't gotten an answer from the AWOs (Alcoholic Wine Onlys). 

So the stronger the wine, the better? Thunderbird or Mad Dog 2020 is better than a lower alcohol version?


----------



## LeeJUk (Aug 15, 2009)

option 2, we need to stop being so legalistic.

Causing brothers to stumble over some secondary issue is nuts.


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 15, 2009)

Although its entirely possible that wine only is the best way to serve the Lord's Supper, I do think it could be profitable for proponents of that approach to exercise charity towards their struggling brothers or sisters. Alcoholism is a sin, but its also an addiction and is really hard to kick (as are many sins). I'm not saying we shouldn't have wine, but too often I've seen a blustering, "Well, just get over it" approach to individuals who struggle with resisting addiction when coming to the Lord's Table.

As to those who say that a thimble full of wine doesn't tempt an alcoholic - You're quite fortunate that you've never experienced a consuming addiction. Alcoholism runs in my family, and I've seen my uncles and grandfather struggle horribly with resisting drinking to excess. If they attended churches where wine was served, I'm quite certain that they would not take the LS - or perhaps only take the bread.


----------



## mvdm (Aug 15, 2009)

Our church places wine in the outer ring of the tray, and grape juice in the middle rings. Thus, the congregants can choose which they take when it is passed.

I'm not sure this is the right solution either, since it has the "flavor" of consumerism and individualism, leaving it to each individual to decide. 

Thoughts on this practice?


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 15, 2009)

I believe that wine and unleavened bread should be used for the Lord's Supper, but I do struggle over the issue with using wine it comes to alcoholics. 

I lost a good friend due to health complications brought on by years of alcohol abuse. My friend did not become a believer until he was well into his 40s and he died at 50. The damage was done. Prior to his conversion, he was drinking almost more than he was eating, and trying to break that habit was extremely difficult. One sip of wine at communion literally did send him back to the alcohol. 

In short, my friend finally was able to quit drinking and managed to stay sober for months. At the end of that time, he was put in the hospital to have surgery to correct some of the damage brought on by drinking. The doctor's told him that if he started to drink again, it would kill him. One of the first things he did after spending 3 months in the hospital was to go back to church. He was so glad to be back with believers and to participate in the Lord's supper, he drank the wine. He didn't think a little sip of wine would make that much difference. It did. He started drinking again. Although the return to drink didn't last long, and he completely repented, the damage was done, and he died within a couple of months. 

I know that personal experience makes no difference when it comes to a discussion of right and wrong. I also know that my friend's case is extreme in more ways than I have described here, and his story can not be used as a blanket reason for using grape juice instead of wine. 

Do we deny a person like that the privilege of participating in the Lord's Table because we think they are too weak? Aren't we all too weak? Isn't that why we go to the table in the first place? We do it to call to mind our sinfulness and to joyfully remember and thank God for His forgiveness. What would have been correct thing for my friend to do? Abstain from the commandment of the Lord to participate? Or should he have trusted the Lord to keep him from falling into sin? Was he willing sinning by taking a sip of wine at the Lord's Table? He certainly had demonstrated a repentant heart when he approached the table; he'd been off the wine for months. 

I realized I haven't answered any of the questions in the original post, but I felt I should share what goes on in my mind when the topic comes up.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 15, 2009)

> Could you define for me the moment the juice of squeezed grapes (grape juice) becomes wine? Is it when there is .001% alcohol?
> When it has the ability to make you drunk?



"When it has the ability to make you drunk" is no definition at all. I drink so little that I start to feel an effect after a ridiculously small amount -- others need a vat.


----------



## calgal (Aug 15, 2009)

mvdm said:


> Our church places wine in the outer ring of the tray, and grape juice in the middle rings. Thus, the congregants can choose which they take when it is passed.
> 
> I'm not sure this is the right solution either, since it has the "flavor" of consumerism and individualism, leaving it to each individual to decide.
> 
> Thoughts on this practice?



To the OP: Has anyone in recovery asked for a non alcoholic option? Or do they just quietly leave during the LS? Another consideration for the Wine Only folks: There are also people who are medically unable to drink ANY alcohol (certain anti seizure meds or anyone on Antabuse will have complications if they consume wine or any alcohol). Or there may be a church member or guest who is on parole and who cannot have ANY alcohol as a condition of their parole. So the practice your church use will allow these folks to take the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Edward (Aug 15, 2009)

mvdm said:


> Our church places wine in the outer ring of the tray, and grape juice in the middle rings. Thus, the congregants can choose which they take when it is passed.
> 
> I'm not sure this is the right solution either, since it has the "flavor" of consumerism and individualism, leaving it to each individual to decide.
> 
> Thoughts on this practice?



I think you have well identified the issue raised by doing this, but my personal leanings presently are toward such a practice.


----------



## TimV (Aug 15, 2009)

> "When it has the ability to make you drunk" is no definition at all. I drink so little that I start to feel an effect after a ridiculously small amount -- others need a vat.



Jenny that's the idea. To feel an effect.

PS, wasn't it a fellow Scotsman who said you should quit when your can no longer feel your teeth?


----------



## JennyG (Aug 15, 2009)

TimV said:


> > "When it has the ability to make you drunk" is no definition at all. I drink so little that I start to feel an effect after a ridiculously small amount -- others need a vat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have no idea who said that, Tim! It sounds the sort of thing a Scot might say. 
But what was your point? I don't think I understand.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 15, 2009)

Alcohol is a major stumbling block for many people. 

I have seen a grown man cry before communion because he feared any amount of alcohol.

Would God be displeased if a church elder used grape juice in order to prevent a weaker brother from stumbling?

If you serve 20 reformed alcoholics wine, are you certain that none of them will stumble?

What about people who can't tolerate any alcohol at all because of allergy? Are they in jeopardy because they can't "properly" partake in the Lord's Supper?

Is the attitude towards communion more important than the actual alcohol content of the wine?


----------



## raekwon (Aug 15, 2009)

Bookmeister said:


> I was an alcoholic for 15 years before converted and called to the ministry. I drink wine during the LS and have a glass during meals sometimes and a beer at the game. *Alcoholism is sin, not a disease.* If someone is struggling with a bit of wine during the Lords Supper, when his focus should be on Christ and his finished work, then there are clearly other issues that need to be focused on with this brother or sister.



Why can't it be both?



calgal said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > Our church places wine in the outer ring of the tray, and grape juice in the middle rings. Thus, the congregants can choose which they take when it is passed.
> ...



I'm not the OP, but our policy (after we switched to wine) was that we would only do wine until and unless someone asked us to make grape juice available again. That eventually did happen, and we had both grape juice and wine available for a time. That member moved away due to work some time afterward, and it wasn't long before we switched back to wine only.

Your questions regarding the medical inability to have alcohol are interesting. There's an application for the bread there as well (for instance, those with wheat allergies).


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 15, 2009)

While I think we want to follow the Scriptures in the use of the physical elements, I believe we also have to be aware of making the physical elements paramount.


----------



## TimV (Aug 15, 2009)

> I have no idea who said that, Tim! It sounds the sort of thing a Scot might say.
> But what was your point? I don't think I understand.



Sorry, sometimes I don't even get my humor. Wasn't it John Knox who said that? Anyway, my main point was that the main purpose of wine during Passover or any other feast wasn't to give you vitamin C, but to make you feel different than when you didn't have alcohol in you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 15, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> While I think we want to follow the Scriptures in the use of the physical elements, I believe we also have to be aware of making the physical elements paramount.



Thanks for saying that. I won't have to repeat the same in my reply.

I think the main thing that needs to be theologically paramount when we talk about "recovery" is that we're dealing with a disease model of Sin in many congregants' minds. It is now generally considered "orthodox" that alcoholism is a disease and some Churches will allow 12 step mindsets to go unchecked within a Church. We obviously have to be very mindful of those who need instruction and not chase them away in being overly strident in how we correct false notions of sin and man's condition.

People that object to wine in the Lord's Supper are often doing so on very un-Biblical premises. There is a "the physical is evil" mentality that has gnostic elements to it and I think catering to that without correcting it gently could leave men in basic ignorance about Sin and the proper remedy to it. Just because 12 step programs seem to sober people up doesn't mean they are good medicine for the soul.

The abstinence of wine as a Christian principle is dangerously entrenched where people will simply avoid it but I can think of nowhere else where we would be satisfied with training people on the 3rd use of the Law with a "fencing of the Law" approach: don't ever get near it and you'll never have to worry about sinning again. I don't disagree that this is probably a wise approach for some to come to in their consciences but I'm simply advocating that we take a mature approach to the problem at the individual level. We certainly do not want to also start telling Churches they can't have potlucks because gluttony is a much more widespread problem than drunkenness.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 15, 2009)

Incidentally, I highly recommend folks listen to Dr. Andrew Peterson's lectures on Pastoral Counseling at RTS on iTunes U

When you get to the iTunes courses, follow the link to Courses on Practical Theology and select Pastoral Counseling.

If you don't have time to listen to all of them then listen to lectures 15 & 16 that deal with Reality Therapy, 12 Step Programs, and One Nation under Therapy.

I believe he offers very helpful critiques of therapeutic mindsets rampant in our culture that we need to be aware of.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 15, 2009)

Rich, I agree with many elements you and others have said about what I think of as the "disease/victim mentality" rampant in society.

My great fear is very simple and basic: If I were an elder in a church with reformed alcoholics or others with alcohol allergies, I would dread causing anyone to *stumble* over wine.

I know this is a very simplistic reasoning.

I hope the Lord would understand why I feared real wine for alcoholics, and I hope He would forgive this variance.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 15, 2009)

KMK said:


> I am not convinced that a thimble full of wine actually causes anyone to stumble. That seems to be taken for granted these days but I am unaware of any scientific (or biblical for that matter) evidence. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, however.



I don't drink, but I have heard many times from reformed alcoholics and others that a little alcohol can put some reformed alcoholics in jeopardy.

Would God look with disfavor at a reformed alcoholic who abstained from communion wine, but drank grape juice, because he humbly admitted that he was too weak to handle alcohol? 

I suspect that God may value this person's humility and wisdom. I could be wrong.

I always thought that the focus of the Last Supper was Jesus (spiritual) and the alcoholic content of the liquid (physical) was important but secondary.

This isn't just about alcoholics either. I know at least two people that get physically ill from a little alcohol.


----------



## John Carroll (Aug 15, 2009)

*Good point!! Thanks.*

http://www.puritanboard.com/images/smilies/book2.gif


----------



## KMK (Aug 15, 2009)

John Carroll said:


> http://www.puritanboard.com/images/smilies/book2.gif



Welcome John!

Please fix your signature. Just click on the words, "Signature Requirements" underneath my signature and you will find out how.


----------



## Bookmeister (Aug 16, 2009)

raekwon said:


> Why can't it be both?.



Because a disease is something outside of you that enters in AND can be eliminated, in most cases. It is something external. Alcoholism on the other hand is internal, as sin is, something that can only truly be dealt with through Christ and his work.


----------



## PointingToChrist (Aug 16, 2009)

Paul Nowlan said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I am not convinced that a thimble full of wine actually causes anyone to stumble. That seems to be taken for granted these days but I am unaware of any scientific (or biblical for that matter) evidence. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, however.
> ...



Thank you, and others, who have posted along these lines. Let us follow 1 Cor 10 and give glory to God by participating in the Lord's supper, and let us put off this legalism.

Wine is of the content of grapes, as is grape juice. And they are very closely related. If alcohol will cause someone to sin, let us be careful about this and have him participate in the Lord's supper. This is not as if we are putting Kool-Aid in the non-wine cups.

I saw a news segment many years ago where a Catholic church said that the taking of a rice wafer in lieu of one of wheat (due to an allergy) was an invalid communion. Should we as Christians deny communion to one because of an allergy or if the temptation becomes a stumbling block?


----------



## raekwon (Aug 16, 2009)

Bookmeister said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't it be both?.
> ...



Like I said, why can't it be both?

Trust me, I'm not advocating the prevalent view that says that alcoholics are simply victims of genetics and/or their parents' mistakes and places no personal responsibility on them. By no means! First and foremost, yes, it is sin, and the primary need is Christ, not medical treatment/therapy.

At the same time, though, I believe it's often short-sighted and unwise to deny or ignore that this particular sin has physiological effects that can accurately be termed a "disease".

It seems to me that saying "alcoholism is a sin, not a disease" leaves us susceptible to dismissing (or at least severely downplaying) those effects and symptoms -- effects that remain even after Christ has justified a man. Not only that, but Christ isn't only the forgiver of our sins, but he is the healer of our diseases! Saying that alcoholism (or any other addiction) is a "disease" (in addition to sin) doesn't rob Christ of his glory in removing our sin from us. On the contrary, his glory is magnified as our healer *and* our savior.

I long for the day when Christ will forever abolish *all* effects of the fall, including sin, disease, and false dichotomies.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 16, 2009)

I don't think the big issue in the tread was whether or not alcoholism is a sin. I think everyone here agrees it is.

The issue is what to serve at communion if you have 15% of the church that are reformed alcoholics.

I say you should serve grape juice not wine so as to not cause anyone to stumble.


----------



## Edward (Aug 16, 2009)

I haven't gone through the two threads to compare who posted what; but on a recent thread dealing with modest attire, we got a fair amount along the lines that women should dress modestly to prevent the weaker brothers from stumbling. 

Here, we've gotten a fair amount of alcoholism is just sin, so we shouldn't accommodate.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Aug 17, 2009)

Thanks to everyone...I appreciate the input. Please continue to post if you have any additional thoughts.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 17, 2009)

The alcohol found in wine is not a virus which may be caught from the little in the small glass used in communion.

While there are addictive personalities, the thought that a little wine in the Lord’s Supper may cause one to plunge into drunkenness seems to have more to do with a misunderstanding of the problem. Europeans tend to treat drunkenness by teaching people to make right use of alcoholic beverages, rather than telling them they can’t every touch the stuff. Telling an addictive person they can never under any circumstances have any of something may in itself give them a compulsion toward it.

Christ commanded us to drink wine. While the congregation I serve provides grape juice as an option with wine, I’d personally favor the use of wine exclusively, port in fact because of its higher alcoholic content, though I’d provide something else for those who make an explicit request.


----------



## Philip (Aug 17, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> The alcohol found in wine is not a virus which may be caught from the little in the small glass used in communion.



Actually, I have to disagree here. I have a friend who is allergic to alcohol and who was unaware that the church he was attending one Sunday served alcohol at communion and nearly threw up as a result (at least that's what he told me after the service).

To me, this has always been an issue of Christian liberty--it's too easy to get caught up in the letter of the law here and end up judging our weaker brothers (on both sides). I was raised drinking wine at communion, but I have no problem attending churches that serve both or even (shock) grape juice only. Now, I personally prefer wine, but I'm not going to argue for the RC and Whiskey-palian position of exclusive wine. The Bible doesn't say either way.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 17, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> The Bible doesn't say either way.



The Bible says "wine." For nineteen hundered years this was never a question. Calvin and Knox were not opening bottles of Welch's before communion. Neither were the Corinthians getting inebriated on the same.

By all means, if someone says they are allergic to gluten, alcohol, tannins, or grapes, make provision for their health or conscience. An allergy is still not a virus.

But, as God made _Saccharomyces ellipsoideus_ on the grape skin competent to ferment the sugars inside into wine, let’s not pretend that was an oversight. He made all things very good.


----------



## Philip (Aug 17, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible doesn't say either way.
> ...



I agree that wine is a good thing, but unfermented wine was simply unknown before the process of pasteurization. I have long been careful to note that Jesus speaks of the "fruit of the vine" rather than simply "wine." I think that conscience--even a misinformed conscience--needs to be ministered to.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 17, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I have long been careful to note that Jesus speaks of the "fruit of the vine" rather than simply "wine." I think that conscience--even a misinformed conscience--needs to be ministered to.



I concede we must be sensitive to health and conscience issues, which perhaps were not understood before modern times. 

My argument is against Welch’s pasteurization of grape juice, the Prohibitionist-Temperance movement, and pseudo-scientific disease theory of “alcoholism” distorting nineteen hundred years of following Christ’s command. “Fruit of the vine” was alcoholic wine in Jesus’ day. 

Wine in the context of the Lord’s Supper and family celebrations have potential to teach the proper use of God’s good gifts.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 17, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> While there are addictive personalities, the thought that a little wine in the Lord’s Supper may cause one to plunge into drunkenness seems to have more to do with a misunderstanding of the problem.



I don't think the big issue is a reformed alcoholic getting drunk from a little wine, but the very real fear that he may re-enter the alcoholic lifestyle.

I recall a reformed alcoholic crying before communion just at the thought that a little alcohol would be served. 

I am not an alcoholic, and I know some alcoholics can still drink, as has been posted already.

I fear, however, that *some* reformed alcoholics may taste a little wine and re-enter of world of alcoholism.

It would be nice if some more reformed alcoholics could comment.


----------



## Whitefield (Aug 17, 2009)

The solution to the dilemma is to use a homemade, non-pasteurized, grape juice. If used shortly after storage it will have an infinitesimal amount of alcohol in it. That is wine.


----------



## Philip (Aug 17, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > I have long been careful to note that Jesus speaks of the "fruit of the vine" rather than simply "wine." I think that conscience--even a misinformed conscience--needs to be ministered to.
> ...



I guess I also see a double standard here because in the NT Church, no they didn't have pasteurization, but they also didn't have Merlot. How are the two different? Someone suggested Port, yet Port is actually "fortified" with an unnaturally high alcohol content. How is this any different than pasteurization, scripturally?

To me, the fact that it has gone through pasteurization has no bearing whatsoever on its suitability for communion.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 18, 2009)

Paul Nowlan said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> > While there are addictive personalities, the thought that a little wine in the Lord’s Supper may cause one to plunge into drunkenness seems to have more to do with a misunderstanding of the problem.
> ...



Such fear is likely the result of suggestion any amount of alcohol acts like a “virus” to re-infect the person in question. Though we need to show compassion to those thus misinformed, a more realistic view of the power of alcohol would be healthier. I don’t want to lend credibility to pseudo-science.

I don’t have immediate access to an university study (I believe done by the University of Minnesota) demonstrating suggestion was more a factor in alcoholics giving way to their former tendencies than the actual chemical. If I find it soon, I’ll cite the study and details.

-----Added 8/18/2009 at 12:39:58 EST-----



P. F. Pugh said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> > P. F. Pugh said:
> ...



Port is often used by those communions which regularly use wine because of its lasting qualities. A partially open bottle will last until the next communion because of the higher alcohol content. That also lends to a fragrance when the cover is removed from the elements, telling the senses one is in the presences of wine. It also quickly informs the tongue this is not Welch’s. The significance of the wine in the Lords Supper is better conveyed to all the senses by strong wine. Wine is the gift of God which gladdens man’s heart and symbolizes our entering into rest and celebration.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 18, 2009)

Glenn:

You and I have a difference of opinion. 

I fear that if you give 10 reformed alcoholics a little bit of wine, there is a good chance that at least one will become distressed or even possibly go back to an alcoholic lifestyle.

You, however, disagree.

It would be nice if someone with extensive experience with many alcoholics would comment.


----------



## Philip (Aug 18, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Port is often used by those communions which regularly use wine because of its lasting qualities. A partially open bottle will last until the next communion because of the higher alcohol content. That also lends to a fragrance when the cover is removed from the elements, telling the senses one is in the presences of wine. It also quickly informs the tongue this is not Welch’s. The significance of the wine in the Lords Supper is better conveyed to all the senses by strong wine. Wine is the gift of God which gladdens man’s heart and symbolizes our entering into rest and celebration.



I guess my question, again, is: what is the moral difference between serving alcoholic and non-alcoholic "wine" at the Lord's Supper? I'm just quite confused as to why this slight chemical difference makes a huge moral difference. If we are allowed to use wine that has had more alcohol added (Port), then why aren't we supposed to use wine that has had its alcohol removed?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 18, 2009)

Don't deprive the 85% not in recovery of red wine as _the_ symbol of Christ's blood.

The alcohol content points to the joy of being a believer in Christ, which joy of the Lord is our strength.


----------



## Whitefield (Aug 18, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> The alcohol content points to the joy of being a believer in Christ, which joy of the Lord is our strength.



Is this your interpretation? Where is this interpretation attached to the Lord's Supper in the NT? If this statement is true, then could it be said that the higher the alcohol content the better?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 18, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I'm just quite confused as to why this slight chemical difference makes a huge moral difference. If we are allowed to use wine that has had more alcohol added (Port), then why aren't we supposed to use wine that has had its alcohol removed?



The amount of alcohol will be a factor of the amount of sugar in the initial process, which yeast naturally turn to alcohol. Regardless of the percentage of alcohol, it is wine. Unfermented grape juice was unknown before Thomas Bramwell Welch processed the first bottles of "unfermented wine" in 1969 to be used during communion in his Methodist Church. Left to itself, crushed grapes immediately begin to ferment.

If you consider Welch’s process a blessing, and are concerned about endangering former drunks, provide grape juice as an option. We do at our communion services. I have no idea if any of it is actually consumed. But, the fear of a little wine is based upon irrational fear. 

I believe the Free Church of Scotland (the residual and continuing bodies) serve communion from a common cup, of course using real wine. They don’t seem to think this is an issue. And, I’m sure they have their share of former drunks.

And, if I were using a common cup, I'd want nothing less than port. The higher alcoholic content would kill bacteria.


----------



## KMK (Aug 18, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just quite confused as to why this slight chemical difference makes a huge moral difference. If we are allowed to use wine that has had more alcohol added (Port), then why aren't we supposed to use wine that has had its alcohol removed?
> ...



That would be 1869, BTW.

Good points!


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > The alcohol content points to the joy of being a believer in Christ, which joy of the Lord is our strength.
> ...



Well why wasn't non-alcoholic grape juice used at the Lord's Supper instead of wine?

I believe that many have remarked on this as being part of the biblical symbolism associated with wine e.g. in connection with the Nazerite being denied anything associated with wine as part of his vow.

Re alcohol content: since we always take only one draught of wine at the Lord's Supper, it is unlikely that anyone would get intoxicated, even if the strongest red wine was used. It is doubtful that anyone would get merry with one draught, although they might do. It is unimportant therefore that the most intoxicating wine possible is used, as long as it is alcoholic wine.


----------



## Whitefield (Aug 18, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Tallach said:
> ...



Before pasteurization there was no such thing as non-alcoholic grape juice. Grapes begin to ferment the moment they are crushed. But you didn't answer my question .. where is the joyful effects of alcohol connected to the Lord's Supper in the NT? You said this part of the symbolism is contained in the Lord's Supper, and I'm trying to figure out where you got that interpretation from.


----------



## Philip (Aug 18, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> The amount of alcohol will be a factor of the amount of sugar in the initial process, which yeast naturally turn to alcohol. Regardless of the percentage of alcohol, it is wine. Unfermented grape juice was unknown before Thomas Bramwell Welch processed the first bottles of "unfermented wine" in 1969 to be used during communion in his Methodist Church. Left to itself, crushed grapes immediately begin to ferment.



Granted, Jesus drank fermented wine at the last supper--I still don't see why alcohol _has_ to be present. Jesus certainly wasn't drinking Port, Merlot, Burgundy, or any red wine that we know today, so what separates these kinds of wine from "unfermented wine" in terms of the LS? What's the moral difference?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 18, 2009)

KMK said:


> That would be 1869, BTW.



Thanks for correction.


----------



## KMK (Aug 18, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> > The amount of alcohol will be a factor of the amount of sugar in the initial process, which yeast naturally turn to alcohol. Regardless of the percentage of alcohol, it is wine. Unfermented grape juice was unknown before Thomas Bramwell Welch processed the first bottles of "unfermented wine" in 1969 to be used during communion in his Methodist Church. Left to itself, crushed grapes immediately begin to ferment.
> ...



The issue is not so much why alcohol must be present, although there are good reasons to believe it should, but the reason behind the question in the first place. On what basis or authority did Dr. Welch, the Methodists, the Feminists, and the leaders of the temperance movement substitute the element that the church had used for 1800 years? The question is not, "What's wrong with using grape juice?" the question is, "What is wrong with using wine as the church has always done?"

People argue for the use of grape juice by saying, "It doesn't matter which we use." Well, if it doesn't matter, then why not use wine as the church has been happy to do for centuries and still does all over the world?


----------



## Philip (Aug 18, 2009)

KMK said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > Glenn Ferrell said:
> ...



I guess for me, I'd rather leave this kind of quibbling to "Whiskey-palians". I'm content with either because I think that both answer to both the letter and the spirit of the law. Why create a stumbling block?


----------



## KMK (Aug 18, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > P. F. Pugh said:
> ...



It is not my intention to stumble you, brother. Do as your conscience tells you. I only ask the same consideration. If I believe it should be wine and I am told, without a reason from Scripture, it must be grape juice, then I am the one being stumbled.


----------



## Philip (Aug 18, 2009)

KMK said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



And that's where we differ: I don't think it "Must be" either.


----------



## KMK (Aug 18, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > P. F. Pugh said:
> ...



I don't believe it "must be" either. Where did I say that?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 18, 2009)

*Quote from Whitefield*


> You said this part of the symbolism is contained in the Lord's Supper, and I'm trying to figure out where you got that interpretation from.



I didn't say that it was mentioned directly in the passages about the Lord's Supper. We have to derive that from what other passages of Scripture say about the appropriate use of wine, as we have to derive teaching on the Lord's Supper from what other passages of Scripture say about bread. 

E.g. Psalm 104:15


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 18, 2009)

To say that we ought not to use wine because some are in recovery, is the same as saying we ought not to preach about sin because some are in sanctification (another kind of recovery).

God's standard of worship should never be twisted to fit men's needs.

Instead, addicts (to keep this line of thought) need to exemplify the fruit of the Spirit in self control when they are not in a communion service.

Christ's table ought not to be changed because men are sinful. After the fall Christ continues to preach "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." He concedes nothing though men are fallen.


----------



## calgal (Aug 18, 2009)

So I guess anyone who is allergic to wine just has to either suck it up (and hope the epi pen works) or not take communion. Wow.


----------



## ewenlin (Aug 18, 2009)

So would the alcoholics or those allergic have precedent to refrain from taking the LS? Assuming we maintain the use of wine.

I feel like the need to qualify this. I'm referring to those with a serious case of alcoholism or extreme allergy.


----------



## Edward (Aug 18, 2009)

KMK said:


> The issue is not so much why alcohol must be present, although there are good reasons to believe it should, but the reason behind the question in the first place. On what basis or authority did Dr. Welch, the Methodists, the Feminists, and the leaders of the temperance movement substitute the element that the church had used for 1800 years? The question is not, "What's wrong with using grape juice?" the question is, "What is wrong with using wine as the church has always done?"
> 
> People argue for the use of grape juice by saying, "It doesn't matter which we use." Well, if it doesn't matter, then why not use wine as the church has been happy to do for centuries and still does all over the world?



So we should base our practices on the traditions of the church as well as scripture?


----------



## PointingToChrist (Aug 18, 2009)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> *To say that we ought not to use wine because some are in recovery, is the same as saying we ought not to preach about sin because some are in sanctification (another kind of recovery).*
> 
> *God's standard of worship should never be twisted to fit men's needs.*
> 
> ...



I disagree with your analogy. How does offering grape juice (along with wine) at the Lord's Supper diminish the seriousness and the message of the Lord's Supper?

As many in the thread have stated, grape juice and wine are derivatives of grapes. One suggested that Port be used because of the higher alcoholic content. What exactly does the alcoholic content have to do with the Lord's Supper?

Some in the thread also seem to be misunderstanding the problem in question. It is not that the alcohol in the thimble or sip of the wine is going to make them drunk, but rather trigger the sin of alcoholism they are avoiding.

What would the readers here say about those who do use grape juice for communion?


----------



## Philip (Aug 18, 2009)

KMK said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



My fault for vague grammatic structure. I don't think it "must be" either one: grape juice or wine--both are equally acceptable. I have no problem with alcohol, but I know those who do and my church, in consequence, decided not to use wine so as not to cause some to judge.

But good to know we have some basic agreement.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Aug 18, 2009)

KMK said:


> Option 1.
> 
> I am not convinced that a thimble full of wine actually causes anyone to stumble. That seems to be taken for granted these days but I am unaware of any scientific (or biblical for that matter) evidence. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, however.



Not scientific evidence by any means, but _I_ can't so much as swish with Listerine without feeling a little 'shaky' (a temptation to break my sobriety) for a day or so afterward. (Normally, I do not experience this.)

I have come to the conclusion that any alcohol whatsoever is poison for me. I will even refuse to eat any dish prepared with alcohol. Just protecting myself from my recovering (raging) alcoholic self.

That said, I am strongly in favor of using wine for the Lord's Supper over grape juice. I just do not partake of the cup.


----------



## KMK (Aug 18, 2009)

Edward said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > The issue is not so much why alcohol must be present, although there are good reasons to believe it should, but the reason behind the question in the first place. On what basis or authority did Dr. Welch, the Methodists, the Feminists, and the leaders of the temperance movement substitute the element that the church had used for 1800 years? The question is not, "What's wrong with using grape juice?" the question is, "What is wrong with using wine as the church has always done?"
> ...



That all depends on what you mean by the word 'base'. Historical theology is important. 

But if you will notice, I did not say that we should not use grape juice because of traditions of men. What I am asking is, why should the church change after 1800 years? Is there something new about drunkenness in the 21st century? Do people all of a sudden have allergies to wine which they did not have 300 years ago? Or, has society's attitudes about wine changed? Do the needs/wants of the individual override the church? These are the questions that I don't think the Methodists and the Feminists and the temperance movement ever answered.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 18, 2009)

KMK said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...


----------



## Edward (Aug 18, 2009)

KMK said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



If the alcohol is the operative element, why not just use Golden Grain instead of wine. We've been told up thread that stronger is better, so let's just go whole hog. 

Because if regular wine is ok, but wine which has had the alcohol removed is not, it must not be the fermented but de-alcoholed liquid from the grape that is important, but only the alcohol that matters. And if the red color is important, mix in some food color.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 18, 2009)

Edward said:


> We've been told up thread that stronger is better, so let's just go whole hog.



The term "whole hog" left me confused.

In case any of you have a limited vocabulary, like me, it means:

without reservation, complete, completely, enthusiastic, enthusiastically; 

Edward taught me something today.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 19, 2009)

LeeJUk said:


> option 2, we need to stop being so legalistic.
> 
> Causing brothers to stumble over some secondary issue is nuts.



The church has no authority to change the elements. While I would still celebrate in a church that uses grape juice, I would fear for the elders of that church that act without authorization to change the sacrament from what Christ instituted. Wine does not cause stumbling, but people that already lack self-control will stumble.


----------



## KMK (Aug 19, 2009)

Edward said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



That doesn't answer the question.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 19, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> > option 2, we need to stop being so legalistic.
> ...




Would you actually disallow a person from taking communion because he had an alcohol allergy or was afraid that alcoholic wine would cause him to lapse into alcoholism again?


----------



## KMK (Aug 19, 2009)

Paul Nowlan said:


> In most cases there is nothing wrong. The exceptions are people who are allergic to alcohol and reformed alcoholics that are afraid of stumbling.
> 
> No one here, to my knowledge, wants to abolish alcohol. Some of us just want a non-alcoholic option for communion.
> 
> Would your church not want to accommodate these people?



We offer both.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 19, 2009)

KMK said:


> Paul Nowlan said:
> 
> 
> > In most cases there is nothing wrong. The exceptions are people who are allergic to alcohol and reformed alcoholics that are afraid of stumbling.
> ...



Well, that's what we are suggesting.


----------



## KMK (Aug 19, 2009)

Paul Nowlan said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Paul Nowlan said:
> ...



I understand, but what I object to is the supposition that those churches who don't make such an accommodation are somehow either sinful, unloving, or blindly following tradition. When Jesus instituted it with wine He was not any of those. Jesus did not accommodate and neither did the church for 1800 years. Why is the church today under an obligation to accommodate? What has changed?


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 19, 2009)

KMK said:


> Paul Nowlan said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



I don't recall anyone here accusing those churches as being "sinful, unloving, or blindly following tradition."

I suspect everyone here agrees that in most cases alcohol wine is preferable, or at the very least allowable.

I suspect a number of posters here feel real compassion for reformed alcoholics and people with alcohol allergies. I suspect these people dread the thought that these people will stumble or end up in Emergency.

I suspect that these posters may think that the actual *spiritual* significance of communion is most crucial and that the *physical* elements are important but less crucial.

--------------------------------

Ken, you asked "Jesus did not accommodate and neither did the church for 1800 years. Why is the church today under an obligation to accommodate? What has changed?"

Ken, how do you know no church has accommodated these alcohol-sensitive people in the past? How do you know that many humble pastors have not accommodated these self-control-deprived alcoholics in the past.

Ken, does the church have an obligation to accommodate? I really don't know for sure. Somewhere in the Bible it says "And what does God expect of you: to act justly, *love mercy* and walk humbly with the Lord." 

Legally, perhaps pastors are not under any obligation to accommodate in this case. However, in God's eyes I would rather be a man who didn't perfectly execute a sacrement than a man who helped a brother to stumble.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 19, 2009)

A question: how does one balance trying not to cause either party to stumble? There seem to be 'weaker brothers' on both sides of this issue? (I'm not saying that disparagingly: it's been argued in the thread from both sides that each party is putting a stumblingblock in front of the other and that is the language, I assume, consciously used with reference to the weaker/stronger brother passages?)

I don't believe either -- wine or grape juice -- is what Christ drank: both are 'the fruit of the vine', both are merely symbolic of something that includes gladness and feasting (there isn't enough alcohol in a thimble cup to make anyone glad) and have always assumed that the best approach to the issue, and one which is part of the *reality* symbolised in being made a partaker of Christ's body, is to look out for my brother. I'm not quite sure what that would mean now! Does having both clear that up or would people still be stumbled in one direction or another?


----------



## KMK (Aug 19, 2009)

matthew11v25 said:


> This may have been fleshed out else where...if so please point me in the right direction. This may be a better fit in another forum...
> 
> Our church supports an alcohol and drug recovery program which makes up about 15% of church membership. Our church gives the option of wine or grape juice on the same tray. It is known that those in recovery struggle when the elements are passed around.
> 
> ...



The OP offers an either or situation. Either we follow the biblical command to the letter, or we mercifully accommodate those who, for whatever reason, prefer grape juice.

The lynchpin of the 'pro-choice' argument, on this thread and countless others, seems to be based on this assumption: Now that church elders have a choice (thanks to Dr. Welch), church elders ought to change 1800 years of church practice in order to accommodate the needs of small minority.

This assumption is only natural for Christians because of their desire for mercy, love and unity etc, and by all means these are to be sought in Christian relationships.

However, is this assumption valid when it comes to how elders lead their churches? Should elders do whatever they can to accommodate the minority in all things? For us today in our western societies the knee-jerk answer is 'yes'. But is it biblical?


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 19, 2009)

Rev. Klein, is it not also possible in our 'recovering from fundamentalism' climate to have a knee jerk reaction the other way? (I'm not saying you or anyone in particular is having such, just asking about the possibility.)

Of course those of us who hold an 'either' position believe that the biblical command of Christ_ is_ being followed when we use 'the fruit of the vine' -- whether that be wine or grape juice: since both are different than what Christ drank and what the church has often used, because of processing: yet in either case we have continuity with Him and them in the element that is processed. This satisfies my own conscience. I simply don't know how one would weigh the claims of the consciences of others, where the claims are in opposition.

The church can go on offering both; or decide to use all grape juice - - it seems from what you are saying that you think 'both' would inadequately address the concerns of _either_ party?


----------



## KMK (Aug 19, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Rev. Klein, is it not also possible in our 'recovering from fundamentalism' climate to have a knee jerk reaction the other way? (I'm not saying you or anyone in particular is having such, just asking about the possibility.)
> 
> Of course those of us who hold an 'either' position believe that the biblical command of Christ_ is_ being followed when we use 'the fruit of the vine' -- whether that be wine or grape juice: since both are different than what Christ drank and what the church has often used, because of processing: yet in either case we have continuity with Him and them in the element that is processed. This satisfies my own conscience. I simply don't know how one would weigh the claims of the consciences of others, where the claims are in opposition.



"Fruit of the vine" is idiomatic for wine set aside for religious use. Jesus' use of the phrase 'fruit of the vine' would have been understood by the original audience to mean 'wine', not just anything that grows on a vine, like watermelon or pumpkins. 

Therefore, even though we offer both at my church, it is not for the the reasons you have stated.



a mere housewife said:


> The church can go on offering both; or decide to use all grape juice - - it seems from what you are saying that you think 'both' would inadequately address the concerns of _either_ party?



But, again, why can't the church offer wine only? You offer two possibilities: both or all grape juice. Why is using all wine off the table? Is it because elders are obligated under the law of love to accommodate the needs/desires of the minority when it comes to the LS? And if so, then aren't elders under the obligation to accommodate the minority in all situations? I am questioning whether this is a valid assumption. (Not arguing for or against, just asking the question.)


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 19, 2009)

Rev. Klein, just to clarify: I was thinking of the situation in the OP (the elders are already offering both wine and grape juice and are considering continuing this practice or just using grape juice). 

Personally I don't have a set opinion beyond my own conscience being fine with either, as to what is right to do in the church where people have varying views (I'm trying to understand if 'both' is a good enough solution for either side).


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 19, 2009)

Is it too late to do a poll?

What liquid should be used during communion?

1. exclusively wine with alcohol

2. exclusively grape juice

3. choice of wine with alcohol or grape juice

4. grape juice with a trace of alcohol


----------



## cih1355 (Aug 19, 2009)

matthew11v25 said:


> This may have been fleshed out else where...if so please point me in the right direction. This may be a better fit in another forum...
> 
> Our church supports an alcohol and drug recovery program which makes up about 15% of church membership. Our church gives the option of wine or grape juice on the same tray. It is known that those in recovery struggle when the elements are passed around.
> 
> ...



We are commanded to drink the fruit of the vine and we are not supposed to change the elements of the Lord's Supper. What is the fruit of the vine? Is it wine, grape juice, or both?


----------



## KMK (Aug 19, 2009)

Paul Nowlan said:


> Is it too late to do a poll?
> 
> What liquid should be used during communion?
> 
> ...



You could start a poll in a new thread. Just start the thread and it will ask you if you want to add a poll. Just follow the instructions.

A similar poll was done here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/what-kind-elements-should-we-use-28882/


----------



## Rich Koster (Aug 19, 2009)

cih1355 said:


> matthew11v25 said:
> 
> 
> > This may have been fleshed out else where...if so please point me in the right direction. This may be a better fit in another forum...
> ...



I say both. I would add that the amount of time after the pressing of the grape and how it is stored would determine if it is what will commonly be referred to as wine or grape juice. We surely don't want to use vinegar.


----------



## KMK (Aug 19, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > matthew11v25 said:
> ...



Those who argue that the phrase 'fruit of the vine' must include both wine and grape juice also must explain why it cannot be vinegar or pumpkin juice or watermelon juice.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 19, 2009)

KMK said:


> Those who argue that the phrase 'fruit of the vine' must include both wine and grape juice also must explain why it cannot be vinegar or pumpkin juice or watermelon juice.



I think we would agree that it's the fruit of the _grape_vine that this is 'shorthand' for?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 19, 2009)

matthew11v25 said:


> This may have been fleshed out else where...if so please point me in the right direction. This may be a better fit in another forum...
> 
> Our church supports an alcohol and drug recovery program which makes up about 15% of church membership. Our church gives the option of wine or grape juice on the same tray. It is known that those in recovery struggle when the elements are passed around.
> 
> ...



As for the session; their first responsiblilty is to the Word of God, not the particular and varied sensitivities of each member of their flock. Alcoholism is as old as time. There have been Christians struggling with this throughout the church's history and at no point has the Church or her pastors ever come to the conclusion that something other than wine needed to be used to protect the "weaker" brethren. And what's more, the amount of wine received in the Supper is hardly enough to cause one to "stumble." Lastly, I agree with the earlier poster who stated that alcoholism is not a disease but a sin. The fruit of the Spirit is self control and this should be the exhortation of the session to those struggling with this matter. If the "recovering alcoholics" wish to take the wine from the trey, let them, that is no sin. And let them be assured of that much instead of being led to think that they are obligated to take the grape juice. I for one would serve only wine in the Eucharist and provide the necessary counsel for those with doubt as to its propriety.


----------



## PointingToChrist (Aug 19, 2009)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> matthew11v25 said:
> 
> 
> > This may have been fleshed out else where...if so please point me in the right direction. This may be a better fit in another forum...
> ...



I think the anecdotes of several members here have proven that it can and did cause people to stumble.

Does anyone here think it is sinful to take grape juice for communion?


----------



## Edward (Aug 19, 2009)

Paul Nowlan said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > We've been told up thread that stronger is better, so let's just go whole hog.
> ...



I'll have to remember to translate into English for the international audience.


----------



## Igor (Aug 20, 2009)

The country I happen to live in suffers from alcohol - it's one of the biggest problems, a real national disaster. Still, our Churches have never considered using anything but wine and, as far as I know, we have never had any problems with those who are in recovery - and, believe me, there are many who drank heavily before their conversion! (By the way, our tradition is total abstinence from alcohol outside the Lord's Supper (though nowadays it is not a hard and fast rule in every congregation - I myself, for instance, do not believe that prohibition is Biblically based) - to avoid unnecessary temptations and to be a good testimony.)


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 20, 2009)

PointingToChrist said:


> I think the anecdotes of several members here have proven that it can and did cause people to stumble.



Would you please show me these anecdotes that prove the Lord's Supper was a stumbling block. And lest we treat sacred things (i.e. The Lord's Supper) with impunity, can we qualify what it means to stumble from Scripture?


----------



## PointingToChrist (Aug 20, 2009)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> PointingToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > I think the anecdotes of several members here have proven that it can and did cause people to stumble.
> ...



Post numbers 24, 32, 28 for a few.

Let's get down to the more basic issue. Where I am coming from is that wine or grape juice, it is of the same substance as grapes. The alcoholic content is not what makes the Lord's Supper a symbol and memorial, but that it represents Jesus' blood. Grape juice does not detract from the seriousness of the Lord's Supper.

Some people partake in the communion with grape juice in order to ward off the temptation of alcoholism. As I said in an earlier post, it is not as if we are replacing it with Kool-Aid. Grape juice is made of grapes. Wine is made of grapes. (And please don't use a counter-example out of left field that corn is corn and corn syrup comes from corn).

What about the bread? Leavened or unleavened? White, wheat, whole grain? And which wine did Jesus have? Do you have the right alcoholic content? The right shade? Did they water it down?

We should not be so legalistic as to say that grape juice is an invalid form of communion. We are not "bending" scripture to accommodate man.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 20, 2009)

PointingToChrist said:


> Does anyone here think it is sinful to take grape juice for communion?



I do not believe it is sinful to take grape juice for communion. There are places around the world so impoverished that only water or some other mean substance would be available to the church for communion, I would not say these brethren must procure wine for the rite or discontinue it altogether. 

However, the course of this thread seems to be posing a different question. Namely, is the use of wine (and especially the exclusive use of wine) in communion sinful? After all, if the use of wine is a "stumbling block" to believers, causing them to sin. It stands to reason that those churches employing the use of wine in communion are leading weaker brethren into sin in the observance of the sacrament. 

The implication of this thinking is "if you do have non-alcoholic substitute for wine, the church should use it for the sake of weaker brethren." This position is unbiblical and extreme. There are many godly churches and Christians who feel strongly that only wine should be used in communion. We should avoid going so far as to label their position as harmful or even sinful. So, while it isn't necessarily sinful to use grape juice in the Lord's Supper, we should also recognize that there is no impropriety or sin in a church using only wine in the observance of the rite.


----------



## Turtle (Aug 20, 2009)

Edward said:


> Michael Turner said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure it's a matter of choice but more a matter of authority. By what authority should we change the elements of the Lord's Supper?
> ...



I have taken communion at a church that uses wine that is 15% alcohol by volume... but before they serve it, they boil the wine until the volume is reduced by 20%. 

Since alcohol boils at a lower temp than the water in the wine...


----------



## DonP (Aug 20, 2009)

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

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

And a nice homemade whole grain bread.

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


----------



## PointingToChrist (Aug 20, 2009)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> PointingToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone here think it is sinful to take grape juice for communion?
> ...



Thanks for your responses to my comments, I appreciate it.

I don't believe that churches offering only wine are sinful, but I think they may not be sensitive (in faith, not in worldly matters) to the needs of those who are abstinent from alcohol. I have a friend who will not touch alcohol, and I respect her for that. My position has gone from total abstinence and prohibition when I was younger in faith, to now partaking in the Lord's Supper with wine (started in the past several months).

My point is that I believe both should be equally valid options offered at church as a matter of conscience to the believer. I think that churches that are wine-only and don't recognize the validity of grape juice are perhaps dividing and pushing away believers rather than embracing.

I apologize if I sounded vitriolic in my earlier posts. This is a less important issue than others, and it is my goal to include people (as long as it complies with scripture) than divide.


----------



## au5t1n (Aug 20, 2009)

I don't think it has been mentioned yet here (unless I missed it) that the Corinthian church Paul wrote to included former "alcoholics" (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Yet when these same believers were getting drunk off of communion in 1 Cor. 11, he chastised them and told them to drink *less*.

In my humble opinion, we should use wine because it is what Christ instituted and also because using grape juice dilutes the symbolism. It says that the gospel is weak and toddler-ish, instead of potent and celebratory!

Now personally, I'm not too concerned with grape juice being offered as an alternative, although I don't like it much. However, in the church situation mentioned in the original post, I do not personally think the choice of wine should be removed.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 21, 2009)

*Abstinence from Alcohol: Not Mandated by Scripture*



PointingToChrist said:


> Thanks for your responses to my comments, I appreciate it.
> 
> I don't believe that churches offering only wine are sinful, but I think they may not be sensitive (in faith, not in worldly matters) to the needs of those who are abstinent from alcohol. I have a friend who will not touch alcohol, and I respect her for that. My position has gone from total abstinence and prohibition when I was younger in faith, to now partaking in the Lord's Supper with wine (started in the past several months).
> 
> ...



As admirable as abstinence from alcohol may be, it is not mandated by Scripture and we should resist binding anything upon the consciences of God's people that God's Word has not. The pasteurization of grape juice wasn’t even invented until 1869. For the one thousand eight hundred and sixty nine years prior to that, wine would have been all that was available to the church! You can’t mean to say that when Mr. Welch discovered the pasteurization process that this somehow created a new moral obligation for the church to provide it, do you? And again, I understand that certain brethren may feel that taking wine in communion is wrong, but this thinking isn’t founded in Scripture! It also ignores the centuries preceding the 19th Century in which wine was all there was for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Additionally, your argument implies that the sensitivities of those objecting to the use of wine are more important than of those objecting to the use of grape juice (even though they obviously have the biblical and historical high ground). So to call a church which (from conviction) uses wine exclusively “insensitive” is at best unfair, and at worst just plain backwards. 

In summery, a church has no biblical obligation to offer a non-alcoholic alternative in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. That’s all that need be said and understood. If a church wants to, fine. But that’s their call.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 21, 2009)

It seems useful to note that distilled beverages with much higher alcoholic content weren't fully popularised until the 18th century. I'm sure that the difference of modern alcoholic beverages from those in Christ's day has to play into the abolitionist movement , AA, and the creation of grape juice. 
Having thought more about the discussions I can't think of history as a deciding factor as we're in a different historical situation with regard to what alcoholic beverages are, and as many people weren't allowed to have communion under both kinds in church history. Given that both are different than what Christ drank, I still don't have a problem with wine or grape juice as 'the fruit of the vine'. I am thankful reading the discussions that in either case that communion is about the joy of sinners being accepted at the table of the Lord.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 21, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> It seems useful to note that distilled beverages with much higher alcoholic content weren't fully popularised until the 18th century. I'm sure that the difference of modern alcoholic beverages from those in Christ's day has to play into the abolitionist movement , AA, and the creation of grape juice.
> Having thought more about the discussions I can't think of history as a deciding factor as we're in a different historical situation with regard to what alcoholic beverages are, and as many people weren't allowed to have communion under both kinds in church history. Given that both are different than what Christ drank, I still don't have a problem with wine or grape juice as 'the fruit of the vine'. I am thankful reading the discussions that in either case that communion is about the joy of sinners being accepted at the table of the Lord.



First, it must be noted that while alcohol has surely evolved over the centuries, it was no less alcohol in the days of Noah (2300 B.C.) and Lot (1900 B.C.). If it was strong enough in those days as to render Lot ignorant to the fact that he was fornicating with his daughters then we can safely assume that they had figured out how to make "strong" drink. One needs only consider the many uses of the phrase "strong drink" in the Bible (esp. Proverbs). Drunkenness was a problem in the OT, the NT and throughout the centuries thereafter. It remains a problem today. 

Secondly, while history should not be primary deciding factor, it must not be ignored either. Once the counsel of Scripture has been sought out, in matters where Scripture may not speak explicitly, history is a good place to turn for insight and wisdom into the matter at hand. 

As for the Roman Catholic practice of denying the communion cup to the laity, this was a very late development of the high middle ages and not characteristic of the Church before that point. It was the effect of the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation which did not appear until the 1200s. Since they believed that the wine was the real blood of Christ, the Roman Church feared it getting wasted on men's beards or split on the floor (ergo the reason Roman priests generally don't have beards). So the Roman Church began only allowing the priest to partake of the wine. But this was not in stone until the late 1300 or early 1400s with the Reformation around the corner. Suffice to say the majority practice of the Church throughout history was communion in both kinds. 

The real question being examined isn't so much "is using grape juice ok?" but instead "Are churches that use wine exclusively or at all causing Christians to 'stumble' and sin?" The answer to that question must be an emphatic NO! 

I have laid down my explanation to this answer in earlier posts. I would encourage you to consult them if clarity is needed.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 21, 2009)

Dear Rev. Sheffield, thanks for the response. 

I'm going to make this my last post: it seems generally that when a discussion turns to referring people back to statements previously read, the discussion is not going much of anywhere . I appreciate the explanation of communion under both kinds: my statement was accurate then, that 'many' people were not allowed to take both kinds of communion. My point regarding the difference in our modern alcoholic beverages was merely that this cannot be presented as if out of nowhere people made grape juice and changed what they were taking for communion. Alcoholic beverages themselves changed first, and that has to have had ramifications on the consumer: probably in centuries past you didn't have 16 yr. old girls squirting hairspray in their mouths just for the alcoholic content, either. To view the reaction to these things as if they came out of nowhere is not an argument I can find convincing.

I have seen statements reading through the various ongoing discussions to the effect that a person who does not receive wine in the sacrament should be disciplined. I have never in my life received wine in the sacrament (our churches have always served grape juice): though I personally have no problem with wine. Yet, even in this apparently unsacramented state I have been appalled at some things expressed that seem to indicate a negligible idea of the way God uses these means to the weak when the Lord's Table has been so much to me. I am grateful for my church though I disagree with their position on alcohol: for their use of grape juice has been a symbol of true joy: that of sinners being received in all their weakness, that of fellowship with one another even in our fallen estate, in our union to Christ. I am devastated to think that this 'joy' could possibly be safeguarded by keeping a weak brother away from the blood of Christ because he cannot partake of alcoholic content 'in faith' (he's too weak to eat: let's starve him?); as I am saddened to think that anyone would exclude a member with a severe gluten allergy from the 'one loaf' and in the name of unity, divide the body. I understand that not everyone arguing these positions is arguing the same things. But after reading and being made to doubt whether I have even had communion in Christ's body and blood (but I know I have: I remember the joy) I conclude that it's better to have grape juice with your brother than to drink wine alone. This is what the joy of the body and blood of Christ is really about.

Thank you again.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 22, 2009)

Heidi,

In your response you have not addressed the points I have raised. Yours seems to be more of an appeal to emotion than to Scripture (e.g. being "devastated" by something I haven't suggested). You have not addressed the points made in my post. I asked the question _"Are churches that use wine exclusively or at all causing Christians to 'stumble' and sin?"_ I would like you to answer that question. 

You see, you are only being sensitive to one side of this issue: the alcoholics. For that reason you feel that offering wine is somehow insensitive and unloving. However, there are other Christians to be considered: those, who from a sincere biblical conviction, believe that wine is the only biblical substance to be used in Communion (WCF 29.3; WSC Q. 96). I could just as easily argue that by not offering wine, a church is being insensitive to _their_ convictions, and effectively excluding them from the Table, forcing them to go elsewhere. Is not what you spoke of earlier being done to them? 

Please, address these points and questions and the discussion will be fruitful.


----------



## DonP (Aug 23, 2009)

There are no Christian Alchoholics. Only Ex alcoholics who have been cured by their conversion. If one continues in sin he is not a Christian. Now each of us has areas where are temptations are stronger but this does not mean we are not to participate in church or we should alter worship because of it. 

What do we do with Ex pedophiles. Tell them no need to come to church, worship at home because of all the little kids at church they will see?? 
Or an exhomosexual, shall we tell them stay home because their are people of the same sex at church, maybe even other exhomosexuals? 
Christ prayed for His people that their faith fail not, that the evil one not get them, that they persevere and so they shall. The problem appears when we let so many people in as members who do not have a credible profession of faith, or at least that we excoomunicate so few who manifest they are not yet converted..

We have to do a better of of teaching Definitive sanctification and mortification of sin and 1st John. 

Self Control is a fruit of the Spirit. The fact there are temptations in the world is not reason to leave the world. Then nor would it be to not worship God as He prescribed, as if He did not know there would be alcoholics he converts. 

I say there are more addicts in churches today than there are alcoholics. There are shopoholics, talkoholics, sickoholics, depressionoholics, internetoholics, TV and VideoGamoholics, fashionolics, moneyoholics and worldoholics, etc. and all of these are just as sinful. We are bigots who would consider alcohol any worse. 

If they would stop listening to the lies of the devil and the world telling them they have some disease or genetic propensity other than a sin nature we would not be so deceived. Every tendency can be said to be genetic, to anger, or depression etc. 

But God tells us the truth. 1 Cor 10:13
13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. 
NKJV

To say it is is a temptation to participate in the clearly prescribed worship of God is heresy. 
The world and its lies and our experience is not the standard for God's people. 

Having said this, basically to point out that word only and nothing else is our guide to worship, that a person in prison will not be given anything except grape juice which has a very minimal amount of alcohol in it because they can't remove it all. 
So when an ordained minister chaplain, serves communion to them, this si all they get, I think it is sacrament to a believer. 

The whole question is of course doing your best. If you have no minister then you pray. Not usurp the authority of God, when you have no men you do not ordain a woman.


----------



## Edward (Aug 23, 2009)

DonP said:


> There are no Christian Alchoholics. Only Ex alcoholics who have been cured by their conversion. *If one continues in sin he is not a Christian.* Now each of us has areas where are temptations are stronger but this does not mean we are not to participate in church or we should alter worship because of it.



There is no gentle or diplomatic way for me to put it.

That statement, "If one continues in sin he is not a Christian." shows a complete lack of understanding of reformed theology, the Westminster Standards, and the basics of the Biblical model of salvation.

I'm frankly shocked to read it here. 

CHAPTER XIII.
Of Sanctification.

I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, *yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.*

III. *In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail,* yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome: and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 23, 2009)

DonP said:


> There are no Christian Alchoholics. Only Ex alcoholics who have been cured by their conversion. If one continues in sin he is not a Christian.




Is this a misprint?


----------



## Eoghan (Aug 23, 2009)

matthew11v25 said:


> Keep wine as *an option*...
> based on *Biblical command *
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## calgal (Aug 23, 2009)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Heidi,
> 
> In your response you have not addressed the points I have raised. Yours seems to be more of an appeal to emotion than to Scripture (e.g. being "devastated" by something I haven't suggested). You have not addressed the points made in my post. I asked the question _"Are churches that use wine exclusively or at all causing Christians to 'stumble' and sin?"_ I would like you to answer that question.
> 
> ...



So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.


----------



## Hungus (Aug 23, 2009)

calgal said:


> So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.



 Obviously these are unregenerate people 

Note I do not agree with the above statement it is purely hyperbole for the sake of argumentum ad absurdum


----------



## calgal (Aug 23, 2009)

Hungus said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> > So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.
> ...



Sadly that would be the response I would probably receive and that would be unfortunate. The above mentioned folks have quite enough challenges without self righteous pharisees putting more barriers in their way.


----------



## DonP (Aug 23, 2009)

Hungus said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> > So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.
> ...



Really, so God does not save people in prison ?? Hmmm. Why do we have prison ministries then and what about those God saved in Prison with Paul? 

Yes those may be an exception to the rule, but we need to make provision for them. 

My friend consider one day you may be in prison. 
Not all in prison are there justly, nor are all there unsaved. Nor is it impossible for one in there to be chosen and converted by God. 

Again circumstance does not dictate our practice but we must consider it in the determination of an unclear rule or make it an allowable exception to the rule

1 John 3:14 He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 
NKJV

1 Cor 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a *drunkard *, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. KJV

1 John 2:3 Now *by this we know that we know Him*, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and *does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him*. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. NKJV

1 John 3:3 And everyone who has this hope in Him *purifies himself,* just as He is pure. 
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 *Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. *
7 Little children, *let no one deceive you.* He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that *He might destroy the works of the devil*. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 
10 *In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God*, nor is he who does not love his brother. NKJV

Rom 6:13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For *sin shall not have dominion over you,* for you are not under law but under grace. 

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 *Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death*, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been *set free from sin*, you *became slaves of righteousness.*
NKJV

As much as they were a slave and bound to sin then now they are free from that and bound to live in righteousness. 

The carnal christian heresy has so permeated religious teaching today as well as a licentious attitude toward worldliness and tolerance of sin that we are shocked to consider that one who lives in bondage to sin is not converted. 

So yes we all have temptation but no more an alcoholic than an angry man, or a pedophile, or whoremonger, or pornographic observer or a liar or slanderer, or any other thing that controls a person. 

We are delivered from these passages are lies. including 1 Cor 10:13. It is a lie if the world is right and alcoholism is not sin and is a disease that should be allowed or homosexuality is due to genetic indistinction, etc. 

No we are all tempted and have weaknesses of our flesh, genetics, but we can not blame the flesh and say God I have the anger gene I have to keep killing people, and I can't be around people who make me angry. 

How pathetic. The same goes for a person weak with sugar or alcohol. A diabetic has no right to keep eating altered refined sugar until it kills them.

No one can continue to practice a known sin and have any hope they are converted. 

Therefore yes any alcoholic can have a small sip of wine and have no problem if they are converted. 

At our church we don't even fill those tiny cups much more than half way. 

Some might say I don't need to see a woman fully naked I get affected if they have a just a short skirt. So should all women wear a burka for them. 

Though I am not opposed to much greater coverage of women I doubt you will get them back to head coverings and long skirts or robes any time soon so I suggest we treat the alcoholic the same as an ex fornicator, ex pedophile or an ex homosexual or any other sinner. We tell them God WILL Deliver them from their sin and to use self control not from the flesh alone but from the Spirit. 

Shall a glutton never eat because each time he has to have some food he wants more??? 

Now who is absurd? 

We need to treat sin as sin and sinners as sinners and stop being bigots and permissive and allowing the devil controlled world and science to be our authority above the Word. 

I see alcoholics cured all the time and drink again with no problem and many are not even converted,. They just learn how to take back control of their lives and make decisions, commitments which by common grace men are able to do. Now there is no guarantee without conversion. 

Abuse is abuse, sin is sin and God never allows one to be tempted above what hey are able to bear so there is no excuse to say I have to sin because I took communion. 

What a sick and worthless christianity that would be. 

It doesn't matter what you want to believe, if you can't reconcile it with these passages above then it is error. 

Again I am not saying we must use wine. I am saying lets not pervert scripture and use human rationalizations as a reason to draw a conclusion.

1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 *And such were some of you.* But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. NKJV

Now a man may be a prisoner and be saved, but a man may not still be one of these and be converted. 
Only ex Drunkards, exgluttons. ex covetous, ex thieves, ex adulterers, ex homosexuals, ex porneias

So if one is an ex fornicator, then it is no problem for him to live in a world of scantily clad women. God does not say, leave the world, move to a monastery or christian commune, maybe he must put out his eyes, if he refuses to resist temptation, gain the victory over it, mortify it, but he is to come to church. 

Nor is it a problem for an ex glutton to eat food, nor an exhomosexual to see men. This is sanctification. God delivers us from sin and never ever tempts us above what we are able to bear. So Christians do not continue in gross sin, though they may commit a sin, it is not a part of normal life, it is a rarity not a practice. They have been converted from sin to live righteously. One who is not in this state needs some serious help and prayer possibly for conversion bit at least deliverance from sin and strength in temptation.


----------



## Hungus (Aug 23, 2009)

Don, did you miss my statement about hyperbole and argumentum ad absurdum? Possibly where I stated "Note I do not agree with the above statement" in reference to "Obviously these are unregenerate people"


----------



## DonP (Aug 23, 2009)

Have you considered where the 2000 year old + practice of replacement of wine with grape juice came into the church?

Go study the life of Welch's had its beginnings in 1869 when Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch successfully processed the juice of unfermented Concord grapes. Today, fruit juice processors continue to use the same principles of pasteurization that Dr. Welch pioneered in his Vineland, New Jersey kitchen.

Also checkout his family's relationship to prohibition. here's some good history you didn't get taught in school 
Welch's Grape Juice, Worldly Wisdom, and Wine Fundamentally Reformed


----------



## Hungus (Aug 23, 2009)

Did who consider? You is rather ambiguous.


----------



## DonP (Aug 23, 2009)

Hungus said:


> Don, did you miss my statement about hyperbole and argumentum ad absurdum? Possibly where I stated "Note I do not agree with the above statement" in reference to "Obviously these are unregenerate people"



Yes I guess I did not understand. Sorry. I disagree with someone I am sure, just not who. 

More word for those who think we can remain living in sin and have been converted. 

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the *flesh *are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, *drunkenness*, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that *those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. *

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, *self-control.* Against such there is no law. 24 And *those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. * NKJV

So strange to me that a Calvinist who will argue so strongly about how dead a person is with no spark of life in him when speaking on total depravity but when it comes to conversion, repentance unto life and sanctification, dead only means slightly wounded with not only strong risings but vital control such that any temptation could cause one to go back into a lifestyle of drunkenness. 

And how arbitrarily they pick which sins this is acceptable for. I am sure they would not allow for one being so weak as a pedophile or a murderer or a homosexual but for gluttons, hatred, contentions, selfish ambitions, etc. these they are acceptable of significant recurrent and persistence in as being consistent with saving faith. 

In fact some may even be having those feelings at me right now for siting these verses and thinking as I do. 

Some people will be extremely surprised on Judgment day 

Matt 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' NKJV

And remember all of you who say we must use wine because Christ did, you have to use whole grain bread too, none of that modern bleached white bread they did not have back then. Real food is what they had. If one symbol is important to be the same so is the other. 

And if you live where there are no grapes, can you use cherry wine or if no fruit can you use tomato juice or some other or must it be a vine fruit like berry juice or ??

Having said this keep in mind I do prefer wine and whole grain bread but I would not say there are no exceptions, and those who for some reason will not or cannot get wine or whole grain are not partaking of the sacrament or even rightly partaking. They may, as a church with a poor minister, not be in as healthy a state, but it is the heart and intent God judges. 
So for a man who wishes he could use wine and can't it will be less offense than one who could use wine but doesn't because he doesn't want to offend those convinced by prohibitionists and financial swindlers that God can't sanctify people enough to handle a swallow of wine.


----------



## calgal (Aug 23, 2009)

And Don thank you for showing everyone here the reason folks with any "challenges" put on a happy face at church and don't share challenges. And I am truly appalled that anyone can state that my declining to eat a smore is what saves me and not the Blood of Jesus.


----------



## DonP (Aug 23, 2009)

Sadly, We are not as sanctified as we are opinionated without adequate study and experience to give us wisdom to go with our partial knowledge. 
Most likely I am as guilty of this as any who dare to call themselves Christ's.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 23, 2009)

calgal said:


> So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.



Calgal,

All of your questions avoid interaction with the point I was making and instead center around various hypothetical questions which miss the real question of what the Scriptures teach and our Confessions maintain. 

As for the "Felon" in the half-way house, being a felon does not prohibit one from the free exercise of religion, be they Jew _(who use wine in the passover)_, Roman Catholic _(use wine exclusively in the Eucharist)_, or Christian. Secondly, I doubt the amount of wine in Communion would be traceable on a Breathalyzer. If it were, that person would be wise to notify those responsible for them of their observance and provide the church's contact information if further proof was needed. Bottom line, you example is extreme and over the top.

As for the person with some kind of a reaction to grapes or alcohol, your question assumes a rigidity that is insensitive to these kinds of considerations. Any pastor with a member with such needs would be perfectly justified in offering them a non-grape alternative, but this would exclude grape juice as well. 

All that said, these situations in no way form a normative principle on which the church's Eucharistic practice should be built. Your argument, like the one I addressed earlier, is simply an appeal to emotion. You have not answered the question I originally posed to Heidi. I will say to you what I said to her: "Are churches that use wine exclusively or at all causing Christians to 'stumble' and sin?"

Please, address these points and questions and the discussion will be fruitful.


----------



## calgal (Aug 23, 2009)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> > So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.
> ...




Yes you will be causing these brothers/sisters to stumble: 

1. former felons do lose many of their rights until they are "off paper" aka off parole. 
2. Wine will cause problems for anyone with certain medications or certain medical conditions that grape juice will not impact. 
3. Your point sir is that you fail to understand that you will cause people to stumble by offering them wine only: they have to choose between their health/freedom and taking the Lord's supper. And that is not a choice anyone should be forced to make. 4. Lastly sir I point you to Romans 14:21 & 1 Thessalonians 5:14.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 23, 2009)

Calgal,

*Answer to 1*: Each state determines what rights are lost. None of the 50 states takes away a felons 1st Amendment rights, namely, the free exercise of religion. Typically, a felon only looses the right to vote. He may also loose the right bear arms (if his crime was violent). Again, none of this matters to our discussion.

*Answer to 2*: I said in my answer to your last post that a pastor is fully justified in offering an alternative for someone with medical issues. This goes without saying. But let us also remember, that this "hypothetical" situation bears no weight on the biblical, historical, and confessional practice of using wine in communion. 

*Answer to 3*: So, let me get this straight; for the first one thousand eight hundred and sixty nine years of the Church's history, the Church led untold droves of brethren to sin in their observance of the Lord's Supper by offering only wine? _Really?_ To suggest that anyone must _"choose between their health/freedom and taking the Lord's supper"_ is just over the top and no one has advocated anything like that in this thread. Your rhetoric is unnecessarily inflammatory. 

*Answer to 4*: Romans 14:21 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper. Wine was the prescribed element for its observance. By your interpretation, your confessional standard (Westminster Confession 29.3), is in direct contradiction to Romans 14:21 and encouraging the practice of sin! Is that what you believe? 

As for I Thessalonians 5:14, A church using wine in Communion in no way violates the directives in this verse. To even imply that it does would again put you at odds with the your denomination (PCA), their Standards (Westminster), all of the the Reformers, and every saint before them.

I would encourage you to avoid hypothetical scenarios and instead deal with what the Scriptures teach and what our Confessions maintain.


----------



## DonP (Aug 23, 2009)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> > So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)?
> ...


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 24, 2009)

When a discussion regarding doctrine and practice in light of that doctrine gains pragmatic footing then just about anything can be justified, depending upon the context. Regardless of the repercussions of sin, the argument must be based on biblical precept, not experiences, emotions or any other temporal considerations.

What does God's Word say? How is the RPW applied. Anything beyond this is extrabiblical.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 24, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> When a discussion regarding doctrine and practice in light of that doctrine gains pragmatic footing then just about anything can be justified, depending upon the context. Regardless of the repercussions of sin, the argument must be based on biblical precept, not experiences, emotions or any other temporal considerations.
> 
> What does God's Word say? How is the RPW applied. Anything beyond this is extrabiblical.



A more simple, to-the-point, and biblical response could not be asked for. Thank you. I have been astounded by the willingness of some to frame their entire arguments around pragmatic, man-centered suppositions. I'm new to PB and while I didn't anticipate being in agreement with everyone, these kinds of approaches to doctrine and issues have surprised me.

Thanks again.


----------



## itsreed (Aug 24, 2009)

Correct me if I'm wrong brothers, but on what exegetical basis do you conclude it must be wine? I know what the texts say. Consider this before assuming something is misfiring in my synapses:

If pasteurization were known of in ancient times, what convinces you that they would not have served grape juice as the regular dinner beverage? Or if water treatment processes were known, how do you know that they would not have simply been a water drinking community?

My point being is that the case for wine only is inferential at best. I'm familiar and comfortable with the arguments making connection between wine and purifying. Yet they are not conclusive, not "necessary". Its interesting that for some these inferential arguments trump the similar but opposite inferential arguments against using wine based on the host of biblical data on wine and judgment. As at least there are more of these texts, maybe the stronger inferential case is against using wine - if the fruit of the vine is available in a non-alcoholic form. 

On what exegetical basis do we conclude that wine served at the LS was not merely incidental? On what exegetical basis do we conclude that if Jesus had a bottle of Manischevitz and Welch's before him, he would say, "give me the Mani."?

Consider some of the info. provided already by others, that the ancients understood the "danger" in wine and ordinarily cut it with water till the alcoholic qualities only effected it purity, and eliminated (practically) its judgment attributes. This, in effect is what grape juice is. By a different process, its purity has been stabilized a 0% alcohol.

For the record, I prefer wine, as I appreciate both the textual and historical consistency it presents (Shiraz left under the communion lid for whole service hits you in the face with a distinct "blood" aroma when you uncover it.)

I am concerned, however, that I not let my preferences bind another's conscious where God has not.

Again, and sincerely, I'd appreciate the exegetical argument that shows God has indeed bound my conscious. I will joyfully shepherd others in the same manner. Until then, I will lead with my preferences gently at most.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 24, 2009)

Reed, that's really interesting.
I don't say you're right, but actually the same thought has been knocking at the back of my mind too. We know they USED wine, but even so....it's somewhat like when I was discussing OT polygamy with a teenager horrified by it. On one occasion she had me reduced to digging in my heels and saying "show me the text that says, Go thou and do likewise!!"
Ok it's not really like that at all, except that I would be puzzled to show a text on wine use that says in effect "go thou and do likewise". 
"Do this as oft as ye shall drink it" seems much less categorical. 
But I'm ready to learn.


----------



## DonP (Aug 24, 2009)

Point is, why change it unless there is a strong reason to. 

So the question is not why use wine, but why would you not? Is there any good reason? 
No 
So we use wine and make exceptions as needed. 

We always continue as it was unless we are told not to, in the worship of God. 

They could have used water. They drank water in those days. 

And it had nothing to do with pasteurization it had to do with preservation. 

As for alcohol, grape juice contains alcohol, they don't remove it all. It just has very low levels. So the question is how much alcohol is an issue? 

As for alcoholics, much of their physical weakness has to do with the fact they generally have a lage yeast overgrowth in the intestines and when they get sugar in their diet the yeast makes alcohol inside their intestines. 

So they never go off of alcohol unless they go on a no sugar diet and take supplements to reduce the yeast load and probiotics to get the good healthy bacteria restored and growing on the intestinal wall to prevent regrowth of yeast and other pathogens.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 24, 2009)

DonP said:


> Point is, why change it unless there is a strong reason to.
> 
> So the question is not why use wine, but why would you not? Is there any good reason?
> No
> ...




Don, you have made a number of health claims lately.

One, on another thread, you claimed very long life spans in years past for people with "simple diets." 

Here, you have made more claims.

Being that this site is visible world wide by people of *all ages*, could you please provide credible and detailed evidence from reputable sources, like accredited universities and licensed MDs. Please also provide peer-reviewed evidence.

I am not disputing these claims, but I don't think the PB or the Christian community at large, wants to propagate unfounded health claims.



Many claims have been made, by many, on this site, such as communion wine is always not hazardous to problem drinkers and man-made drugs are to be avoided.

This claims may cause weaker brothers - or ignorant lurkers - to stumble. Please be careful and provide credible evidence.

Also, these claims and church practises have legal implications.

If a pastor preaches that no accommodation is allowable for reformed alcoholics and a reformed alcoholic drinks Communion wine and fall off the wagon, I wonder what a lawyer may say?

"You Pastor.....by your own Bible and confession say that you are obligated to care for your flock (who pay your salary). 

You Pastor ......., knew this man had a drinking problem. 

You Pastor .....didn't feel it necessary to accommodate this problem with grape juice. 

In fact, you Pastor .......applied subtle pressure and guilt about self control on this admitted former alcohol."

(I believe this term may be undue influence.)

Please be careful. I've been in churches that outreach to troubled souls. This situations are tricky. I've known troubled souls that didn't follow doctor's advice and took "a step in faith." Please be careful.


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 24, 2009)

Is this the longest post on PB yet?


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 24, 2009)

My apologies Sarah. This issue really gets my goat. I can't shut up.

BTW sorry to nitpick, but in another thread I believe you referred to a cow as "he."

A cow is "she" and a bull is "he." A group of cows and bulls are "cattle."

Cows are gentle, peaceful females with deep blue eyes and lovely long eyelashes.


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 24, 2009)

are you talking about my madcow? that's a he/she


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 24, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> are you talking about my madcow? that's a he/she



I prefer to call her a she. *She* has an udder.

Well, I guess *she'*s your cow, and you can call *her *whatever you want.


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 24, 2009)

lol didn't see that ok it can be a she!!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Aug 24, 2009)

Use wine. And UNLEAVENED bread!


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 24, 2009)

kevin.carroll said:


> Use wine. And UNLEAVENED bread!



Please be careful


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 24, 2009)

Dear Reed,

Your questions are the right ones. We may disagree with how to apply what we find in Scripture, which is based on our hermeneutics. But your approach is correct. Much of the problem in this discussion centers not around what the Bible states or allows, but around pragmatic considerations that are clearly humanistic, in that they are centered on man and his feelings. This should not sway us any more than God ordering Israel to kill every man, woman, child and beast among pagan nations. We must strive to understand what God says and means in order to think His thoughts after Him. That is, after all, the goal. And when God ordained the LS he already knew about alcoholism and the challenges that would be involved. So, what does Scripture say?
You already lean toward wine, so I presume that you consider it most consistent, but allow a measure of leniency. My position is similar. However, there is no exegetical proof that the wine partaken was cut in any fashion. Yes, it was a common practice. But it was also common to drink it straight. And the reasons for the man's comments at the wedding indicate some toxicity involved. Jesus changed the water _into _wine. He didn't mix them.
Would Jesus use Welch's if it was available? I tend to doubt it. Can I prove it? Not beyond a shadow of a doubt. But I do know, as a fact, that He used wine. That's what I'm given. It's all I have to stand on in regard to direct precept.
While it's true that there are many negative comments about wine in the OT, it is equally true that they discuss abuse, not use. And, it is equally true that there are many statements revealing the blessing of wine. However, before considering that, we must consider the fact that the LS is a symbol. It is a remembrance. It is a reminder. Christ is present only in so much as our faith is present. He is present in the chosen ones, regardless of whether or not we are able to take communion physically. It is a symbol of the inner reality. As Grudem points out, "We feed upon Him in our hearts with thanksgiving" (ST, 995). To think one has to partake physically to worship accordingly has a semi-Pelagian influence, at the very least. If one cannot partake because of physical reasons this does not mean that he cannot partake spiritually and know all the benefits of our great Passover Lamb. Consider this quote from Shedd.


> If a man by reason of extremity of sickness or any other just impediment do not receive the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, the minister shall instruct him that if he do truly repent him of his sins and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ has suffered death upon the cross for him and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he has thereby and giving him hearty thanks therefore, he does eat and drink the body and blood of our Savior Christ profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth. (Episcopal prayer book, cited by Shedd, 812)



Communion also prefigures the marriage supper of the Lamb of God. Jesus says He will partake of the fruit of the vine with us one day. What will that be? Welch's? Grape juice? Wine? We only have one example for us in Scripture. The real question to ask is, "What gives us the right to change the only point of reference that we have?" If there is biblical justification, then let us pursue that. But let us forsake emotional and pragmatic discussions that denigrate the intent of Scripture so that we may turn our minds more fully to Christ.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 24, 2009)

Paul: 
"Cows are gentle, peaceful females with deep blue eyes and lovely long eyelashes..."

No kidding? In Canada cows have blue eyes?
Oh well, we have tartan sheep and feral haggises, so I shouldn't be too surprised, lol!


----------



## BertMulder (Aug 24, 2009)

The other problem we run into, when we pay so much attention to what is exactly allowed as the elements for the Lord's table, is that the elements become more important than the sacrament itself.

Do we not believe that God is gracious, and if anyone has a legitimate reason (leaving the legitamacy to God to judge), God will grant him the grace in partaking only of the elements he/she has the ability to partake of, as if he/she had communed in both kinds?

That is also what my wife found when she, do to prescription drug contraindications, she was unable to partake of the wine.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 24, 2009)

JennyG said:


> Paul:
> "Cows are gentle, peaceful females with deep blue eyes and lovely long eyelashes..."
> 
> No kidding? In Canada cows have blue eyes?
> Oh well, we have tartan sheep and feral haggises, so I shouldn't be too surprised, lol!



Ah, to be more precise holstein cows, or Sarah's cow, have dark blue or violet or purple eyes. (I don't know the precise colour - I am a guy. Guy's only know about 10 colours. Beige is white, burgandy (sp?) is red, tan is brown.....


----------



## Gesetveemet (Aug 24, 2009)

Methinks that if a person feels that he/she is truly converted unto God and is still tempted by the use of wine at the Lord's table then that person should only partake of the visible gospel until the Holy Spirit gives him/her the freedom.





.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 24, 2009)

Paul Nowlan said:


> kevin.carroll said:
> 
> 
> > Use wine. And UNLEAVENED bread!
> ...



What does he need to be careful of? Seems he is stating his opinion, isn't that what you asked for?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 24, 2009)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> First, it must be noted that while alcohol has surely evolved over the centuries, it was no less alcohol in the days of Noah (2300 B.C.) and Lot (1900 B.C.). If it was strong enough in those days as to render Lot ignorant to the fact that he was fornicating with his daughters then we can safely assume that they had figured out how to make "strong" drink. One needs only consider the many uses of the phrase "strong drink" in the Bible (esp. Proverbs). Drunkenness was a problem in the OT, the NT and throughout the centuries thereafter. It remains a problem today.



No one should contest enough wine will make people drunk, and therefore should not be overindulged. There is no evidence distilled spirits existed in Biblical times. Distilling seems to have been discovered later by my Irish Celtic ancestors. “Strong drink” in the Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew “shekar” meaning an intoxicating beverage made from something other than grapes, usually grain. Thus, “strong drink” was a form of beer or ale, probably without hops. Shekar is the word used for beer in Israel today. Though shekar would contain no more alcohol than wine, enough of it will still make one drunk; thus, the biblical warnings about both. But, there is also biblical permission to purchase and consume both in Deut. 14:26. Shekar was certainly not non-alcoholic.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 24, 2009)

Andrew, what you need to be careful of:

Example 1.

"I read the Puritanboard. Some poster- who is really smart- said I should avoid man-made medicines and take ............ You can buy............... at the local health food store." 

PB can be a blessing when it provides information on Calvinism, etc. It can a curse if I encourages weaker brothers to make poor health decisions. 

Example 2:

"I know I am a former alcoholic, your Honour, and I didn't think I should take Communion wine, however my Pastor said a little wine would't hurt. But boy, when I tasted that alcohol again......." 

"Anyway, after Communion service I went home and had a real bender. Then I started drinking again, your Honour."

"You know your Honour, I know I shouldn't have had the thimble full of wine, but when I became a Christian, my Pastor said that God would heal me of my alcoholism. I doubted this, but you see your honour, I really trust my Pastor and I figured I could trust God and Godly self control to keep me straight.

Plus, I felt that if I didn't take the wine, my Pastor would be disappointed You see your Honour, I really trusted my Pastor. My Pastor is an member of Puritanboard, and the other pastors there agreed with him"

"Anyways, a few months ago, as you know, I was involved in a serious alcohol-related car crash......"

I am an uneducated lay person. If you people think that my posts are incorrect then please feel free to delete them.

Maybe I am totally wrong, in which case I pray that they are deleted.

Many times, people will attend a church only after they are in crisis.
One thing about people in crisis is that they can be easily mislead and take unnecessary risks. I've heard of people taking poison because of some Bible verse that says....... I know of one individual who stopped taking medication, became violent....

Andrew, I know you wouldn't hurt a fly intentionally. But an alcoholic may have weaknesses that you can't imagine. 

I used to be a greeter a at big church. I came to realize that I had to watch every word. For example, you can't joke to any woman about her weight, because even if she looks like Jennifer Lopez, she may be extremely nervous about her weight.

An alcoholic - especially alcoholics new to the faith - may have all sorts of issues. He may have been influenced by the "Word of Faith" movement, then hear you speak about the safety of Communion wine and take a some sip and......

Please research the effect a little wine can have on a former alcoholic.

Don't trust me. I have never been an alcoholic and only drink it when someone offers it for free. I hate whiskey, wine and pretty well everything else but a cold beer on a hot day.

Andrew, if you guys think I am wrong, then I have absolutely no qualms about you deleting these posts. I am no expert on alcoholism, or health food, or even the Bible.

Andrew, I think you want to be a great pastor. I think you are straight. You might want to research - from reputable sources - the effect small amounts of alcohol can have on former alcoholics.

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 10:35:35 EST-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The big issue:

Jesus performed Communion a certain way.

If we still strive to maintain the same spiritual reality of Communion, would Jesus mind if we altered some physical elements to protect weaker, humble brothers?*


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 24, 2009)

Jesus said "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Christ instituted the Lord's supper with the elements of bread and wine and it is these elements, not beverage and not food generally, nothing of our devising beyond Christ's example (for good intent or otherwise, LC 109) which "have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ ..." (CF 29.5). Now, it may be that grape juice which was not possible in biblical times nor at the time of the Westminster Assembly, is still properly fruit of the vine (that seems a legitimate inquiry); but surely water or some other beverage is not. We should not intentionally alter the elements Christ has instituted if for no other Scripture than Lev. 10: 1. "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not." 

This subject has had enough of a run for now; it needs a rest. Thread closed.


----------

