Grape juice or Wine

[davejonescue]

While you are probably correct on it being more of a somber event, am wondering if that is the correct 'feeling'. As Communion's purpose is to strengthen our faith, should that not bring an element of rejoicing?

Of course it should, but I don think it would be corraltive to what Psalm 104:15 is talking about. I don't think the Psalm verse is talking about an inherit trait by mere taste, but by effect, in which the natural course of consumption restrained in pre-intoxication, is mild elation. The stage of not being sober, but not being drunk. I think the use of juice/wine in communion is to reflect on the blood shed, not to cause a chemical effect of gladness.

 

[MW]

When we read the Bible as a whole we learn to appreciate the way it speaks about the gifts of God. We can then understand that God's ordinances are the prerogative of the Creator to set apart things He has created from a common to a holy use. In this light any argument for grape juice over wine is ridiculous. "Water" in baptism means what it means because the Word as a whole gives it that meaning. Likewise the "bread" and "wine" in communion. They have a material function that the Scripture has already spiritualised. Christ institutes them because there is a wholesome connection with our ordinary physical use of these things. We see the elements in their totality and are able to draw all kinds of analogies with physical sustenance and refreshing. Ps. 104:15, "And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." Or, as it is in the margin, to make his face shine more than oil. The attempt to introduce grape juice is just another example of human wisdom interfering in the divine order of things.

 

[En Kristo]

Quick question. You say God commands fermented wine for the Lords Supper, i.e. the law of God. (Or those who would make it a denominational practice to use juice are in sin.) But where does the Bible directly say wine in any of the Gospel passages regarding communion? Matth. 26, Mar. 14, Luk. 22. I agree, that unfermented juice is a departure from tradition, but it also coincides with the technology for the prolonged non-fermentation of juice. If I am not mistaken, there is technically no indicator in the communion accounts as to whether it was fermented wine or juice. It could have been either one. Yet, never have I seen this go beyond a secondary issue; meaning, it appears only radical fundamentalists would disfellowship (mark and avoid) over juice/wine usage. Particular denominations are free to do what they deem best on the issue. Why does it matter what another denomination feels is best when as you state, it isnt about exactly mimicking the practice?

This really isn’t a proof text issue. As with many things, the issue is understanding what the Bible as a whole teaches. In that regard, I commend my paper to you (I uploaded it in a previous post). Wine is a symbol of both covenant blessings and covenant curses. God commends it as a good thing. Offering unfermented grape juice in the Lord’s Supper isn’t in and of itself a sin. What was a significant sin was the banning of the serving of wine in the Lord’s Supper. Why was that such a sin? Because the act of condemning what God calls good, of presuming to improve on the ethics of Jesus, who not only drank wine himself but commanded that his Disciples, and subsequently us, take wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, was sinful. It was subordinating the clear teaching of the Bible concerning the drinking of wine to social pressure.

The uniquely American idea of serving grape juice at communion is a relatively modern innovation at odds with Christian practice in all other times and all other places. In my experience, most people have no idea of how it came to be that grape juice was substituted for wine in the Lord’s Supper. They haven’t been taught the history. They also have not been taught what the Bible has to say about wine. In some circles, Jesus’ first miracle of turning water into wine is at best an enigma, at worst a scandal. How many times has the witness of the church put off unbelievers and Roman Catholics because about the only thing they know about the Bible is that Jesus turned water into wine and we who proclaim Sola Scriptura have broken with 2,000 years of Christian tradition and manufactured an exception clause to serve Welch’s at the Lord’s Supper? I have personally run into this in conversations with Roman Catholics. Evangelical churches have manufactured a stumbling block to spreading the gospel.

 

[davejonescue]

This really isn’t a proof text issue. As with many things, the issue is understanding what the Bible as a whole teaches. In that regard, I commend my paper to you (I uploaded it in a previous post). Wine is a symbol of both covenant blessings and covenant curses. God commends it as a good thing. Offering unfermented grape juice in the Lord’s Supper isn’t in and of itself a sin. What was a significant sin was the banning of the serving of wine in the Lord’s Supper. Why was that such a sin? Because the act of condemning what God calls good, of presuming to improve on the ethics of Jesus, who not only drank wine himself but commanded that his Disciples, and subsequently us, take wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, was sinful. It was subordinating the clear teaching of the Bible concerning the drinking of wine to social pressure.

The uniquely American idea of serving grape juice at communion is a relatively modern innovation at odds with Christian practice in all other times and all other places. in In my experience, most people have no idea of how it came to be that grape juice was substituted for wine in the Lord’s Supper. They haven’t been taught the history. They also have not been taught what the Bible has to say about wine. In some circles, Jesus’ first miracle of turning water into wine is at best an enigma, at worst a scandal. How many times has the witness of the church put off unbelievers and Roman Catholics because about the only thing they know about the Bible is that Jesus turned water into wine and we who proclaim Sola Scriptura have broken with 2,000 years of Christian tradition and manufactured an exception clause to serve Welch’s at the Lord’s Supper? I have personally run into this in conversations with Roman Catholics. Evangelical churches have manufactured a stumbling block to spreading the gospel.

This is again why I ask. Where does it say Jesus instituted/mandated the use of fermented wine in any of the Gospel accounts? If we are going by Sola Scriptura, using the fruit of the vine seems sufficient enough.

 

[BertMulder]

This is again why I ask. Where does it say Jesus instituted/mandated the use of fermented wine in any of the Gospel accounts? If we are going by Sola Scriptura, using the fruit of the vine seems sufficient enough.

with all due respect, David, now you are being argumentative. I have previously tried to show you that at that time, there was 2 ways to drink 'the fruit of the vine'... either freshly squeezed or wine. Since it would take a lot of imagination that people drank their juice freshly squeezed, then they must have been drinking wine, either new wine or old wine... And as you yourself also pointed out they added water... You cannot have it both ways, David.

 

[Northern Crofter]

As I said, the issue is not recreating in every detail what went on during the Last Supper. The issue is not grape juice. The issue is obedience to God.

It's not just what Christ did at the Last Supper ("...And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you..." - Luke 22.17). It's also what Paul commands ("drink the cup of the Lord"). We can argue ad nauseam the alcoholic content of what was in the cup - with no appeal to descriptive narrative or prescriptive passages available. But does anyone deny Christ took a cup and "divided" it (in the same manner He took, divided, and distributed the bread)? I do believe it should be "fruit of the vine" - which I believe to be fermented wine - but I think we miss the symbol that is the cup when we focus too much on an argument over its contents.

Also, why shouldn't we recreate in as much detail as possible what went on during the Last Supper? We can't go wrong if we do but we could if we don't.

Wine is a symbol of both covenant blessings and covenant curses.

Even more so a cup, I think it could be argued.

 

[davejonescue]

with all due respect, David, now you are being argumentative. I have previously tried to show you that at that time, there was 2 ways to drink 'the fruit of the vine'... either freshly squeezed or wine. Since it would take a lot of imagination that people drank their juice freshly squeezed, then they must have been drinking wine, either new wine or old wine... And as you yourself also pointed out they added water... You cannot have it both ways, David.

Not trying to be argumentative. But I think you are trying to hinge on a technicality akin to the minute after you are born you are dying. While the process of fermentation may have began very quickly, squeezed grapes wouldnt have been considered wine the day or day after they were squeezed. It looks like the process took around 1-3 weeks, more on the latter end. The point of showing that it was common even for wine to be mixed with water, is to kind of point out what seems like a contradiction from wine-communion proponents, in that few have mentioned taking that step. So why hang on the perceived historicity of the fruit of the vine being fermented, yet not do so on the practice of dilution? I dont get it.

The whole point of all this, is to say that nothing in the Gospel accounts necessitate fermented wine, now that there are alternatives to have such. The argument will always hinge around does the fruit of the vine emphasize the fruit or the fermentation.

 

[BertMulder]

Not trying to be argumentative. But I think you are trying to hinge on a technicality akin to the minute after you are born you are dying. While the process of fermentation may have began very quickly, squeezed grapes wouldnt have been considered wine the day or day after they were squeezed. It looks like the process took around 1-3 weeks, more on the latter end. The point of showing that it was common even for wine to be mixed with water, is to kind of point out what seems like a contradiction from wine-communion proponents, in that few have mentioned taking that step. So why hang on the perceived historicity of the fruit of the vine being fermented, yet not do so on the practice of dilution? I dont get it.

The whole point of all this, is to say that nothing in the Gospel accounts necessitate fermented wine, now that there are alternatives to have such. The argument will always hinge around does the fruit of the vine emphasize the fruit or the fermentation.

David brother, so that this conversation does not go where neither one of us wants it to go, I am going to drop this conversation.

 

[Rom]

Unfermented grape juice would probably never be used if the Church had stuck to a common cup.

It's not just what Christ did at the Last Supper ("...And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you..." - Luke 22.17). It's also what Paul commands ("drink the cup of the Lord"). We can argue ad nauseam the alcoholic content of what was in the cup - with no appeal to descriptive narrative or prescriptive passages available. But does anyone deny Christ took a cup and "divided" it (in the same manner He took, divided, and distributed the bread)? I do believe it should be "fruit of the vine" - which I believe to be fermented wine - but I think we miss the symbol that is the cup when we focus too much on an argument over its contents.

Also, why shouldn't we recreate in as much detail as possible what went on during the Last Supper? We can't go wrong if we do but we could if we don't.


Even more so a cup, I think it could be argued.

 

[En Kristo]

This is again why I ask. Where does it say Jesus instituted/mandated the use of fermented wine in any of the Gospel accounts? If we are going by Sola Scriptura, using the fruit of the vine seems sufficient enough.

“Where does it say Jesus institute/mandated the use of fermented wine…”. This question presumes the answer. There is no such thing as unfermented wine. It doesn’t exist. Where in scripture is there the hint of a shadow of a possibility of grape juice being served at the Lord’s Supper? Jesus took a glass of wine and said, “Drink it, all of you.”

Would any of the Disciples dared to reply, “No thank you, Lord. I will not be a part of tempting my weaker brother to become an alcoholic. I have scruples, you know."

Is it a sin to substitute grape juice for fermented wine? Individually, I suppose the answer depends upon the heart. If an individual in his heart comprehends no distinction between grape juice and wine, which is to say there is no condemnation of what Christ did when he offered wine and there is a willingness to participate in what he did, then perhaps (I cannot say for sure) God is pleased. If, on the other hand, one understands that there is a distinction between grape juice and wine and in his heart one rejects, forbids, disapproves, refuses, condemns, criticizes, denounces, or in any way maintains some measure of disapprobation towards Christ offering wine at the Last Supper, then there is a very serious sin of presumption. It is a case of the creature judging his Saviour. It is an accusation that that by commanding his Disciples (and in extension us) to drink wine, Jesus sinned. Who would dare refuse to imitate Jesus in everything he thought, said or did?

That is the case of the individual. The case for the church is similar. For over 2,000 years, in every place where the Lord’s Supper was observed, wine was in the cup in unified agreement that that is what Christ commanded his followers to do. For what reason was that custom changed in the United States in the 19th. century? For what reason did the church break from Christ’s example and the long, universal practice of the church? On what authority did the church decide to change how a sacrament was to be administered? It was not motivated by exegesis of scripture. It was not motivated by a desire for greater faithfulness. The change was made by clergy, churches and denominations who were willing to compromise tradition and biblical faithfulness in deference to social pressure. The question is, where are we taught how to observe the Lord’s Supper? The church badly erred when it decided that culture is sufficient grounds for tolerating disapprobation of what Jesus did and for changing a sacrament. It is high time we acknowledged the sin of the church for what it was and remains.

The fact that a 19th century change to a sacrament has become widely accepted is not a reason for ignoring the issue. The passage of time does not atone for sin.

I was once confronted by a dear saint concerning this issue. He asked, “Do you really think that God would judge us for substituting grape juice at communion?” I answered, “Perhaps he already is. What has become of the churches in the United States since the end of the 19th century?"

By the way, I never drink alcoholic beverages in my private life for personal reasons. Some find it ironic that a teetotaler argues so forcefully for the traditional observance of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but the issue is simply faithfulness and obedience to God’s word.

Semper reformata.

 

[En Kristo]

The problem with all this, and the point of asking why there is no emphasis at all of wine in the Gospel accounts, is to very much ask if the Lord at all puts emphasis on whether the fermentation of the fruit of the vine adds any sanctity in the sacrament. The reality is, many believe it does not. The omniscient Lord could have very well answered the question by simply including the term wine in any of the 3 Gospel accounts, but did not. Knowing full well there would be a time, when fermentation could be prolonged almost indefinitely, fits perfectly well with the non-prescript status of mandatory wine over juice, but it doesn't. Instead the scriptures emphasis the fruit of the vine over any inclination that fermentation in itself adds something.

I can only say that the point is obedience.

When God told Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you,” Abraham obeyed.

He could have asked, well, what is the point? God has never emphasized child sacrifice. Wouldn’t be okay to substitute a goat, or a bull? Wouldn’t it be okay to, instead of actually raising a knife to kill Isaac, I just enacted something very similar. Wouldn’t it be okay just to prick a finger and extract a little blood? After all, I certainly do not want to offend weaker brothers who are horrified by the thought of a child being killed. Why if it were really important that I actually kill my son, wouldn’t God have made it plain exactly why I were to do such a thing?

The point is, if you make human reason the final authority, there is no end to improvisation, to justifying our own actions. The mind is full of questions. The heart is full of equivocations and a desire to be at peace with a hostile world.

What did Abraham do when God told him to sacrifice Issac? So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. Abraham simply obeyed. He could have spent hours questioning God’s command. Instead, he simply obeyed.

The impetus is not on those who affirm the sacrament as instituted by Jesus and practiced at all times and in all places by Christians (up until the 19th century and in the United States) to defend their position. Their motivation is simply obedience and faithfulness. The impetus lies on those who wish to introduce novelty to explain by the light of scripture the reason for the change. What is the fundamental motivation to forbid the serving of wine at the Lord’s Supper? That’s the question. The answer is that the impetus for the change was a pietistic impulse to reform the culture according to the light of human reason divorced from Biblical fidelity.

 

[davejonescue]

I can only say that the point is obedience.

When God told Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you,” Abraham obeyed.

He could have asked, well, what is the point? God has never emphasized child sacrifice. Wouldn’t be okay to substitute a goat, or a bull? Wouldn’t it be okay to, instead of actually raising a knife to kill Isaac, I just enacted something very similar. Wouldn’t it be okay just to prick a finger and extract a little blood? After all, I certainly do not want to offend weaker brothers who are horrified by the thought of a child being killed. Why if it were really important that I actually kill my son, wouldn’t God have made it plain exactly why I were to do such a thing?

The point is, if you make human reason the final authority, there is no end to improvisation, to justifying our own actions. The mind is full of questions. The heart is full of equivocations and a desire to be at peace with a hostile world.

What did Abraham do when God told him to sacrifice Issac? So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. Abraham simply obeyed. He could have spent hours questioning God’s command. Instead, he simply obeyed.

The impetus is not on those who affirm the sacrament as instituted by Jesus and practiced at all times and in all places by Christians (up until the 19th century and in the United States) to defend their position. Their motivation is simply obedience and faithfulness. The impetus lies on those who wish to introduce novelty to explain by the light of scripture the reason for the change. What is the fundamental motivation to forbid the serving of wine at the Lord’s Supper? That’s the question. The answer is that the impetus for the change was a pietistic impulse to reform the culture according to the light of human reason divorced from Biblical fidelity.

Wow, you had to go into the recesses to get that quote as I had deleted that hours ago. Anyways. In the case of Abraham, God specifically instructs Abraham what to do. In the same way Jesus instructs us, but doesn't say wine, instead he says the "fruit of the vine." Your hang-up seems to be this somehow emphasizes the need for fermentation. I (and others) do not see that. Instead, I see it emphasizing the need for a fruit of the vine; whether that is juice or wine. Your burden of proof seems to be to show how fermentation applies needed sanctity to the sacrament. I havent seen that.

 

[En Kristo]

Wow, you had to go into the recesses to get that quote as I had deleted that hours ago. Anyways. In the case of Abraham, God specifically instructs Abraham what to do. In the same way Jesus instructs us, but doesn't say wine, instead he says the "fruit of the vine." Your hang-up seems to be this somehow emphasizes the need for fermentation. I (and others) do not see that. Instead, I see it emphasizing the need for a fruit of the vine; whether that is juice or wine. Your burden of proof seems to be to show how fermentation applies needed sanctity to the sacrament. I havent seen that.

Interesting.

For the record, I did nothing to resurrect your deleted post. I cannot explain how or why it appeared on my computer as it did. Perhaps it is because I was interrupted in responding by a very long phone call. At any rate, please understand that none of my posts are personal. I address issues, not people. If I have in any way been disrespectful, I am truly sorry. If my responses have been intemperate, I apologize. I say “if” because in my own fallible judgment, I am talking about issues, not individuals. If I have offended you, I’d be happy to buy you a beer (you’ll have to drink it alone; I’m a teetotaler).

 

[davejonescue]

Interesting.

For the record, I did nothing to resurrect your deleted post. I cannot explain how or why it appeared on my computer as it did. Perhaps it is because I was interrupted in responding by a very long phone call. At any rate, please understand that none of my posts are personal. I address issues, not people. If I have in any way been disrespectful, I am truly sorry. If my responses have been intemperate, I apologize. I say “if” because in my own fallible judgment, I am talking about issues, not individuals. If I have offended you, I’d be happy to buy you a beer (you’ll have to drink it alone; I’m a teetotaler).

No, you haven't offended me at all. I have looked into this issue, from both sides, and just haven't seen a need for communion to be fermented wine instead of juice. I have attended churches where they use wine and have taken communion there with no issue. I also dont believe alcohol consumption is wrong if done responsibly, though, I havent drank in years. But, if I did I wouldnt feel like I did anything wrong. This is just an issue I don't get too worked up about, because I don't see the need too. Have a blessed day.

 

[EvanF]

“Where does it say Jesus institute/mandated the use of fermented wine…”. This question presumes the answer. There is no such thing as unfermented wine. It doesn’t exist. Where in scripture is there the hint of a shadow of a possibility of grape juice being served at the Lord’s Supper? Jesus took a glass of wine and said, “Drink it, all of you.”

Would any of the Disciples dared to reply, “No thank you, Lord. I will not be a part of tempting my weaker brother to become an alcoholic. I have scruples, you know."

Is it a sin to substitute grape juice for fermented wine? Individually, I suppose the answer depends upon the heart. If an individual in his heart comprehends no distinction between grape juice and wine, which is to say there is no condemnation of what Christ did when he offered wine and there is a willingness to participate in what he did, then perhaps (I cannot say for sure) God is pleased. If, on the other hand, one understands that there is a distinction between grape juice and wine and in his heart one rejects, forbids, disapproves, refuses, condemns, criticizes, denounces, or in any way maintains some measure of disapprobation towards Christ offering wine at the Last Supper, then there is a very serious sin of presumption. It is a case of the creature judging his Saviour. It is an accusation that that by commanding his Disciples (and in extension us) to drink wine, Jesus sinned. Who would dare refuse to imitate Jesus in everything he thought, said or did?

That is the case of the individual. The case for the church is similar. For over 2,000 years, in every place where the Lord’s Supper was observed, wine was in the cup in unified agreement that that is what Christ commanded his followers to do. For what reason was that custom changed in the United States in the 19th. century? For what reason did the church break from Christ’s example and the long, universal practice of the church? On what authority did the church decide to change how a sacrament was to be administered? It was not motivated by exegesis of scripture. It was not motivated by a desire for greater faithfulness. The change was made by clergy, churches and denominations who were willing to compromise tradition and biblical faithfulness in deference to social pressure. The question is, where are we taught how to observe the Lord’s Supper? The church badly erred when it decided that culture is sufficient grounds for tolerating disapprobation of what Jesus did and for changing a sacrament. It is high time we acknowledged the sin of the church for what it was and remains.

The fact that a 19th century change to a sacrament has become widely accepted is not a reason for ignoring the issue. The passage of time does not atone for sin.

I was once confronted by a dear saint concerning this issue. He asked, “Do you really think that God would judge us for substituting grape juice at communion?” I answered, “Perhaps he already is. What has become of the churches in the United States since the end of the 19th century?"

By the way, I never drink alcoholic beverages in my private life for personal reasons. Some find it ironic that a teetotaler argues so forcefully for the traditional observance of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but the issue is simply faithfulness and obedience to God’s word.

Semper reformata.

I think you might also be presuming that unfermented grape juice is not wine based on a distinction that was not meaningful for most of history. I would also like to point out that God is not pleased by the way we worship, it is all imperfect and unworthy of his pleasure. The Father is pleased with the Son, and with us in him. When we worship in true faith as members of Christ, our worship is acceptable inspite of its manifold imperfections.

The Lord instituted his supper as a means of grace to us and a reassurance of our very life in him, not as a test of obedience or doctrinal purity, which we all would fail.

 

[En Kristo]

No, you haven't offended me at all. I have looked into this issue, from both sides, and just haven't seen a need for communion to be fermented wine instead of juice. I have attended churches where they use wine and have taken communion there with no issue. I also dont believe alcohol consumption is wrong if done responsibly, though, I havent drank in years. But, if I did I wouldnt feel like I did anything wrong. This is just an issue I don't get too worked up about, because I don't see the need too. Have a blessed day.

I am glad that I have given no offense. I certainly did not wish to.

I do get worked up over this issue for the following reasons:

1. It is no small matter to change the means by which a sacrament is administered. Any such change should only be made in light of the clear teaching of scripture.

2. The reason that clergy, churches and denominations made the change was not based on improved exegesis of scripture. The innovation was based on human reasoning over and against the universal, catholic practice of the church. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the change was schismatic.

3. It is not mere coincidence that the change to the sacrament occurred along with a change to the manner of worship and a change in the observance of the Lord’s Day and that along with these changes the mainline Protestant Denominations apostatized. These things are all of a piece. They all stem from a lack of respect for biblical authority and a corresponding lack of dedication to a deep and serious study of God’s Word.

In a nutshell, the change in the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is symptomatic of a major problem in our churches: the corrupting influence of culture and the erosion of faithfulness to biblical authority, teaching and practice.

 

[Joshua]

From an aforementioned work in the thread, the Rev. William Sprague (Danger of Being Over Wise):

Cultivate that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom, no matter how great an extent. Be as zealous as you please in the acquisition of every species of useful knowledge. But be not wise in your own conceit. Be not wise above that which is written. Be not so wise as to attempt to make things plain which God in his wisdom has seen best left obscure; or to make things appear absurd which God has been pleased to reveal as matters of faith; or to abate a single particle from the strictness of God’s truth, or to mar in the least degree the purity of his institutions. ‘For why shouldest thou destroy thyself?’ Why, by setting up your wisdom against the wisdom of the Highest, by walking in the rush light of your own reason, rather than in the sun light of his testimonies — why should you bring upon yourself evil, the depth of which you have no line to fathom?”

….

Be not deceived by the parade of Oriental learning on this subject. Remember that no authority is worth a rush, that contradicts the plain declarations of Christ and his apostles, as they are found in the New Testament. And I ask how the blessed Founder of our religion — a religion designed for common people who can only judge the meaning of scripture, by the principles of common sense — I ask how it was possible that he should have instituted this ordinance to be observed in the Church forever, and spoken of the fruit of the vine, and nothing else, as one of the elements, if, after all, he meant wine and water, or tamarind water, or molasses and water, or anything else than that which his words properly and exclusively indicate. I say, brethren, you have no occasion for Hebrew learning, or Arabic learning, than plain English, to settle this question. The Master himself has settled it; has settled it for the obscurest peasant as truly as for the most eminent biblical critic. And no man, no body of men, has a right to call in question the Master’s decision. I have heard the practice of the Church in the second century appealed to in justification of this usage. But if the authority of the second century is good, surely that of the first is better. And why not go a little farther back, and take advantage of that? And if the testimony of uninspired men on this subject is good, the testimony of those who were inspired is better. Why not then be satisfied with simply opening God’s word, and ascertaining what is there written on this subject? Ah, it is because God’s word says not a word about any other element to be used as drink in this ordinance, but the fruit of the vine.​

 

[MW]

I would also like to point out that God is not pleased by the way we worship, it is all imperfect and unworthy of his pleasure. The Father is pleased with the Son, and with us in him. When we worship in true faith as members of Christ, our worship is acceptable inspite of its manifold imperfections.

The Lord is pleased with His own institutions. That is the way we should be worshipping. When we worship in true faith we listen to what God requires and honour His will. Justification by faith alone does not justify wayward practices.

 

[EvanF]

The Lord is pleased with His own institutions. That is the way we should be worshipping. When we worship in true faith we listen to what God requires and honour His will. Justification by faith alone does not justify wayward practices.

It does not justify wayward practices, but it does mean that our wayward practices - and they are all as wayward as the worshippers themselves - are treated as though they were acceptable because of our savior's perfect righteousness imputed to us. We must not think that our own worship is more acceptable to God than our brother's because we do it more correctly. That is simply wrong. We are wretched sinners and the worship we render by unclean hearts, mouths, and hands is filthy. Only Christ and faith in him makes our worship acceptable, and for those who really do have faith and really are in Christ, the imperfection of their worship is redeemed by Christ.

It's true that there is some degree of error that seems to preclude real faith, but I’m confident that no one here thinks that any position on the validity grape juice in the Lord's Supper would seem to preclude real faith. So then, the worship of all the faithful here is both acceptable and pleasing to God, imperfect as it is.

 

[En Kristo]

From an aforementioned work in the thread, the Rev. William Sprague (Danger of Being Over Wise):

Cultivate that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom, no matter how great an extent. Be as zealous as you please in the acquisition of every species of useful knowledge. But be not wise in your own conceit. Be not wise above that which is written. Be not so wise as to attempt to make things plain which God in his wisdom has seen best left obscure; or to make things appear absurd which God has been pleased to reveal as matters of faith; or to abate a single particle from the strictness of God’s truth, or to mar in the least degree the purity of his institutions. ‘For why shouldest thou destroy thyself?’ Why, by setting up your wisdom against the wisdom of the Highest, by walking in the rush light of your own reason, rather than in the sun light of his testimonies — why should you bring upon yourself evil, the depth of which you have no line to fathom?”​

​

….​

​

Be not deceived by the parade of Oriental learning on this subject. Remember that no authority is worth a rush, that contradicts the plain declarations of Christ and his apostles, as they are found in the New Testament. And I ask how the blessed Founder of our religion — a religion designed for common people who can only judge the meaning of scripture, by the principles of common sense — I ask how it was possible that he should have instituted this ordinance to be observed in the Church forever, and spoken of the fruit of the vine, and nothing else, as one of the elements, if, after all, he meant wine and water, or tamarind water, or molasses and water, or anything else than that which his words properly and exclusively indicate. I say, brethren, you have no occasion for Hebrew learning, or Arabic learning, than plain English, to settle this question. The Master himself has settled it; has settled it for the obscurest peasant as truly as for the most eminent biblical critic. And no man, no body of men, has a right to call in question the Master’s decision. I have heard the practice of the Church in the second century appealed to in justification of this usage. But if the authority of the second century is good, surely that of the first is better. And why not go a little farther back, and take advantage of that? And if the testimony of uninspired men on this subject is good, the testimony of those who were inspired is better. Why not then be satisfied with simply opening God’s word, and ascertaining what is there written on this subject? Ah, it is because God’s word says not a word about any other element to be used as drink in this ordinance, but the fruit of the vine.​

Good friend. I don’t think that the issue of the proper administration of the sacraments has anything to do with anyone being wise in their own conceit. Further, there was no ambiguity in the term, “fruit of the vine” at the time that the New Testament was written, it was universally understood to mean wine. Ambiguity was first introduced into the human consciousness in the 19th century.

My own conceit aside, it is no parade of Oriental learning to point out that both the use of the phrase "fruit of the vine” and Jesus’ own actions when he instituted the Lord’s Supper most assuredly sanction the serving of wine in the Lord’s Supper. At issue is the disturbingly common practice of forbidding the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper. That is what churches have done. Whatever post facto arguments are brought to bear on the matter, the simple fact is that when churches began substituting grape juice for wine in the Lord’s Supper, they, either expressly or tacitly, condemned the actions of Jesus and the universal and catholic practice of the body of Christ throughout history. In doing so, they have also created a stumbling block to spreading the gospel to Roman Catholics and to unbelievers who rightfully hold no scruple against the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages.

 

[MW]

It does not justify wayward practices, but it does mean that our wayward practices - and they are all as wayward as the worshippers themselves - are treated as though they were acceptable because of our savior's perfect righteousness imputed to us. We must not think that our own worship is more acceptable to God than our brother's because we do it more correctly. That is simply wrong.

You are mixing up two different things. Sola scriptura is the formal principle of the reformation; sola fide the material principle. So we distinguish the formal and material principles of worship. God does not treat wayward practices as though they were acceptable. This would justify wayward practices. God will accept a good work that is done imperfectly, but the law of God prescribes what that good work is. Otherwise there would be no way to distinguish good and evil actions. Anything would be acceptable if it were offered in "faith." So yes, formally, worship is more acceptable when it is done in accord with God's will. If what you are saying were true, God would have no regard for His own will. This would leave us with no reason to follow His will.

 

[davejonescue]

My own conceit aside, it is no parade of Oriental learning to point out that both the use of the phrase "fruit of the vine” and Jesus’ own actions when he instituted the Lord’s Supper most assuredly sanction the serving of wine in the Lord’s Supper. At issue is the disturbingly common practice of forbidding the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper.

But isn't the issue that Jesus was not pointing to fermentation as the prerogative, or adding sanctity; but, the fruit of the vine. No more than any other thing he may have mentioned with no then present alternative. If the case is that it is highly unlikely that the beverage present was fresh juice, as opposed to wine, is it because Jesus mandated fermentation, or is it because the preservation of juice was non-existent? This seems that it would have been easily settled by mentioning wine. But he doesn't. He chooses to emphasize the fruit of the vine. For example doesn't Isaiah 63:2-4 paint a picture of fresh crushed grapes as relative to blood, which wouldn't necessitate fermentation for symbolism?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

N.B. Josh is citing Sprague in defense of wine in the Lord's Supper against the early prohibitionists who at that time spoke against using wine, and used alternatives like water; this was before the invention of pasteurization and stable grape juice.

 

[En Kristo]

But isn't the issue that Jesus was not pointing to fermentation as the prerogative, or adding sanctity; but, the fruit of the vine. No more than any other thing he may have mentioned with no then present alternative. If the case is that it is highly unlikely that the beverage present was fresh juice, as opposed to wine, is it because Jesus mandated fermentation, or is it because the preservation of juice was non-existent? This seems that it would have been easily settled by mentioning wine. But he doesn't. He chooses to emphasize the fruit of the vine. For example doesn't Isaiah 63:2-4 paint a picture of fresh crushed grapes as relative to blood, which wouldn't necessitate fermentation for symbolism?

For my part, I only find it helpful to think about the subject on a broader level. I don’t see the presence or absence of alcohol alone, apart from the connections to what Jesus did and said and apart from what the anti-alcohol zealots of the 19th century said and did, as the only issue.

To repeat a previous illustration, if a church crushed grapes for use in the Lord’s Supper and for some reason the fermentation process didn’t produce any given level of alcohol, I do not think that detail matters to God.

I do think that it is offensive to God, deeply offensive, that anyone would in anyway display disapprobation of what Jesus said and did. That’s the issue. It is an incontrovertible fact that that is precisely what clergy, churches and denominations did when they forbid the use of wine in communion.

Read the account of Thomas Bramwell Welch. He was a wine steward in the Methodist church who was so repulsed by the use of wine in communion that he refused to touch it. He invented grape juice for the sole purpose of finding a way to remove wine from the Lord’s Supper. Prior to his application of pasteurization, grape juice as such wasn’t a commodity, particularly prior to the advent of refrigeration. All grape juice began fermenting immediately upon the grapes being squeezed. Welches grape juice was manufactured for and sold to churches for the express purpose of removing wine from the Lord’s Supper. Read the early promotions of Welch’s Grape Juice; they were full of untruthful contradictions of the Biblical account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The entire temperance movement was a condemnation of what the Bible teaches about the moderate use of wine and what Jesus did at the Last Supper.

 

[davejonescue]

The entire temperance movement was a condemnation of what the Bible teaches about the moderate use of wine and what Jesus did at the Last Supper.

I wonder if the Temperance movement was not instead a condemnation of society ignoring the biblical prescription of moderate use in favor of unfettered and wide-spread drunkenness?

 

[EvanF]

You are mixing up two different things. Sola scriptura is the formal principle of the reformation; sola fide the material principle. So we distinguish the formal and material principles of worship. God does not treat wayward practices as though they were acceptable. This would justify wayward practices. God will accept a good work that is done imperfectly, but the law of God prescribes what that good work is. Otherwise there would be no way to distinguish good and evil actions. Anything would be acceptable if it were offered in "faith." So yes, formally, worship is more acceptable when it is done in accord with God's will. If what you are saying were true, God would have no regard for His own will. This would leave us with no reason to follow His will.

Do you believe the worship of grape-juice drinkers is not accepted by God and that God is not pleased with the worshipers for the sake of Christ? Is theirs an unwarranted man-made sacrament because their fruit of the vine is not aged and fermented sufficiently?

I presume you do not believe imperfect worship, although arguably more formally correct, is actually acceptable or pleasing to God in any way apart from the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

 

[En Kristo]

I wonder if the Temperance movement was not instead a condemnation of society ignoring the biblical prescription of moderate use, and instead littered with unfettered drunkenness.

There is no doubt that was in view. Alcohol abuse in the United States beginning in the 18th century was epidemic. The Lord’s Supper was a casualty of the excessive zeal of pietistic moral reformers. If you are interested in it, I could send you a short history that I put together for my own amusement.

 

[Joshua]

Good friend. I don’t think that the issue of the proper administration of the sacraments has anything to do with anyone being wise in their own conceit. Further, there was no ambiguity in the term, “fruit of the vine” at the time that the New Testament was written, it was universally understood to mean wine. Ambiguity was first introduced into the human consciousness in the 19th century.

My own conceit aside, it is no parade of Oriental learning to point out that both the use of the phrase "fruit of the vine” and Jesus’ own actions when he instituted the Lord’s Supper most assuredly sanction the serving of wine in the Lord’s Supper. At issue is the disturbingly common practice of forbidding the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper. That is what churches have done. Whatever post facto arguments are brought to bear on the matter, the simple fact is that when churches began substituting grape juice for wine in the Lord’s Supper, they, either expressly or tacitly, condemned the actions of Jesus and the universal and catholic practice of the body of Christ throughout history. In doing so, they have also created a stumbling block to spreading the gospel to Roman Catholics and to unbelievers who rightfully hold no scruple against the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages.

Perhaps I've misread, but I think we agree? Point being that what God has instituted (wine) is not only sufficient, but good and right, which I believe was the point of the author.

 

[En Kristo]

Perhaps I've misread, but I think we agree? Point being that what God has instituted (wine) is not only sufficient, but good and right, which I believe was the point of the author.

I do think that we are in agreement and frankly, I found your words to be more clear than the august Rev William Sprague.

That said, I do have a propensity to get perhaps a little too polemical in my writing. I am by nature insensitive. Further, I was raised by a no nonsense daughter of a coal miner. On top of that I spent 26 years in the Marine Corps. There is nothing in my background that trained me to take the emotions of people into consideration when discussing things that I regard as strictly rational. When discussing what the Bible says on any given topic, I only care about being true to the text. How that makes people feel simply never registers on my radar.

 

[MW]

Do you believe the worship of grape-juice drinkers is not accepted by God and that God is not pleased with the worshipers for the sake of Christ? Is theirs an unwarranted man-made sacrament because their fruit of the vine is not aged and fermented sufficiently?

WCF 16.1, "Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention."

Formally, it is not accepted; materially, yes, if it is done by faith and there is a genuine belief that the institution is being followed. But even formally one must distinguish between matters of greater and lesser moment, so I wouldn't consider it to invalidate the sacrament, if that is what you are asking. But that does not make it lawful.

I presume you do not believe imperfect worship, although arguably more formally correct, is actually acceptable or pleasing to God in any way apart from the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

WCF 16.7, "Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word, nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.

Formally, there is an acceptance of the THING being done because the thing itself pleases God. Materially it is not because the PERSON is not acceptable. As we see in the case of Abel God accepts the PERSON and then the THING.

The fact that God accepts the PERSON in Christ does not mean He accepts the THING they offer. He has clearly expressed His will on these matters.