Coram Deo
Puritan Board Junior
I am not sure if this goes here under worship or under covenant theology... If the mods want to move it, that is fine...
I am currently in a discussion with a pastor friend with regards to the Lord Supper and the issue with Wine.... He is a Macaurther like Pastor in Theology.... He wants to read Given for you, but it will be a month before he can pick up the book. I quoted to him R.C. Sproul with regards to the wine issue with the following quotes....
“Wine, in Scripture, is a promise from God of the blessings of the covenant (Psa 4:7 “Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than when the grain and new wine abound.”). Though sinful men misuse and abuse this gift, yet God Himself uses it as an example of His goodness towards us. (Ps 104:14-15 “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine which makes man's heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains man's heart.”).
As in all things in creation, wine itself is a symbol, a picture, a reflection of something bigger and greater. It is a picture of the blessings that come from a right relationship with God (Isa 25:6, “And the LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine. Isa 27:2 In that day, "A vineyard of wine, sing of it”). In fact, it is a picture of the new life we have in Christ; (Isa 55:1 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.). Jesus used wine as a symbol of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who cannot be limited by old traditions (Matt 9:17 "Nor do men put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out, and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.") This is possibly, why the very first miracle that Jesus performed before His disciples, authenticating His ministry, was to turn water into wine. (John 2:9-11 “And when the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely, then that which is poorer; you have kept the good wine until now." This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.). This miracle, demonstrated not only His lordship over creation, but was also a picture of what the Messiah would do in His ministry; i.e., take up common, dirty elements (water was practically undrinkable in those days) and transform them into something sweet and wonderful. Drunkenness is forbidden, for that is dissipation; instead, we are to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18). The alcohol in wine is a picture of the Holy Spirit.
How many times is the imagery of God throughout the sacred Scripture linked to certain tastes? He institutes feasts in the Old Testament, such as the Passover. The items He includes in the Passover are carefully selected to remind the people through their taste buds of their rescue from the wrath of God when the angel of death passed over them in Egypt. Calvin once wrote about how appropriate it is that the fruit of the vine is used to symbolize for us the person of our Lord. On the one hand the crucifixion is the most bitter moment in human history, and the bitter aftertaste of wine Communicates this truth.
On this day our redemption was secured. Calvin thus concludes that wine serves well as a symbol of that which makes the heart glad. It also looks like blood, and Calvin comments that this is fitting, too, since the Lord would take something so common and set it apart and give it uncommon association just as He does with the bread. We are then to taste this and know that the Lord our God is good. Search through your concordance and see how many times the imagery of taste is used for God and for Christ throughout the Bible
Thus for churches to use grape juice instead of wine, is to destroy the imagery of the Holy Spirit in communion. Yes, some people refrain from any alcohol because they are concerned about drunkenness. But for a church to refuse to drink wine at communion is to implicitly reject the very image God has given us of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is no accident that modern evangelicalism has widely substituted grape juice for wine.
Thus, we need to reclaim this biblical imagery for communion celebrations to be complete. It is the Holy Spirit who gladdens our hearts, fills our lives with goodness, bursts the old wineskins and gives us new life. We want the Holy Spirit's fullness in our lives and our Churches. Therefore, as a symbol then of the Holy Spirit's work and power, real wine needs to be used instead of the "purple euphemism" in our communion.”
Some people wonder if this is really necessary. Does it really matter if we use grape juice as a symbol of real wine?
Sproul Continues….
“if it's only a symbol, then why not use peanut butter and jelly? God Himself declared what symbols we are to use. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctrinal standards of Presbyterian Churches requires wine; hence all PCA and OPC elders are oath bound to serve wine in the Lord’s Supper. God did not choose grape juice to represent His precious Son's blood, but rather wine. He superintended creation so that sugar would ferment into alcohol, to symbolize the effects of His Holy Spirit leavening and working His will in our life. Let us not allow the wickedness of others, who abuse His good gifts, to steal from us, the imagery God Himself has provided. Let us approach His table with humility, and reverence and obedience.”
The Pastor Friend responded with "The verses that Sproul uses, at first blush, seem like a stretch. In that day, aged wine was the best stuff, so when speaking of a fine banquet he speaks of aged wine. Turning a description into law is a slippery slope. I would have to see a verse that specifically parallels fermented wine to the purity of Christ. "
And of course I responded with
"Anyway, I wanted to answer your question in regards to “The fruit of the Vine”. Ultimately I think the full answer will come with a complete study and understanding of the “Lord’s Supper”. Of course also with a fuller understanding of the Regulative Principle of worship. When we start to understand the nature of the Supper and what the Supper is will ultimately answer questions like Frequency, Elements of the Supper, etc… We must also understand what role the Passover played in the Lord’s Supper and what connection that the Passover has with the Lord’s Supper in order to get a complete picture of the Lord’s Supper. But I would like to give a short answer with regards to “Fruit of the Vine” which also bears some weight… With regards to Sproul’s quotes, I just wanted to sent material along that showed that Sproul used real wine in the sacrament. His premise which was not complete because typing it out by me since it came from a book and was to lengthy to quote was not foundational, but does hold weight of what the Supper is and what the Wine indicates within the Supper and the Imagery that wine communicates….
With regards to the “Fruit of the Vine” I am going to quote from “Given for You” by Keith Mathison and foreworded by R.C. Sproul…..
“Having examined what scripture teaches about wine in general, we must next examine what it says about the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper. As we have already seen, the institution of the Lord’s Supper is recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels. In each of these accounts, Jesus identifies the contents of the cup as the “fruit of the vine”. Because the Lord’s Supper was instituted during a Passover Meal, it can hardly be denied that this “fruit of the vine” was the same wine that was used at the Passover. And, as Joachim Jeremias notes, “to genema tes ampelou (‘the fruit of the vine’) for ‘wine’ is in the Judaism of the time of Jesus a set liturgical formula at the blessing of the cup, both before and after the meal.” In other words, when the historical and grammatical context is taken into account, there are simply no grounds to conclude that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper with anything other than the same wine that was used in the Passover meal.”
Furthermore,
Theologian Rodman Williams provides another faulty argument against the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper.:
“In the three synoptic accounts of the Lord’s Supper the content of the cup is called “fruit of the vine” (Matthew 26:29, etc). This doubtless was wine; however, since wine is not directly mentioned in any of these accounts, it is irrelevant to insist (as some do) that wine must be used. Grape juice equally comes from “Fruit of the vine”.
This argument is similar to those made by Strong, Stevens, and Erickson. Unlike their arguments, however, it contains an obvious self-contradiction. Williams say that all three accounts of the Lord’s Supper called the content of the cup “the fruit of the vine”. Then he says that “fruit of the vine” mentioned in these accounts was doubtlessly wine. Then he contradicts himself by saying that wine is not directly mentioned in any of these accounts. If “the fruit of the vine” is directly mentioned in all three accounts, then wine is directly mentioned in all three accounts. The specific word wine need not be used, so long as an acknowledged synonym for wine is used. It is not irrelevant, therefore, to argue that wine should be used in the Lord’s Supper.
While it is not irrelevant to argue that wine should be used, it is entirely irrelevant to point out, as Williams does, that grape juice comes from the fruit of the vine and is therefore also permissible. Many fruits and berries grow on vines. If William’s argument is valid, why limit ourselves to the juice of grapes? Williams himself does not reject the use of wine simply because he believes grape juice also falls under the biblical meaning of the phrase “fruit of the vine”. This is evident when we see his suggestion that beverages such as milk and tea are also permissible. Milk and tea most certainly do not come from “the fruit of the vine”. William’s entire argument simply ignores the special Jewish liturgical usage of the phrase fruit of the vine. In the context of the Passover meal, the phrase meant “wine,” not any other fruit that happened to grow on vines or the juice that could be derived from those fruits. To argue in the manner that Williams argues is to ignore the historical and grammatical context of Jesus’ words.”"
I have not heard a response back from him yet since I just sent it this morning... Could I have put anything else in? What else should I have written with regards to wine? He wanted a verse that specifically parallels fermented wine to the purity of Christ. Did I leave anything out? I understand that I believe his main problem is a lack of understand of the regulative principle which I am currently discussing with him.....
Any Thoughts?
Thanks,
Michael
I am currently in a discussion with a pastor friend with regards to the Lord Supper and the issue with Wine.... He is a Macaurther like Pastor in Theology.... He wants to read Given for you, but it will be a month before he can pick up the book. I quoted to him R.C. Sproul with regards to the wine issue with the following quotes....
“Wine, in Scripture, is a promise from God of the blessings of the covenant (Psa 4:7 “Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than when the grain and new wine abound.”). Though sinful men misuse and abuse this gift, yet God Himself uses it as an example of His goodness towards us. (Ps 104:14-15 “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine which makes man's heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains man's heart.”).
As in all things in creation, wine itself is a symbol, a picture, a reflection of something bigger and greater. It is a picture of the blessings that come from a right relationship with God (Isa 25:6, “And the LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine. Isa 27:2 In that day, "A vineyard of wine, sing of it”). In fact, it is a picture of the new life we have in Christ; (Isa 55:1 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.). Jesus used wine as a symbol of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who cannot be limited by old traditions (Matt 9:17 "Nor do men put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out, and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.") This is possibly, why the very first miracle that Jesus performed before His disciples, authenticating His ministry, was to turn water into wine. (John 2:9-11 “And when the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely, then that which is poorer; you have kept the good wine until now." This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.). This miracle, demonstrated not only His lordship over creation, but was also a picture of what the Messiah would do in His ministry; i.e., take up common, dirty elements (water was practically undrinkable in those days) and transform them into something sweet and wonderful. Drunkenness is forbidden, for that is dissipation; instead, we are to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18). The alcohol in wine is a picture of the Holy Spirit.
How many times is the imagery of God throughout the sacred Scripture linked to certain tastes? He institutes feasts in the Old Testament, such as the Passover. The items He includes in the Passover are carefully selected to remind the people through their taste buds of their rescue from the wrath of God when the angel of death passed over them in Egypt. Calvin once wrote about how appropriate it is that the fruit of the vine is used to symbolize for us the person of our Lord. On the one hand the crucifixion is the most bitter moment in human history, and the bitter aftertaste of wine Communicates this truth.
On this day our redemption was secured. Calvin thus concludes that wine serves well as a symbol of that which makes the heart glad. It also looks like blood, and Calvin comments that this is fitting, too, since the Lord would take something so common and set it apart and give it uncommon association just as He does with the bread. We are then to taste this and know that the Lord our God is good. Search through your concordance and see how many times the imagery of taste is used for God and for Christ throughout the Bible
Thus for churches to use grape juice instead of wine, is to destroy the imagery of the Holy Spirit in communion. Yes, some people refrain from any alcohol because they are concerned about drunkenness. But for a church to refuse to drink wine at communion is to implicitly reject the very image God has given us of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is no accident that modern evangelicalism has widely substituted grape juice for wine.
Thus, we need to reclaim this biblical imagery for communion celebrations to be complete. It is the Holy Spirit who gladdens our hearts, fills our lives with goodness, bursts the old wineskins and gives us new life. We want the Holy Spirit's fullness in our lives and our Churches. Therefore, as a symbol then of the Holy Spirit's work and power, real wine needs to be used instead of the "purple euphemism" in our communion.”
Some people wonder if this is really necessary. Does it really matter if we use grape juice as a symbol of real wine?
Sproul Continues….
“if it's only a symbol, then why not use peanut butter and jelly? God Himself declared what symbols we are to use. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctrinal standards of Presbyterian Churches requires wine; hence all PCA and OPC elders are oath bound to serve wine in the Lord’s Supper. God did not choose grape juice to represent His precious Son's blood, but rather wine. He superintended creation so that sugar would ferment into alcohol, to symbolize the effects of His Holy Spirit leavening and working His will in our life. Let us not allow the wickedness of others, who abuse His good gifts, to steal from us, the imagery God Himself has provided. Let us approach His table with humility, and reverence and obedience.”
The Pastor Friend responded with "The verses that Sproul uses, at first blush, seem like a stretch. In that day, aged wine was the best stuff, so when speaking of a fine banquet he speaks of aged wine. Turning a description into law is a slippery slope. I would have to see a verse that specifically parallels fermented wine to the purity of Christ. "
And of course I responded with
"Anyway, I wanted to answer your question in regards to “The fruit of the Vine”. Ultimately I think the full answer will come with a complete study and understanding of the “Lord’s Supper”. Of course also with a fuller understanding of the Regulative Principle of worship. When we start to understand the nature of the Supper and what the Supper is will ultimately answer questions like Frequency, Elements of the Supper, etc… We must also understand what role the Passover played in the Lord’s Supper and what connection that the Passover has with the Lord’s Supper in order to get a complete picture of the Lord’s Supper. But I would like to give a short answer with regards to “Fruit of the Vine” which also bears some weight… With regards to Sproul’s quotes, I just wanted to sent material along that showed that Sproul used real wine in the sacrament. His premise which was not complete because typing it out by me since it came from a book and was to lengthy to quote was not foundational, but does hold weight of what the Supper is and what the Wine indicates within the Supper and the Imagery that wine communicates….
With regards to the “Fruit of the Vine” I am going to quote from “Given for You” by Keith Mathison and foreworded by R.C. Sproul…..
“Having examined what scripture teaches about wine in general, we must next examine what it says about the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper. As we have already seen, the institution of the Lord’s Supper is recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels. In each of these accounts, Jesus identifies the contents of the cup as the “fruit of the vine”. Because the Lord’s Supper was instituted during a Passover Meal, it can hardly be denied that this “fruit of the vine” was the same wine that was used at the Passover. And, as Joachim Jeremias notes, “to genema tes ampelou (‘the fruit of the vine’) for ‘wine’ is in the Judaism of the time of Jesus a set liturgical formula at the blessing of the cup, both before and after the meal.” In other words, when the historical and grammatical context is taken into account, there are simply no grounds to conclude that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper with anything other than the same wine that was used in the Passover meal.”
Furthermore,
Theologian Rodman Williams provides another faulty argument against the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper.:
“In the three synoptic accounts of the Lord’s Supper the content of the cup is called “fruit of the vine” (Matthew 26:29, etc). This doubtless was wine; however, since wine is not directly mentioned in any of these accounts, it is irrelevant to insist (as some do) that wine must be used. Grape juice equally comes from “Fruit of the vine”.
This argument is similar to those made by Strong, Stevens, and Erickson. Unlike their arguments, however, it contains an obvious self-contradiction. Williams say that all three accounts of the Lord’s Supper called the content of the cup “the fruit of the vine”. Then he says that “fruit of the vine” mentioned in these accounts was doubtlessly wine. Then he contradicts himself by saying that wine is not directly mentioned in any of these accounts. If “the fruit of the vine” is directly mentioned in all three accounts, then wine is directly mentioned in all three accounts. The specific word wine need not be used, so long as an acknowledged synonym for wine is used. It is not irrelevant, therefore, to argue that wine should be used in the Lord’s Supper.
While it is not irrelevant to argue that wine should be used, it is entirely irrelevant to point out, as Williams does, that grape juice comes from the fruit of the vine and is therefore also permissible. Many fruits and berries grow on vines. If William’s argument is valid, why limit ourselves to the juice of grapes? Williams himself does not reject the use of wine simply because he believes grape juice also falls under the biblical meaning of the phrase “fruit of the vine”. This is evident when we see his suggestion that beverages such as milk and tea are also permissible. Milk and tea most certainly do not come from “the fruit of the vine”. William’s entire argument simply ignores the special Jewish liturgical usage of the phrase fruit of the vine. In the context of the Passover meal, the phrase meant “wine,” not any other fruit that happened to grow on vines or the juice that could be derived from those fruits. To argue in the manner that Williams argues is to ignore the historical and grammatical context of Jesus’ words.”"
I have not heard a response back from him yet since I just sent it this morning... Could I have put anything else in? What else should I have written with regards to wine? He wanted a verse that specifically parallels fermented wine to the purity of Christ. Did I leave anything out? I understand that I believe his main problem is a lack of understand of the regulative principle which I am currently discussing with him.....
Any Thoughts?
Thanks,
Michael