Arguments against necessity of using wine for Lord's Supper

Status
Not open for further replies.

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
What are the arguments that you have heard or have yourself used against the necessity of using wine in the Supper? (maybe after accumulating a good list we can debate).

I'll start with some I've heard:


-Wine then didn't have as much alcohol as it does now
-Jesus says, "fruit of the vine" not "wine", He could've meant grape juice or immediate use of the liquid which is freshly squeezed from grapes
-It would be offensive to many in the church to do it today
-What about those with allergies?
-What about alcoholics or former alcoholics in the congregation?
 
I will add to that "the Bible prohibits all consumption of alcohol". The tee-totaler approach.
 
This guy is going to be the guest preacher that day:



[video=youtube;GU0NJveseFA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU0NJveseFA[/video]
 
Families in the congregations have convictions on the matter. I have friends who, though they are aware of the Scriptural teaching on the matter, have decided that they and their families will not touch alcohol, usually because of a history of alcoholism in the family.
 
Such and such isolated Amazon tribe doesn't have any vineyards so they use tropical fruit juice, therefore affluent modern American evangelical congregations can use mountain do and pizza, and if you disagree you're depriving the Amazon tribe of communion.
 
Is there any scriptural refrences of stuff like that one? I mean its hard to say something without scriptural, cultural, or historical evience.

I think the argument for the wine diluted with water approach is tied to that being a common practice in NT times.
 
Doesn't it matter a little more on what the purpose of the Lords Supper is instead of wether what is used?

Although I believe where wine is avalible and accepted than it should be used.
 
"Just as Jesus did not turn water into real wine, wine was not used in the Lord's Supper because Jesus didn't drink wine because wine is sinful."
 
Interesting note on "New wine", Acts 2:13 uses as an argument after Pentacost that the people were drunk! Great examples everyone, keep em coming! :cheers:
 
Acts 2:13 uses as an argument after Pentacost that the people were drunk!

Exactly! And when I brought that up to the gentlemen who used that argument he said "that is the point of the passage. The people were astonished at them and making fun of them because they got drunk on new wine which was impossible."

I thought it best to end the conversation with the gentleman at that point . :lol:
 
Are there different kinds of wine in the New Testament? Ephesians 5:18 says that we should not get drunk with wine.

Just want to clarify that I am not endorsing the view I mentioned (i.e. the that Christ used on unfermented wine). I am simply answering the OP when asked about various rationale for not serving alcohol during the Lord's Supper.

That being said there are different kinds of wine mentioned in the Bible. There is oinos which can refer to any wine. There is also sucros which refers to new wine. My transliteration may be bad. I would rather type in Greek but lack the fonts on my laptop.

New wine or "sucros" will still contain alcohol. In fact new wine can be stored for some time and still be considered new wine. This was especially true. in ancient times.
 
That's no preacher. That's an Emotion-Manipulating-Showman.

:ditto: Not one Scriptural reference in the 7 minutes that I could tolerate. Just an emotion laden P.S.A. against drunk driving. He said one thing that was correct, "Drunkenness is not a disease, it is a sin against God." Then foolishly equated all imbibing with drunkenness.
 
If your still bring up arguments against it:
1)A lack of healthy respect and maturity towards an alcoholic substance, which in turn may create a distraction for the individual and also the church (in direct result of the individual) in properly taking the substance during the Supper.

2) Having grape juice and wine distributes the perceived unity of the church, if both are present due to some members not being able for some reason to consume wine. Therefore all present members should consume grape juice to represent symbolically their unity in Christ.

By the way am not trying to defend these, just bringing out the arguments.
 
Acts 2:13 uses as an argument after Pentacost that the people were drunk!

Exactly! And when I brought that up to the gentlemen who used that argument he said "that is the point of the passage. The people were astonished at them and making fun of them because they got drunk on new wine which was impossible."

I thought it best to end the conversation with the gentleman at that point . :lol:

Apparently he thought it was another miracle!
 
How about the simple fact that the new testament says "wine". Think back to the wedding at Cana, you don't give a bunch of drinkers grape juice and think that they will be fooled into thinking that it is the real thing. I come from a long line of drunks and if I were to hide all of their beer and give them a glass of "O'douls" I would probably get a fat lip. The same goes for wine drinkers. They aren't going to get a sip of Welch's and say "Wow, this is better than the rest! Why did you save the best grape juice for the last?". :duh:
 
Good list of arguments. A couple of comments.

1) It was fairly common to water wine down 1:4 in ancient times, the Greeks did it as well. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use wine at LS just that if you want to water it down you can. Warning: If you do it seems to fill the church with the aroma of real wine - no one will be in any doubt! :)

2) In connection to Travis's comment above I have head a remarkable sermon where the very experienced preacher states in very unequiviocal terms that the wine at Cana was NOT alcoholic. I thought 'this will be interesting'. And it was. His argument was thus, and really you must read it with that shakey, emotion-riden voice one hears sometimes.

Our Lord would not have created alcoholic wine because that would have necessitated him creating something that displayed corruption, and corruption is the result of sin. Fermentation is corruption, and therefore connected to sin. Jesus would never have created something like that, therefore the wine was not alcoholic.

See the fatal flaw?

When Jesus 'miracled' those 2 wee fish (dead fish, because of corruption and sin!!!) into enough wee fish (dead fish, because of corruption and sin!!!) to feed 5000 men plus women and children, I 'd say he fairly clearly showed that he was prepared to create something that showed the influence of sin and corruption.

Likewise in fact the bread. The Process of bread rising is arguably a similar process to fermentation.
 
Last edited:
I forgot one!

"We are not traditionalists here at _____________ Church so we serve grape juice!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top