Good news for a local PCA church, Grape Juice to Wine in Lord's Supper

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've heard in this thread that blue wine that tastes like a Sonic drink may fit the qualifications if it is fermented.
Where? I nor Brandon ever stated that it should be used. The example was used at first as a joke and then to try and understand why one would disqualify it.

Sidebar: Thank you for replying and at least letting us see more of where you are coming from. There’s nothing wrong with your conscience not being able to be as dogmatic that we should just be using wine only. But likewise we must be accepting that other brothers and sisters do you have a dogmatic opinion that we should be using wine only in the Lord supper.
 
Last edited:
Where? I nor Brandon ever stated that it should be used.

Not "should" be but "could" be. Perhaps I missed some underlying inside joke but reading back through the thread you seemed to not have any problem with color or taste as long as it was "fermented grape juice. Which is my technical definition for fruit of the vine." The distinct impression was that if it fit that qualification, taste and color were unimportant. If you meant something entirely different throughout that interchange of a dozen or so posts, then I apologize.
 
He had alluded to himself as the Vine in John 15:1. He was about to be crushed; the fruit of the Vine poured out. Perhaps the reason he used the unusual phrase found only here wasn’t to provide the alternative of unfermented grape drink to our minds, but to recall to mind all the OT allusions to the vine including the crushing and the cheering. As bread calls to mind the sustaining of life.
Good points. MW once spoke of the Bible having a "bread and wine" theology (thereby showing bread and wine to be the elements). He did not elaborate, but this might be part of what he had in mind. I know that "bread and wine" are also found elsewhere together in the Scriptures, such as Psalm 4.
 
Not "should" be but "could" be. Perhaps I missed some underlying inside joke but reading back through the thread you seemed to not have any problem with color or taste as long as it was "fermented grape juice. Which is my technical definition for fruit of the vine." The distinct impression was that if it fit that qualification, taste and color were unimportant. If you meant something entirely different throughout that interchange of a dozen or so posts, then I apologize.
You totally missed my point. There was no joke except the initial picture. As I expressed early on I think all of the qualities of wine are important and I think many of the qualities have symbolism, color, taste, the way it is made, the alcohol, and the fermentation. In fact, I was initially critiqued by Tim for seeing too much symbolism.

Brandon pointed out that it would be no good because of color and taste, I then simply (but likely overly) pointed out what I interpreted to be an inconsistency.

I never once stated that some blue Hawaiian mixed fruit wine was acceptable. I will delete my last 2 responses to you if you want to remove the comment from your reply to Jeri.:detective:
 
Last edited:
Aside from the NT examples, using bread and wine also connects us all the way back to Abraham and Melchizedek. When I first read that account in Genesis my brain popped and then when I read Hebrews connect the priesthood of Melchizedek to Christ my brain popped twice:detective:
 
Last edited:
Grant,

While I would continue cautioning against extremes, I think on a practical level we mostly agree.

We both agree that wine is best.

We both agree that grape juice can be allowed in certain circumstances. (I'm guessing you would rather grape juice than milk, for example, suggesting that you see a similarity between wine and grape juice that makes them somewhat comparable for this purpose.)

We would not refuse the cup of it was grape juice, suggesting by practice that though not ideal, it is legitimate and we believe we are partaking if the cup.

Is this fair? If so, think on a practical level, we are in agreement.
 
Grant,

While I would continue cautioning against extremes, I think on a practical level we mostly agree.

We both agree that wine is best.

We both agree that grape juice can be allowed in certain circumstances. (I'm guessing you would rather grape juice than milk, for example, suggesting that you see a similarity between wine and grape juice that makes them somewhat comparable for this purpose.)

We would not refuse the cup of it was grape juice, suggesting by practice that though not ideal, it is legitimate and we believe we are partaking if the cup.

Is this fair? If so, think on a practical level, we are in agreement.
Tim,

I appreciate the questions. Admittedly, I am still working out some of my own conclusions. I will try to show my current full hand below:

Most of this “wine vs. grape juice” discussion on the Lord’s Supper has never really been on my mind as formerly having most of my church & church leadership experience in the SBC. In the SBC I mostly tried to defend against those who believed drinking any alcohol to be sinful. So most of my own historical experience with the pro-grape juice crowds have been groups who are teetotalers, at least publicly, that demonize alcohol. As expected, most of my Lord’s Supper experience has been with juice and crackers.

When I moved to the PCA (approx. 2.5 years ago), the discussion came up for me again as my Pastor shared with me his 5-10yr vision for our congregation (Lord Willing). One change was to have wine in the Lord’s Supper. After a year in membership I began to be prepped for officer training (specifically for the office of deacon). During this time, I became more convicted that we should only be using bread and wine. I hope that gives some more background.

I do not simply have the opinion that “wine in best”. To be more precise, I would say “wine is what is commanded and is what should be used”. Unless there is some economic shortage of grapes or wine, I do not see really any solid argumentation to use an alternative. Hopefully that clarifies my stance if I was unclear before. Unfermented grape juice does not check the box (for me) of scriptures definition of “fruit of the vine”. Further it does not check the box of the Westminster Standards and BCO that I subscribe to.

I am not sure that I would say that grape juice “can” be allowed. In most all cases I would say wine and bread are what is to be allowed. However, I can also acknowledge that some may have a serious allergic reaction. I do not believe I could insist on wine at the expense of a brother/sister asphyxiating during a Lord’s Supper administration. Further, in reading scripture and the reformers, while it is highly sinful to take the supper in wrong manner, it can equally be sinful to neglect the supper for the wrong reasons (assuming you have the proper elements). Because of this I would likely be willing to find an alternate for someone that has a serious allergic reaction. This type of allergic reaction is not very common, but it can be extremely serious. However, I do not buy the “alcoholism” argumentation. That sin has likely existed as long as wine was known to man. Mankind has a knack for turning things intended for reflecting the beauty of our Lord into sinful disgusting idols (I fall into that group myself btw). Please know that I do not say that as someone cold or inexperienced with the affects of dealing with alcoholism in a personal way.

So technically, you might can say in one circumstance I would be “for” and alternative. However, that would still not constitute split tray, rather wine only with an accommodation based on a serious health condition. @Ryan&Amber2013 & @alexandermsmith , in another recent thread on the Lord’s Supper, have expressed that based on their own conscience and trying to be wise, they abstain from alcohol all of the time EXCEPT at the Lord’s Table. I’ll add that I believe that to be very commendable on many levels. I condemn attitudes that call a brother’s (like @earl40 & @Scott Bushey ) abstaining from lack of wine to be something “horrific”. If they can be labeled horrific, what would one label those who skip the supper (with no medical condition) because they want grape juice (rhetorical)?

I think as I have changed in my understanding of the supper and what is commanded, I would/will likely abstain from the Lord’s Supper if there is no wine; especially, if we were not in some type of economic shortage. In other words, if a congregation was serving grape juice only and I knew there was not some type of massive stretch of wine shortage, I would likely abstain. If un-fermented grape juice was the only available fruit of the vine in the land, I would take the juice. Though I have a preference, I would not abstain over 1 table, 1 cup, sitting, standing, but when we start to mess with the 2 elements (bread and wine), that is when abstaining comes to mind (aside from sin and disputes).

I see no reason to catch “eye ball popping legalist looks” for my stance, especially while the brothers/sisters who choose to abstain because there is no “grape juice” are seen as perfectly acceptable. Tim, I know you do not think me to be a sinful legalist, but if we are honest the “wine-only grumps” in a grape-juice Lord’s Supper congregation often get unjustly labeled as the black pharisaic sheep.

I think that answers all your questions. It is hard to tell where we would land on practical matters without a specific example. In the example you provided from your own congregation I would not have raised division or disruptive arguments if I was just a member. However, if I were an elder, I would not have voted to allow for grape juice in that specific scenario considering you used wine-only prior, and further being the reason was unrelated to a serious medical allergy. I do not mean that as a critique or to be argumentative, rather I am simply giving you my honest and humble 2 cents. I would have even submitted as an elder if out-voted, but at least would have peacefully stated my objection.


@Andrew P.C. said it best here and his wording is often the cry of my inward self during these discussions:

“What Christ has instituted shall not be taken away by one’s own conscience.”

https://puritanboard.com/threads/th...e-who-abstained-from-wine.97847/#post-1196046


Paul says the following the context of 1 Corinthians 11 (I hope none dispute that wine was used in this congregation):
In v.23 Paul says: “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…”(NKJV). I want to follow Paul’s example of trying to follow and deliver (teach) what was received on the night before the betrayal of Christ. I believe wine was no arbitrary selection and that it contains intended symbolism as does the bread (we likely agree to symbolism, just to a different extent).

Finally, I love you brother and I hope you can see I tried to take some time to sit down and ponder your questions in my above response. I mean every word cautiously and with much respect and thankfulness for you striving to serve the bride as a faithful elder. If one could fit my preferences into 1 category, I prefer how the Free Church of Scotland (continuing) and the RPCGA conduct the Lord’s Supper. Now I believe I have shown my full hand.


P.S. @Moderators, I am truly sorry if my thread has caused a lot of annoying “watching”. I would love to at least get a PM from a moderator on any advice and wisdom for my future post. If the “watching” of a more debate-style thread is normal, then let me know that I need not worry. I totally understand and agree with locking debate threads on the Lord’s Day. IF something about the thread (my post) was erroneous or unwise then I would love to be challenged to grow as a poster by the wisdom that has been granted to the moderators/admins. Hopefully, I have left no room for words to be put in my mouth. I will sign off this thread so long as that does not occur. :detective::detective:
 
Last edited:
Tim,

I appreciate the questions. Admittedly, I am still working out some of my own conclusions. I will try to show my current full hand below:

Most of this “wine vs. grape juice” discussion on the Lord’s Supper has never really been on my mind as formerly having most of my church & church leadership experience in the SBC. In the SBC I mostly tried to defend against those who believed drinking any alcohol to be sinful. So most of my own historical experience with the pro-grape juice crowds have been groups who are teetotalers, at least publicly, that demonize alcohol. As expected, most of my Lord’s Supper experience has been with juice and crackers.

When I moved to the PCA (approx. 2.5 years ago), the discussion came up for me again as my Pastor shared with me his 5-10yr vision for our congregation (Lord Willing). One change was to have wine in the Lord’s Supper. After a year in membership I began to be prepped for officer training (specifically for the office of deacon). During this time, I became more convicted that we should only be using bread and wine. I hope that gives some more background.

I do not simply have the opinion that “wine in best”. To be more precise, I would say “wine is what is commanded and is what should be used”. Unless there is some economic shortage of grapes or wine, I do not see really any solid argumentation to use an alternative. Hopefully that clarifies my stance if I was unclear before. Unfermented grape juice does not check the box (for me) of scriptures definition of “fruit of the vine”. Further it does not check the box of the Westminster Standards and BCO that I subscribe to.

I am not sure that I would say that grape juice “can” be allowed. In most all cases I would say wine and bread are what is to be allowed. However, I can also acknowledge that some may have a serious allergic reaction. I do not believe I could insist on wine at the expense of a brother/sister asphyxiating during a Lord’s Supper administration. Further, in reading scripture and the reformers, while it is highly sinful to take the supper in wrong manner, it can equally be sinful to neglect the supper for the wrong reasons (assuming you have the proper elements). Because of this I would likely be willing to find an alternate for someone that has a serious allergic reaction. This type of allergic reaction is not very common, but it can be extremely serious. However, I do not buy the “alcoholism” argumentation. That sin has likely existed as long as wine was known to man. Mankind has a knack for turning things intended for reflecting the beauty of our Lord into sinful disgusting idols (I fall into that group myself btw). Please know that I do not say that as someone cold or inexperienced with the affects of dealing with alcoholism in a personal way.

So technically, you might can say in one circumstance I would be “for” and alternative. However, that would still not constitute split tray, rather wine only with an accommodation based on a serious health condition. @Ryan&Amber2013 & @alexandermsmith , in another recent thread on the Lord’s Supper, have expressed that based on their own conscience and trying to be wise, they abstain from alcohol all of the time EXCEPT at the Lord’s Table. I’ll add that I believe that to be very commendable on many levels. I condemn attitudes that call a brother’s (like @earl40 & @Scott Bushey ) abstaining from lack of wine to be something “horrific”. If they can be labeled horrific, what would one label those who skip the supper (with no medical condition) because they want grape juice (rhetorical)?

I think as I have changed in my understanding of the supper and what is commanded, I would/will likely abstain from the Lord’s Supper if there is no wine; especially, if we were not in some type of economic shortage. In other words, if a congregation was serving grape juice only and I knew there was not some type of massive stretch of wine shortage, I would likely abstain. Though I have a preference, I would not abstain over 1 table, 1 cup, sitting, standing, but when we start to mess with the 2 elements (bread and wine), that is when abstaining comes to mind (aside from sin and disputes).

I see no reason to catch “eye ball popping legalist looks” for my stance, especially while the brothers/sisters who choose to abstain because there is no “grape juice” are seen as perfectly acceptable. Tim, I know you do not think me to be a sinful legalist, but if we are honest the “wine-only grumps” in a grape-juice Lord’s Supper congregation often get unjustly labeled as the black pharisaic sheep.

I think that answers all your questions. It is hard to tell where we would land on practical matters without a specific example. In the example you provided from your own congregation I would not have raised division or disruptive arguments if I was just a member. However, if I were an elder, I would not have voted to allow for grape juice in that specific scenario considering you used wine-only prior, and further being the reason was unrelated to a serious medical allergy. I do not mean that as a critique or to be argumentative, rather I am simply giving you my honest and humble 2 cents. I would have even submitted as an elder if out-voted, but at least would have peacefully stated my objection.


@Andrew P.C. said it best here and his wording is often the cry of my inward self during these discussions:

“What Christ has instituted shall not be taken away by one’s own conscience.”

https://puritanboard.com/threads/th...e-who-abstained-from-wine.97847/#post-1196046


Paul says the following the context of 1 Corinthians 11 (I hope none dispute that wine was used in this congregation):
In v.23 Paul says: “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…”(NKJV). I want to follow Paul’s example of trying to follow and deliver (teach) what was received on the night before the betrayal of Christ. I believe wine was no arbitrary selection and that it contains intended symbolism as does the bread (we likely agree to symbolism, just to a different extent).

Finally, I love you brother and I hope you can see I tried to take some time to sit down and ponder your questions in my above response. I mean every word cautiously and with much respect and thankfulness for you striving to serve the bride as a faithful elder. If one could fit my preferences into 1 category, I prefer how the Free Church of Scotland (continuing) and the RPCGA conduct the Lord’s Supper. Now I believe I have shown my full hand.:detective:


P.S. @Moderators, I am truly sorry if my thread has caused a lot of annoying “watching”. I would love to at least get a PM from a moderator on any advice and wisdom for my future post. If the “watching” of a more debate-style thread is normal, then let me know that I need not worry. I totally understand and agree with locking debate threads on the Lord’s Day. IF something about the thread (my post) was erroneous or unwise then I would love to be challenged to grow as a poster by the wisdom that has been granted to the moderators/admins. Hopefully, I have left no room for words to be put in my mouth. I will sign off this thread so long as that does not occur. :detective::detective:

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain.

Blessings, brother
 
Grant, just as a follow-up, I didn't feel like you adequately captured my position but that's okay. I've had my say and am not going to worry about it.:cheers2:

Not looking for a response to this but here are a couple of things I found interesting from sites dealing with wine history (not Christian and not interested in what was used in the Supper). One says it was often

Bitter, salty and inhumanely vinegary...a thick, dark, syrupy gloop...it seems that the ancients dealt with the issue by mixing wine and water to prevent intoxication. Homer’s Odyssey mentions a ratio of 20 parts water to one part wine, Pliny states a ratio of eight parts water to one part wine was the norm, and Athenaeus writes in a play that three parts water to one part wine was customary.

Another states
Ancient wine would scarcely be recognizable to us as wine. Yes, it was made from the fermented juice of grapes, but what Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and others drank, was not wine as we know it. For a start, it wasn’t clear and bright, like most modern wine, but heavy in sediment and suspended matter: grape skins, twigs, seeds, insects and other vegetal and animal material caught in the bunches of grapes when they were crushed or attracted to the must. Then, wine was seldom drunk straight. The Greeks regarded anyone who drank wine straight as Barbarians and, at the very least, they themselves diluted wine with water. At symposia, the drinking gatherings of upper-class Greek men, the wine was diluted until it was between 25 and 40 per cent of the beverage...

Throughout the ancient world where there is evidence of wine – in China, the Middle East or the Mediterranean region – wine was drunk as a cocktail. It was mixed variously with beer, fruit and berry wines, herbs, spices, sea-water, and other substances. At a royal banquet in Turkey, about 700 BC, the guests drank a beverage composed of grape wine, barley beer and honey mead, all mixed together.

The point being that if this is an accurate description of what the term "wine" could mean, then it seems the term can encompass a good bit and if it really was mixed with a variety of other things like beer and sea water, may not be so narrowly defined as modern "wine" is...which then feeds back into my personal musings on what actually qualifies "wine."
 
Last edited:
Interesting Hodge quote (Systematics Vol 3) I found on my webpage that dates the temperance movement back to the second century:

Some of the Reformed theologians raise the question whether in places where bread and wine cannot be obtained, it is lawful to use in their stead other articles of nourishment, the most allied to them in nature? This question they answer affirmatively; while they insist that the command of Christ and the practice of the Apostles should be strictly adhered to where such adherence is possible.

By wine as prescribed to be used in this ordinance, is to be understood “the juice of the grape;” and “the juice of the grape” in that state which was, and is, in common use, and in the state in which it was known as wine. The wine of the Bible was a manufactured article. It was not the juice of the grape as it exists in the fruit, but that juice submitted to such a process of fermentation as secured its preservation and gave it the qualities ascribed to it in Scripture. That οἶνος in the Bible, when unqualified by such terms as new, or sweet, means the fermented juice of the grape, is hardly an open question. It has never been questioned in the Church, if we except a few Christians of the present day. And it may safely be said that there is not a scholar on the continent of Europe, who has the least doubt on the subject. Those in the early Church, whose zeal for temperance led them to exclude wine from the Lord’s table, were consistent enough to substitute water. They were called Tatiani, from the name of their leader, or Encratitæ, Hydroparastatæ, or Aquarii, from their principles. They not only abstained from the use of wine and denounced as “improbos atque impios” those who drank it, but they also repudiated animal food and marriage, regarding the devil as their author.629 They soon disappeared from history. The plain meaning of the Bible on this subject has controlled the mind of the Church, and it is to be hoped will continue to control it till the end of time.630

In most churches, the wine used in the Lord’s Supper is mixed with water. The reasons assigned for this custom, are, (1.) That 617the eucharist having been instituted at the table of the Paschal supper, and the wine used in the Passover being mixed with water, it is morally certain that the wine used by Christ when instituting this sacrament, was also thus mixed. Hence it was inferred that his disciples in all ages should follow his example. That the Paschal cup contained wine mixed with water rests on the authority of Jewish writers. “It was the general practice of the Jews to dilute their wine with water. ‘Their wine was very strong,’ says an ancient Jewish writer,631 ‘and not fit for drinking unless water was mixed with it.’

More here on Tatian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian
 
Could you guys imagine a handful of faithful priests sitting around outside the temple having a discussion even remotely close to this one? No? Why not? Because absolute adherence to the pattern set down by God's word was engrained into them, lest they be struck dead.

With the entrance of the New Covenant came wonderful simplicity. Out with the animal sacrifices, the oil, the salt, the incense, etc. However, three corporeal substances remain in use, by God's command, in the New Covenant: water, bread, and wine.

If fear of God kept the priests of old from deviating from the pattern given by God, how much more should Christ's pattern be upheld in the New Covenant? Is it not an abuse of grace for a minister to suppose there is less precision required of him, than was required of the priests of old? Yet, this is the common perception, I think.

Always act upon first principles and leave the consequences to God. This is not to say second principles are of no importance, only that they should never be allowed to take the helm of the ship.
 
XVIII. What rites are to be used in the celebration of the Lord's supper.

Concerning rites and ceremonies in the celebration of the Lord's supper, we say only this, that those are principally to be allowed of, which come nearest to the apostolical simplicity.

Girolamo Zanchi, De religione christiana fides – Confession of Christian Religion, ed. Luca Baschera and Christian Moser (1585; 2 vols, Leiden: Brill, 2007), XVI.XVIII, 1: 319.
 
I decided to take a trip to the Principal’s office:D

In the 1800s when some were pressing for Reformed churches to begin the new practice of using unfermented grape juice after Welch had invented it, theologian A.A. Hodge was adamant:

“The contents of the cup were wine. This is known to have been ‘the juice of the grape,’ not in its original state as freshly expressed, but as prepared in the form of wine for permanent use among the Jews. ‘Wine,’ according to the absolutely unanimous, unexceptional testimony of every scholar and missionary, is in its essence ‘fermented grape juice.’ Nothing else is wine. The use of ‘wine’ is precisely what is commanded by Christ in his example and his authoritative institution of this holy ordinance. Whoever puts away true and real wine, or fermented grape juice, on moral grounds, from the Lord’s Supper sets himself up as more moral than the Son of God who reigns over his conscience, and than the Saviour of souls who redeemed him. There has been absolutely universal consent on this subject in the Christian Church until modern times, when the practice has been opposed, not upon change of evidence, but solely on prudential considerations.“:detective:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top