Juice is not the element!

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the OPC Book Of Church Order, in the chapter dealing with the Sacraments, there is no distinction made as to what substance the element consists of. "The cup" is the only reference to that element of the Sacrament. I think 'we', the congregation, have to rely on our Pastors and Elders to provide the correct elements and procedure for the Lord's Supper. Assuming that the OPC, and its officers allow one, the other, or both, I would think I can have confidence that I am indeed partaking of the Sacrament.

Jimmy,
The standards for the OPC is the WCF and it states clearly a number of times, “wine”.
 
Is worship ever ‘broad’?

Of course it is. There is some breadth to what we may do in worship: We may sing our psalms in whatever order we choose. We may have a long sermon or a short one. If wine is involved, we may use a Merlot or a Cabernet. There's always some breadth. The question is how much is indicated by the Scriptural instructions for the Supper.
 
You’re conflating the RPW and acts of circumstance. That doesn’t work. God commands and directs worship principles, He doesn’t care if we use the air conditioner or if our chairs have cushions. Make the distinction.
 
You’re conflating the RPW and acts of circumstance. That doesn’t work. God commands and directs worship principles, He doesn’t care if we use the air conditioner or if our chairs have cushions. Make the distinction.

Scott, I don't know if you were addressing me or not, but if so...

I intentionally mentioned parts of worship commonly considered elements (singing, preaching, the cup) to show that within the elements of worship there is some measure of variety, some latitude or breadth, if you will. Not every detail is prescribed.

For instance, when it comes to the contents of the cup no specific variety of grape is prescribed. I think we probably agree there (although you never can be sure among Reformed folk). So there is at least some latitude about what goes in the cup. But is Christ's wording broad enough that it includes both fermented and non-fermented juice? As far as I know, it is no violation of Reformed worship principles to assume there is some latitude in his instructions—that some details are left unspecified—and that it is therefore a valid question.
 
Scott, I don't know if you were addressing me or not, but if so...

I intentionally mentioned parts of worship commonly considered elements (singing, preaching, the cup) to show that within the elements of worship there is some measure of variety, some latitude or breadth, if you will. Not every detail is prescribed.

Seems to me, that which I describe in worship are, as I say, acts of circumstance. At least the way I am reading your previous post.

For instance, when it comes to the contents of the cup no specific variety of grape is prescribed.

Red. To be within a biblical description.

I think we probably agree there (although you never can be sure among Reformed folk). So there is at least some latitude about what goes in the cup.

I disagree

But is Christ's wording broad enough that it includes both fermented and non-fermented juice?

There was no refrigeration in Christ’s day. No refrigeration equals automatic fermentation.

As far as I know, it is no violation of Reformed worship principles to assume there is some latitude in his instructions—that some details are left unspecified—and that it is therefore a valid question.

Apply this mentality across the whole of the RPW. This is not Regulative, but normative.
 
Last edited:
Preaching is to be done- this is commanded-the content is a circumstance. Singing the Psalms are commanded- the Psalms chosen on any given day is circumstantial. Wine is ordered for the cup via Christ’s own words. Surely you don’t believe he meant pumpkin juice.
 
Last edited:
It really boils down to one simple question: “Which is more important, every member of Christ’s body being able to partake of the Lord’s Supper, or what percentage of alcohol is in the juice.” I would argue that how someone answers that question speaks about far more then wine or juice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what do you do if a member refuses to drink Grape Juice instead of wine because of principle based on what (wine) Jesus instituted.
 
So what do you do if a member refuses to drink Grape Juice instead of wine because of principle based on what (wine) Jesus instituted.

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in everything, not seeking my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.
1Cor 10:31-33
Offer wine and juice, use gluten free bread, if someone needs accommodations in some way, we do what we can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in everything, not seeking my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.
1Cor 10:31-33
Offer wine and juice, use gluten free bread, if someone needs accommodations in some way, we do what we can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Me thinks u are using the 1 Cor passage erroneously....
 
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in everything, not seeking my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.
1Cor 10:31-33
Offer wine and juice, use gluten free bread, if someone needs accommodations in some way, we do what we can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are accommodating to what is commanded by Jesus.
 
So what do you do if a member refuses to drink Grape Juice instead of wine because of principle based on what (wine) Jesus instituted.

In fact, this is the situation that my family and I find ourselves in at present. The same consideration given to the temperance idea should be given me. Why is it that everyone is so concerned for the teetotalers and not concerned about bruising mine by demanding I drink grape juice?
 
In fact, this is the situation that my family and I find ourselves in at present. The same consideration given to the temperance idea should be given me. Why is it that everyone is so concerned for the teetotalers and not concerned about bruising mine by demanding I drink grape juice?

This is an excellent point, Scott. I think this is why previously, solidly confessional churches have become compromised. Why must it be, when there is a difference of opinion at the Session, Presbytery or GA level, that the confession must be the one to raise it's hands in surrender? Why must the the conscience violations always occur on the same side? Everyone agrees that special considerations will have to be taken in any given congregation (someone mentioned their spouses dire reaction to alcohol. No Christian and no Session should ever want to put a saint in such a position and should make immediate provision).

Like the difficulties in any document, book or any literature, care must be taken to find out the original intent of the author(s). In the case of the WCF (and by stolen extension, the LBCF:p), the authors were pretty clear on intent. They were Puritans. They were not 21st century Millennials. If the details aren't spelled out, the tenor of the whole document gives the overall "feel" to their intent.

It seriously boggles my mind that the largest PCA congregation in Chicagoland, when we visited some six years ago, practiced intinction, had a full band ( I inquired of the band and they had studied Frame's book on "worship" and adopted his view of regulation) and had the fake decorative trees adorning the "stage". How does one, with a straight face, say they are confessional and practice as that congregation does? My guess is the same way as the Methodists, the PCUSA and others: first you admire the slide for its construction and beauty. Then you think it can't hurt to sit on it. Before you know it, the wind in your hair feels good as you slide toward the ground.........

To reiterate, I am not suggestion a Session cannot make provision in special cases, in fact, to properly care for the saints, they may have to from time to time. These are exceptions and should not be the rule. Culture should not dictate worship.....
 
Last edited:
It does boggle the mind. The confession is clear on this matter. I have no idea why this is even an issue of discussion.

For Presbyterians, that being that we see the LS as a sacrament and not just a tribute, i.e. the supper has a level of spiritual mystery in it, to even for a second to consider it as a tool to possibly be the catalyst in apostasy, may be itself, sinful, never mind the substituting the element for something other than that which is commanded.
 
if wine makes my brother stumble, I will never drink wine, lest I make my brother stumble.
It’s amazing that we can make the mesh fine enough to stain gnats and still find a way to swallow elephants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
if wine makes my brother stumble, I will never drink wine, lest I make my brother stumble.
It’s amazing that we can make the mesh fine enough to stain gnats and still find a way to swallow elephants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Again, me thinks u are using this passage erroneously. Do u seriously believe the Apostle was referring to sacramental wine usage? If we use this in the way u are using it, the church prior to the 19th century is guilty of stumbling people, not to forget mentioning Christ instituted wine in the supper....are u saying that Christ was mislead in the miracle at Cana and His institution?
 
Moderating: The below assumes the answer to the question under debate, that it is indifferent if grape juice or wine are used as the sacramental element. If wine is actually commanded, then it is not subject to the rules of use of things indifferent in nature. So it is quite unbecoming to call brethren who think wine is commanded 'strainers of gnats.'
So let's debate the actual question and not assign ill actions or motives to folks. Jack and Logan have put forward the answer to the OP that the NT usage gives enough pause to not agree with the OP's statement. Debate that.
if wine makes my brother stumble, I will never drink wine, lest I make my brother stumble.
It’s amazing that we can make the mesh fine enough to stain gnats and still find a way to swallow elephants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
As well, consider that your use of grape juice stumbles me; given your penchant, the Church should ultimately abstain from the supper completely in fear of stumbling anyone on either ground.
 
Again, me thinks u are using this passage erroneously. Do u seriously believe the Apostle was referring to sacramental wine usage? If we use this in the way u are using it, the church prior to the 19th century is guilty of stumbling people, not to forget mentioning Christ instituted wine in the supper....are u saying that Christ was mislead in the miracle at Cana and His institution?

This is what I was trying to get at earlier, not just in relation to the topic of wine/juice, but the confessional departures in general....
 
I do not drink any alcohol outside of church, but I do take wine at communion. But I was doing some research outside of the reformed circle, and it seems that the argument really is not that clear as to what exactly we should use.

And there is no command to use wine as far as I know. There is a command to take the supper, but not a command for fermented grapes.

How far can we take this argument? I know this situation is not the exact same, but the thought is similar: when we see water baptisms in the new testament, we see only natural water being used, not water treated at a plant with chemicals. Therefore, it is outside of our regulative principle to use water that has been treated in a plant with chemicals to do our baptisms. By using treated water, the Lord is displeased with our worship.

Almost laughable, right?

I know you all are very smart and very wise, and careful about biblical practices, but maybe, just maybe, this is a bit silly. (I don't mean to step on anyone's toes)

As well, I feel bad for those who are denied wine when they want it. We should be considerate both ways.

I do believe wine was probably used in the institution, but I don't think that was the only way the fruit of the vine could have been interpreted.
 
Last edited:
I do not drink any alcohol outside of church, but I do take wine at communion. But I was doing some research outside of the reformed circle, and it seems that the argument really is not that clear as to what exactly we should use.

I would not anticipate nor expect anti-Reformed, anti-confessional folk to speak clearly to this issue. Don't you think the confessionally Reformed and confessional Baptists have both more at stake and take a much more careful approach to the Scriptures than do others?

And there is no command to use wine as far as I know. There is a command to take the supper, but not a command for fermented grapes.

How far can we take this argument? I know this situation is not the exact same, but the thought is similar: when we see water baptisms in the new testament, we see only natural water being used, not water treated at a plant with chemicals. Therefore, it is outside of our regulative principle to use water that has been treated in a plant with chemicals to do our baptisms. By using treated water, the Lord is displeased with our worship.

Almost laughable, right?

We take the "argument" (command) to the ends that we have been directed, no farther, for sure, but no less just as certainly.

I know you all are very smart and very wise, and careful about biblical practices, but maybe, just maybe, this is a bit silly. (I don't mean to step on anyone's toes)

I don't fit in the category of smart nor wise, but we all (especially here on PB) should have enough of these things to know not to invent things then bring them to worship. When we are not so smart or wise, may our Sessions, Presbytery's and GA's bring us back to biblical fidelity when we fail in these areas.

Having come from Rome as a child and 20 years of the complete void of ecclesiology in pop-evangelicalism on top of seeing what is happening in many sectors of the beloved PCA, this is exactly what concerns me.
We need to pray for our Sessions and Presbytery's that God would keep their minds and practices faithful! (I will be doing that for my own today) The slide starts not with "what has God told us?", but with "we need to consider what the people want", "isn't all this minutia", "can't we all just get along", "why can't we use..." (which is the Normative Principle, not the Regulative Principle).
I am no expert on, nor have studied whether grape juice meets the requirement of God for the Supper or not, but the less-than-urgent and non-fearful attitude scares me. Will the OPC, ARP, and RPC be like the PCA in 20 years? (I say this with a troubled mind and heart, not with a superiority attitude) What will the PCA look like.....the USA church? This should bother everyone here greatly......


As well, I feel bad for those who are denied wine when they want it. We should be considerate both ways.

I do believe wine was probably used in the institution, but I don't think that was the only way the fruit of the vine could have been interpreted.
 
Last edited:
The more in-depth I have gone in understanding the biblical law of worship (the RPW), the more I have found it requires us to distrust ourselves and become almost infantile in our thinking. We do well in becoming as babes to whom Christ reveals the Father.

Our Savior says "the fruit of the vine", which could be viewed in various ways, but Paul tells the Corinthians not to drink so much at their services, thus becoming drunk. The approved Standards in every Reformed church all say "wine".

"Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?" Ecc. 7:16
 
The more in-depth I have gone in understanding the biblical law of worship (the RPW), the more I have found it requires us to distrust ourselves and become almost infantile in our thinking.


This is absolutely critical and the necessary conclusion of good, biblical, Reformed, and simple worship! Thanks for sharing it, Blake. As Dr. Sproul has stated on more than one occasion, when you come to see the holiness of our God, like Isaiah, we are undone and see just how corrupt we really are......
 
Our Savior says "the fruit of the vine", which could be viewed in various ways, but Paul tells the Corinthians not to drink so much at their services, thus becoming drunk. The approved Standards in every Reformed church all say "wine".

Again, challenging assumptions, I see a problem with this conclusion. What do we know?
1. We know that the last supper had the fruit of the vine.
2. We know the Corinthians had the fruit of the vine.
3. We know what the Corinthians had was intoxicating.

Yet it does not necessarily follow that the fruit of the vine must be intoxicating, even if we know of at least one instance where it was. B is a subset of A, but it does not necessarily follow that all A=B. It could very well be an entire spectrum.

As to bringing in Reformed Confessions and Puritans, I have an issue with making them speak to a controversy which simply didn't exist in their day and as has also been pointed out earlier, there are further complications in that at least some used the term "wine" to refer to a broad range of things, including freshly squeezed grapes.

It would be like taking literally a Reformed Confession saying to read from the "book" of the Scripture. "Well, they didn't say iPad or Kindle so we can't confessionally use anything other than a physical book." They never had the opportunity to speak for or against iPads and Kindles, so we can't say whether or not they would have been opposed to them. So too, we can't say "they never said anything but wine, therefore they would have been opposed to all else." They may have been but we can't just anachronistically insert our controversies into their times.

As a side note, I'm sure this was debated when it first came up and I'm sure not everyone during the 1800s were dummies. Are there arguments for and against available from that time period? The church debated this and came to a conclusion. They may have been wrong but I'm willing to acknowledge they thought about it seriously.

And let me note once again that I am not arguing for juice. I just don't think the arguments against it are completely logical and assume too much in order to make absolute claims. A biblical case for wine is not the same as a case against juice, and vice versa: an OR is not the same as an XOR. But wine certainly seems to be the safe option.
 
Last edited:
Yet it does not necessarily follow that the fruit of the vine must be intoxicating, even if we know of at least one instance where it was.

Isn't one clear instance where the element is intoxicating enough to shatter the typical arguments of those who would call it sinful or even unwise to use fermented wine? After all, we don't have any clear instance of non-alcoholic drink being used.

"And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do," 1 Chron. 12:32

Can we not step back and discern the times in which we live, and the reasoning usually employed by those who wish to have a non-alcoholic "option"? Is it loving to these souls to cater to them and let them remain life-long weaker brothers?
 
Isn't one clear instance where the element is intoxicating enough to shatter the typical arguments of those who would call it sinful or even unwise to use fermented wine?

Certainly the former, but unless I misunderstood you, that wasn't the point you were making when I replied to you, and wasn't the point I was making, so I'm not sure why you bring it up to me.
 
Personally I feel that the WCF spoke to the element when fermented wine was the obvious choice, probably the only choice. Nothing for them to debate since non fermented grape juice wasn't a beverage of the period as far as I know ?

For what little it is worth, since 1986 I've partook of the Lord's Supper in one Assemblies of God, two SBC, and one OPC congregation. All used grape juice.

Going back to the ironworker's union versus the operating engineers ..... area practice.
 
And let me note once again that I am not arguing for juice. I just don't think the arguments against it are completely logical and assume too much in order to make absolute claims. A biblical case for wine is not the same as a case against juice, and vice versa: an OR is not the same as an XOR. But wine certainly seems to be the safe option.

Brother, I mean this in the most loving way:

deviation from what was instituted and appointed by Christ, is deviation from the command itself.

It seems that the only conclusion you come to is agnosticism towards the Lords Supper. If wine was appointed, then to deviate, one must give a positive case for that deviation. Casting doubt doesn’t answer any questions but only causes doubt. That’s not how we function in Reformdom or Christendom when it comes to elements of worship. The RPW simply states: what is NOT commanded is forbidden. If grape juice (unfermented) is not commanded or practiced in the scriptures, concerning the Lords Supper, we are forbidden to use it.
 
To add:

If Paul states that he handed down to the Corinthians what was handed down to him, from the Lord Himself, in the Supper, than the only conclusion we must come to is that fermented drink is what was instituted. That fact alone should suffice.
 
Brother, I mean this in the most loving way:

deviation from what was instituted and appointed by Christ, is deviation from the command itself.

Brother, I'm a big proponent of the regulative principle. If Christ had said "this wine is the new covenant in my blood" we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But you are making assumptions that lead to conclusions that don't follow of absolute necessity.

It is a fallacious syllogism to say for example that Bob is a man, Bob is bald, therefore all men are bald. And that's what I see you doing with this. The command is the fruit of the vine, the Corinthians drank wine, therefore all fruit of the vine is wine. It's possible but not a logical certainty. If it were, no one would be arguing.

Once again, I'm perfectly content with wine, but I can't in good conscience state that other fruits of the vine are sin.
 
Brother, I'm a big proponent of the regulative principle. If Christ had said "this wine is the new covenant in my blood" we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But you are making assumptions that lead to conclusions that don't follow of absolute necessity.

It is a fallacious syllogism to say for example that Bob is a man, Bob is bald, therefore all men are bald. And that's what I see you doing with this. The command is the fruit of the vine, the Corinthians drank wine, therefore all fruit of the vine is wine. It's possible but not a logical certainty. If it were, no one would be arguing.

Once again, I'm perfectly content with wine, but I can't in good conscience state that other fruits of the vine are sin.

This is wrong as it implies that Paul didn’t hand down wine as the practice to the Corinthians, excplicitly from the Lord. Instead, he states such. At this point, you ignore that fact for the sake of doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top