Lord's Supper and the RPW

[TimV]

In Reformed theology God doesn't damn people for not taking communion, or not doing it rightly. Or listening to a woman preacher, or not tithing etc... so the question isn't one of going to Hell or not, it's rather one of personal and corporate sanctification.

 

[TimV]

There's a fun quick and easy method. Get some raw honey, mix at 7 to one (some honey has more moisture, so "about" is OK) shake it up really good and pour into a wine bottle leaving it half empty. Let stand in the garage for a week or two, then filter it with coffee filter paper or something.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

There seems to be a missionary story to counter virtually every potential question regarding convention or practice in the church. I find that amusing.

 

[FrielWatcher]

In Reformed theology God doesn't damn people for not taking communion, or not doing it rightly. Or listening to a woman preacher, or not tithing etc... so the question isn't one of going to Hell or not, it's rather one of personal and corporate sanctification.

So if wine isn't used, personal and corporate sanctification isn't accomplished? And I say this by the letter of the original post because where do you go from that - is not using wine out of line with what scriptural authority? If it is out of line, it is not authorized.

 

[FrielWatcher]

There seems to be a missionary story to counter virtually every potential question regarding convention or practice in the church. I find that amusing.

Can you expound on this?

 

[TimV]

So if wine isn't used, personal and corporate sanctification isn't accomplished?

That's the question under discussion. Would you say using water would be just as good as wine? What would be your reasoning either yes or no?

 

[FrielWatcher]

I am not saying the use of water but the word of the original doesn't state water...it states the use of non-wine. It seems to me that in discussions like this that it really comes down to a lot of legalistic ideation and seeing how far from the word we can get without violating it. What if there are peoples who only have water - no juice, no wine. Can they not commemorate Christ's death then? What if there is a church that cannot afford wine or whatever? But then, is it a matter of affordability where we in a richer nation can afford wine so we should be using it.

I don't know exactly but it seems as though Christ came to set us free from a lot of the nit-pickery that plagued the society before He came. And if we bring up such a topic as being not in line with scriptural authority, and it isn't in line with scriptural authority, then subsequently, God must punish that which is out of His commands, i.e. not using wine. If He didn't, He would be unjust. If we say it is out of line with scriptural authority, a mandate is placed to use wine and nothing else - therefore everything not wine is then considered like water and not useful for communion.

I think that reformed thinking set us free from a lot of the burdens of RC thinking and theology, but how do we celebrate that today? By bringing up questions such as this. I don't know....it seems to me that there are a lot of people dying out there, a lot of people who are genuinely lost and will in the near future and right now being sent to hell while this debate goes on. I am glad the church was reformed and what those of the 1500s and 1600s gave to us so we can compare what was to what is true - justification based on the solas. After being here for several months, it seems as though these questions are beat to death and nothing happens with them because even reformed individuals are still convinced on their own - and nothing will change that. Not one thing that anyone posts here because someone will find another reference somewhere to contradict what another said. I understand what the cost was to give us the reformed faith - I really do. And still, the lost are still dying. I have to go. I wish you all the best. God be with you all on this board.

 

[KMK]

There seems to be a missionary story to counter virtually every potential question regarding convention or practice in the church. I find that amusing.

Can you expound on this?

I think what Jim is saying is that the exception establishes the rule.

'What if' questions never get us very far in discussions about the RPW.

"What if all the men in a town went mute? Would it be OK for a woman to preach?"

"What if you were in the desert with no large bodies of water? Would it be OK to baptize by sprinkling?"

"What if there is no wine available? Would it be OK to partake of the LS with water?"

The answers to these questions do not help us to understand what the ideal is.

The question before us is, "In a normal situation, where wine is available, and a properly called minister is available, and no one is in attendance who is fatally allergic to wine, would it be a violation of the RPW to substitute a non-wine liquid?