Should we use wine during the Lord's Supper if 15% of members are in recovery

[C. M. Sheffield]

It seems useful to note that distilled beverages with much higher alcoholic content weren't fully popularised until the 18th century. I'm sure that the difference of modern alcoholic beverages from those in Christ's day has to play into the abolitionist movement , AA, and the creation of grape juice.
Having thought more about the discussions I can't think of history as a deciding factor as we're in a different historical situation with regard to what alcoholic beverages are, and as many people weren't allowed to have communion under both kinds in church history. Given that both are different than what Christ drank, I still don't have a problem with wine or grape juice as 'the fruit of the vine'. I am thankful reading the discussions that in either case that communion is about the joy of sinners being accepted at the table of the Lord.

First, it must be noted that while alcohol has surely evolved over the centuries, it was no less alcohol in the days of Noah (2300 B.C.) and Lot (1900 B.C.). If it was strong enough in those days as to render Lot ignorant to the fact that he was fornicating with his daughters then we can safely assume that they had figured out how to make "strong" drink. One needs only consider the many uses of the phrase "strong drink" in the Bible (esp. Proverbs). Drunkenness was a problem in the OT, the NT and throughout the centuries thereafter. It remains a problem today.

Secondly, while history should not be primary deciding factor, it must not be ignored either. Once the counsel of Scripture has been sought out, in matters where Scripture may not speak explicitly, history is a good place to turn for insight and wisdom into the matter at hand.

As for the Roman Catholic practice of denying the communion cup to the laity, this was a very late development of the high middle ages and not characteristic of the Church before that point. It was the effect of the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation which did not appear until the 1200s. Since they believed that the wine was the real blood of Christ, the Roman Church feared it getting wasted on men's beards or split on the floor (ergo the reason Roman priests generally don't have beards). So the Roman Church began only allowing the priest to partake of the wine. But this was not in stone until the late 1300 or early 1400s with the Reformation around the corner. Suffice to say the majority practice of the Church throughout history was communion in both kinds.

The real question being examined isn't so much "is using grape juice ok?" but instead "Are churches that use wine exclusively or at all causing Christians to 'stumble' and sin?" The answer to that question must be an emphatic NO!

I have laid down my explanation to this answer in earlier posts. I would encourage you to consult them if clarity is needed.

 

[a mere housewife]

Dear Rev. Sheffield, thanks for the response.

I'm going to make this my last post: it seems generally that when a discussion turns to referring people back to statements previously read, the discussion is not going much of anywhere . I appreciate the explanation of communion under both kinds: my statement was accurate then, that 'many' people were not allowed to take both kinds of communion. My point regarding the difference in our modern alcoholic beverages was merely that this cannot be presented as if out of nowhere people made grape juice and changed what they were taking for communion. Alcoholic beverages themselves changed first, and that has to have had ramifications on the consumer: probably in centuries past you didn't have 16 yr. old girls squirting hairspray in their mouths just for the alcoholic content, either. To view the reaction to these things as if they came out of nowhere is not an argument I can find convincing.

I have seen statements reading through the various ongoing discussions to the effect that a person who does not receive wine in the sacrament should be disciplined. I have never in my life received wine in the sacrament (our churches have always served grape juice): though I personally have no problem with wine. Yet, even in this apparently unsacramented state I have been appalled at some things expressed that seem to indicate a negligible idea of the way God uses these means to the weak when the Lord's Table has been so much to me. I am grateful for my church though I disagree with their position on alcohol: for their use of grape juice has been a symbol of true joy: that of sinners being received in all their weakness, that of fellowship with one another even in our fallen estate, in our union to Christ. I am devastated to think that this 'joy' could possibly be safeguarded by keeping a weak brother away from the blood of Christ because he cannot partake of alcoholic content 'in faith' (he's too weak to eat: let's starve him?); as I am saddened to think that anyone would exclude a member with a severe gluten allergy from the 'one loaf' and in the name of unity, divide the body. I understand that not everyone arguing these positions is arguing the same things. But after reading and being made to doubt whether I have even had communion in Christ's body and blood (but I know I have: I remember the joy) I conclude that it's better to have grape juice with your brother than to drink wine alone. This is what the joy of the body and blood of Christ is really about.

Thank you again.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Heidi,

In your response you have not addressed the points I have raised. Yours seems to be more of an appeal to emotion than to Scripture (e.g. being "devastated" by something I haven't suggested). You have not addressed the points made in my post. I asked the question "Are churches that use wine exclusively or at all causing Christians to 'stumble' and sin?" I would like you to answer that question.

You see, you are only being sensitive to one side of this issue: the alcoholics. For that reason you feel that offering wine is somehow insensitive and unloving. However, there are other Christians to be considered: those, who from a sincere biblical conviction, believe that wine is the only biblical substance to be used in Communion (WCF 29.3; WSC Q. 96). I could just as easily argue that by not offering wine, a church is being insensitive to their convictions, and effectively excluding them from the Table, forcing them to go elsewhere. Is not what you spoke of earlier being done to them?

Please, address these points and questions and the discussion will be fruitful.

 

[DonP]

There are no Christian Alchoholics. Only Ex alcoholics who have been cured by their conversion. If one continues in sin he is not a Christian. Now each of us has areas where are temptations are stronger but this does not mean we are not to participate in church or we should alter worship because of it.

What do we do with Ex pedophiles. Tell them no need to come to church, worship at home because of all the little kids at church they will see??
Or an exhomosexual, shall we tell them stay home because their are people of the same sex at church, maybe even other exhomosexuals?
Christ prayed for His people that their faith fail not, that the evil one not get them, that they persevere and so they shall. The problem appears when we let so many people in as members who do not have a credible profession of faith, or at least that we excoomunicate so few who manifest they are not yet converted..

We have to do a better of of teaching Definitive sanctification and mortification of sin and 1st John.

Self Control is a fruit of the Spirit. The fact there are temptations in the world is not reason to leave the world. Then nor would it be to not worship God as He prescribed, as if He did not know there would be alcoholics he converts.

I say there are more addicts in churches today than there are alcoholics. There are shopoholics, talkoholics, sickoholics, depressionoholics, internetoholics, TV and VideoGamoholics, fashionolics, moneyoholics and worldoholics, etc. and all of these are just as sinful. We are bigots who would consider alcohol any worse.

If they would stop listening to the lies of the devil and the world telling them they have some disease or genetic propensity other than a sin nature we would not be so deceived. Every tendency can be said to be genetic, to anger, or depression etc.

But God tells us the truth. 1 Cor 10:13
13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
NKJV

To say it is is a temptation to participate in the clearly prescribed worship of God is heresy.
The world and its lies and our experience is not the standard for God's people.

Having said this, basically to point out that word only and nothing else is our guide to worship, that a person in prison will not be given anything except grape juice which has a very minimal amount of alcohol in it because they can't remove it all.
So when an ordained minister chaplain, serves communion to them, this si all they get, I think it is sacrament to a believer.

The whole question is of course doing your best. If you have no minister then you pray. Not usurp the authority of God, when you have no men you do not ordain a woman.

 

[Edward]

There are no Christian Alchoholics. Only Ex alcoholics who have been cured by their conversion. If one continues in sin he is not a Christian. Now each of us has areas where are temptations are stronger but this does not mean we are not to participate in church or we should alter worship because of it.

There is no gentle or diplomatic way for me to put it.

That statement, "If one continues in sin he is not a Christian." shows a complete lack of understanding of reformed theology, the Westminster Standards, and the basics of the Biblical model of salvation.

I'm frankly shocked to read it here.

CHAPTER XIII.
Of Sanctification.

I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome: and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

 

[Paul Nowlan]

There are no Christian Alchoholics. Only Ex alcoholics who have been cured by their conversion. If one continues in sin he is not a Christian.

Is this a misprint?

 

[Eoghan]

Keep wine as an option...
based on Biblical command

Now options versus commands - that would seem to be a no brainer!

In church we had communion in individual glasses - a response to using non-disinfecting wine (in an anti-bacterial silver cup). So not only do you change the drink you better be ready to change the communal sharing aspect.

 

[calgal]

Heidi,

In your response you have not addressed the points I have raised. Yours seems to be more of an appeal to emotion than to Scripture (e.g. being "devastated" by something I haven't suggested). You have not addressed the points made in my post. I asked the question "Are churches that use wine exclusively or at all causing Christians to 'stumble' and sin?" I would like you to answer that question.

You see, you are only being sensitive to one side of this issue: the alcoholics. For that reason you feel that offering wine is somehow insensitive and unloving. However, there are other Christians to be considered: those, who from a sincere biblical conviction, believe that wine is the only biblical substance to be used in Communion (WCF 29.3; WSC Q. 96). I could just as easily argue that by not offering wine, a church is being insensitive to their convictions, and effectively excluding them from the Table, forcing them to go elsewhere. Is not what you spoke of earlier being done to them?

Please, address these points and questions and the discussion will be fruitful.

So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.

 

[Hungus]

So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.

Obviously these are unregenerate people

Note I do not agree with the above statement it is purely hyperbole for the sake of argumentum ad absurdum

 

[calgal]

So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.

Obviously these are unregenerate people

Note I do not agree with the above statement it is purely hyperbole for the sake of argumentum ad absurdum

Sadly that would be the response I would probably receive and that would be unfortunate. The above mentioned folks have quite enough challenges without self righteous pharisees putting more barriers in their way.

 

[DonP]

So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.

Obviously these are unregenerate people

Note I do not agree with the above statement it is purely hyperbole for the sake of argumentum ad absurdum

Really, so God does not save people in prison ?? Hmmm. Why do we have prison ministries then and what about those God saved in Prison with Paul?

Yes those may be an exception to the rule, but we need to make provision for them.

My friend consider one day you may be in prison.
Not all in prison are there justly, nor are all there unsaved. Nor is it impossible for one in there to be chosen and converted by God.

Again circumstance does not dictate our practice but we must consider it in the determination of an unclear rule or make it an allowable exception to the rule

1 John 3:14 He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
NKJV

1 Cor 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard , or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. KJV

1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. NKJV

1 John 3:3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. NKJV

Rom 6:13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
NKJV

As much as they were a slave and bound to sin then now they are free from that and bound to live in righteousness.

The carnal christian heresy has so permeated religious teaching today as well as a licentious attitude toward worldliness and tolerance of sin that we are shocked to consider that one who lives in bondage to sin is not converted.

So yes we all have temptation but no more an alcoholic than an angry man, or a pedophile, or whoremonger, or pornographic observer or a liar or slanderer, or any other thing that controls a person.

We are delivered from these passages are lies. including 1 Cor 10:13. It is a lie if the world is right and alcoholism is not sin and is a disease that should be allowed or homosexuality is due to genetic indistinction, etc.

No we are all tempted and have weaknesses of our flesh, genetics, but we can not blame the flesh and say God I have the anger gene I have to keep killing people, and I can't be around people who make me angry.

How pathetic. The same goes for a person weak with sugar or alcohol. A diabetic has no right to keep eating altered refined sugar until it kills them.

No one can continue to practice a known sin and have any hope they are converted.

Therefore yes any alcoholic can have a small sip of wine and have no problem if they are converted.

At our church we don't even fill those tiny cups much more than half way.

Some might say I don't need to see a woman fully naked I get affected if they have a just a short skirt. So should all women wear a burka for them.

Though I am not opposed to much greater coverage of women I doubt you will get them back to head coverings and long skirts or robes any time soon so I suggest we treat the alcoholic the same as an ex fornicator, ex pedophile or an ex homosexual or any other sinner. We tell them God WILL Deliver them from their sin and to use self control not from the flesh alone but from the Spirit.

Shall a glutton never eat because each time he has to have some food he wants more???

Now who is absurd?

We need to treat sin as sin and sinners as sinners and stop being bigots and permissive and allowing the devil controlled world and science to be our authority above the Word.

I see alcoholics cured all the time and drink again with no problem and many are not even converted,. They just learn how to take back control of their lives and make decisions, commitments which by common grace men are able to do. Now there is no guarantee without conversion.

Abuse is abuse, sin is sin and God never allows one to be tempted above what hey are able to bear so there is no excuse to say I have to sin because I took communion.

What a sick and worthless christianity that would be.

It doesn't matter what you want to believe, if you can't reconcile it with these passages above then it is error.

Again I am not saying we must use wine. I am saying lets not pervert scripture and use human rationalizations as a reason to draw a conclusion.

1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. NKJV

Now a man may be a prisoner and be saved, but a man may not still be one of these and be converted.
Only ex Drunkards, exgluttons. ex covetous, ex thieves, ex adulterers, ex homosexuals, ex porneias

So if one is an ex fornicator, then it is no problem for him to live in a world of scantily clad women. God does not say, leave the world, move to a monastery or christian commune, maybe he must put out his eyes, if he refuses to resist temptation, gain the victory over it, mortify it, but he is to come to church.

Nor is it a problem for an ex glutton to eat food, nor an exhomosexual to see men. This is sanctification. God delivers us from sin and never ever tempts us above what we are able to bear. So Christians do not continue in gross sin, though they may commit a sin, it is not a part of normal life, it is a rarity not a practice. They have been converted from sin to live righteously. One who is not in this state needs some serious help and prayer possibly for conversion bit at least deliverance from sin and strength in temptation.

 

[Hungus]

Don, did you miss my statement about hyperbole and argumentum ad absurdum? Possibly where I stated "Note I do not agree with the above statement" in reference to "Obviously these are unregenerate people"

 

[DonP]

Have you considered where the 2000 year old + practice of replacement of wine with grape juice came into the church?

Go study the life of Welch's had its beginnings in 1869 when Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch successfully processed the juice of unfermented Concord grapes. Today, fruit juice processors continue to use the same principles of pasteurization that Dr. Welch pioneered in his Vineland, New Jersey kitchen.

Also checkout his family's relationship to prohibition. here's some good history you didn't get taught in school
Welch's Grape Juice, Worldly Wisdom, and Wine Fundamentally Reformed

 

[Hungus]

Did who consider? You is rather ambiguous.

 

[DonP]

Don, did you miss my statement about hyperbole and argumentum ad absurdum? Possibly where I stated "Note I do not agree with the above statement" in reference to "Obviously these are unregenerate people"

Yes I guess I did not understand. Sorry. I disagree with someone I am sure, just not who.

More word for those who think we can remain living in sin and have been converted.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. NKJV

So strange to me that a Calvinist who will argue so strongly about how dead a person is with no spark of life in him when speaking on total depravity but when it comes to conversion, repentance unto life and sanctification, dead only means slightly wounded with not only strong risings but vital control such that any temptation could cause one to go back into a lifestyle of drunkenness.

And how arbitrarily they pick which sins this is acceptable for. I am sure they would not allow for one being so weak as a pedophile or a murderer or a homosexual but for gluttons, hatred, contentions, selfish ambitions, etc. these they are acceptable of significant recurrent and persistence in as being consistent with saving faith.

In fact some may even be having those feelings at me right now for siting these verses and thinking as I do.

Some people will be extremely surprised on Judgment day

Matt 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' NKJV

And remember all of you who say we must use wine because Christ did, you have to use whole grain bread too, none of that modern bleached white bread they did not have back then. Real food is what they had. If one symbol is important to be the same so is the other.

And if you live where there are no grapes, can you use cherry wine or if no fruit can you use tomato juice or some other or must it be a vine fruit like berry juice or ??

Having said this keep in mind I do prefer wine and whole grain bread but I would not say there are no exceptions, and those who for some reason will not or cannot get wine or whole grain are not partaking of the sacrament or even rightly partaking. They may, as a church with a poor minister, not be in as healthy a state, but it is the heart and intent God judges.
So for a man who wishes he could use wine and can't it will be less offense than one who could use wine but doesn't because he doesn't want to offend those convinced by prohibitionists and financial swindlers that God can't sanctify people enough to handle a swallow of wine.

 

[calgal]

And Don thank you for showing everyone here the reason folks with any "challenges" put on a happy face at church and don't share challenges. And I am truly appalled that anyone can state that my declining to eat a smore is what saves me and not the Blood of Jesus.

 

[DonP]

Sadly, We are not as sanctified as we are opinionated without adequate study and experience to give us wisdom to go with our partial knowledge.
Most likely I am as guilty of this as any who dare to call themselves Christ's.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.

Calgal,

All of your questions avoid interaction with the point I was making and instead center around various hypothetical questions which miss the real question of what the Scriptures teach and our Confessions maintain.

As for the "Felon" in the half-way house, being a felon does not prohibit one from the free exercise of religion, be they Jew (who use wine in the passover), Roman Catholic (use wine exclusively in the Eucharist), or Christian. Secondly, I doubt the amount of wine in Communion would be traceable on a Breathalyzer. If it were, that person would be wise to notify those responsible for them of their observance and provide the church's contact information if further proof was needed. Bottom line, you example is extreme and over the top.

As for the person with some kind of a reaction to grapes or alcohol, your question assumes a rigidity that is insensitive to these kinds of considerations. Any pastor with a member with such needs would be perfectly justified in offering them a non-grape alternative, but this would exclude grape juice as well.

All that said, these situations in no way form a normative principle on which the church's Eucharistic practice should be built. Your argument, like the one I addressed earlier, is simply an appeal to emotion. You have not answered the question I originally posed to Heidi. I will say to you what I said to her: "Are churches that use wine exclusively or at all causing Christians to 'stumble' and sin?"

Please, address these points and questions and the discussion will be fruitful.

 

[calgal]

So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)? Or the person allergic to alcohol or on meds that cause a nasty reaction to the grape: They are out of luck? Please address these points and questions and the discussion may be fruitful.

Calgal,

All of your questions avoid interaction with the point I was making and instead center around various hypothetical questions which miss the real question of what the Scriptures teach and our Confessions maintain.

As for the "Felon" in the half-way house, being a felon does not prohibit one from the free exercise of religion, be they Jew (who use wine in the passover), Roman Catholic (use wine exclusively in the Eucharist), or Christian. Secondly, I doubt the amount of wine in Communion would be traceable on a Breathalyzer. If it were, that person would be wise to notify those responsible for them of their observance and provide the church's contact information if further proof was needed. Bottom line, you example is extreme and over the top.

As for the person with some kind of a reaction to grapes or alcohol, your question assumes a rigidity that is insensitive to these kinds of considerations. Any pastor with a member with such needs would be perfectly justified in offering them a non-grape alternative, but this would exclude grape juice as well.

All that said, these situations in no way form a normative principle on which the church's Eucharistic practice should be built. Your argument, like the one I addressed earlier, is simply an appeal to emotion. You have not answered the question I originally posed to Heidi. I will say to you what I said to her: "Are churches that use wine exclusively or at all causing Christians to 'stumble' and sin?"

Please, address these points and questions and the discussion will be fruitful.

Yes you will be causing these brothers/sisters to stumble:

1. former felons do lose many of their rights until they are "off paper" aka off parole.
2. Wine will cause problems for anyone with certain medications or certain medical conditions that grape juice will not impact.
3. Your point sir is that you fail to understand that you will cause people to stumble by offering them wine only: they have to choose between their health/freedom and taking the Lord's supper. And that is not a choice anyone should be forced to make. 4. Lastly sir I point you to Romans 14:21 & 1 Thessalonians 5:14.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Calgal,

Answer to 1: Each state determines what rights are lost. None of the 50 states takes away a felons 1st Amendment rights, namely, the free exercise of religion. Typically, a felon only looses the right to vote. He may also loose the right bear arms (if his crime was violent). Again, none of this matters to our discussion.

Answer to 2: I said in my answer to your last post that a pastor is fully justified in offering an alternative for someone with medical issues. This goes without saying. But let us also remember, that this "hypothetical" situation bears no weight on the biblical, historical, and confessional practice of using wine in communion.

Answer to 3: So, let me get this straight; for the first one thousand eight hundred and sixty nine years of the Church's history, the Church led untold droves of brethren to sin in their observance of the Lord's Supper by offering only wine? Really? To suggest that anyone must "choose between their health/freedom and taking the Lord's supper" is just over the top and no one has advocated anything like that in this thread. Your rhetoric is unnecessarily inflammatory.

Answer to 4: Romans 14:21 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper. Wine was the prescribed element for its observance. By your interpretation, your confessional standard (Westminster Confession 29.3), is in direct contradiction to Romans 14:21 and encouraging the practice of sin! Is that what you believe?

As for I Thessalonians 5:14, A church using wine in Communion in no way violates the directives in this verse. To even imply that it does would again put you at odds with the your denomination (PCA), their Standards (Westminster), all of the the Reformers, and every saint before them.

I would encourage you to avoid hypothetical scenarios and instead deal with what the Scriptures teach and what our Confessions maintain.

 

[DonP]

So what do you tell the former felon who is required to be breathalyzed when he or she returns to their halfway house (and any consumption of alcohol = return to prison)?

Calgal,

All of your questions avoid interaction with the point I was making and instead center around various hypothetical questions which miss the real question of what the Scriptures teach and our Confessions maintain.

As for the "Felon" in the half-way house, being a felon does not prohibit one from the free exercise of religion, be they Jew (who use wine in the passover), Roman Catholic (use wine exclusively in the Eucharist), or Christian. Secondly, I doubt the amount of wine in Communion would be traceable on a Breathalyzer. If it were, that person would be wise to notify those responsible for them of their observance and provide the church's contact information if further proof was needed. Bottom line, you example is extreme and over the top.


All that said, these situations in no way form a normative principle on which the church's Eucharistic practice should be built. Your argument, like the one I addressed earlier, is simply an appeal to emotion. You have not answered the question I originally posed to Heidi. I will say to you what I said to her: "Are churches that use wine exclusively or at all causing Christians to 'stumble' and sin?"

Please, address these points and questions and the discussion will be fruitful.

As a minister of the word I encourage you to do some ministry to men in prisons. It is a great ministry and many get saved and crave solid teaching.
Then these will no longer be hypothetical to you.

1. Prisoners get grape juice no alcohol is allowed. Not even Jews.
2. Those out of prison on parole are tested on breathalyzer and yes a communion amount will show up. Some even wear an alcohol detector which will detect mouthwash with alcohol swiched and not swallowed, they use special alcohol free mouthwash

I agree these can not absolutely determine a practice if scripture is clear. If it is not clear then they should be taken into consideration in establishing a practice.

ie there is no way God would have ever ordained a sacrament where everyone could not partake, like immersion which is not available to all people everywhere. Eskimos who dis not have pots big enough to put people in and heat water over fires. Ridiculous to even consider, and deserts where there is no deep water. Simply shallow oasis where one can go down into it and pick up water to pour or sprinkle over the heads of others. As the baptism in the Red Sea where the only ones immersed were the wicked as also with Noah.

But if we believe that in the institution or instructions of the Supper, wine is clearly identified as a medium and you also consistently use whole grain bread so that both elements are as they were, then we would see these other situations as exceptions and find some way to accommodate those people. ie nonalcoholic or non-allergic substitutes.

As for offending a weaker brother I do not think this applies since one who has an allergy is not a weaker brother. And one who is on parole or in prison is not a weaker brother so these should speak to the elders to make special provision for them.

As for someone struggling with sin and temptation to be a drunkard, they also need to make special provision with the elders for counsel so they do not go to hell for continuing in sin and not getting it mortified as mentioned earlier. But if for their weak conscience sake and if by determination of the elders they now have a credible profession and are allowed to partake but fear the power of God in them is not strong enough to overcome a sip of low alcohol wine, and if they do not believe 1 Cor 10:13 and trust God to give them grace to obey his word and handle the sacrament and instead believe the lies of the world that they will always be a drunkard and an addict and not even God is able to change them as he has changed the desires in others, then perhaps the elders would for a time go ahead and make special provision for that person as well. along with these exhortations and instructions.

God can change a drunkard's heart and desires as much as a slothful person, liar, depressed person or angry person or any other sinner.
And any who feel weak to a sin should be fasting and praying for relief, getting discipline and counsel from the church to help them mortify it and crucify their flesh with the desires.

1 Cor 10:13 and 1st John apply to drunkards, homosexuals, fornicators, covetous as well as any other sinful desire, whether genetic tendency or not.

 

[Wannabee]

When a discussion regarding doctrine and practice in light of that doctrine gains pragmatic footing then just about anything can be justified, depending upon the context. Regardless of the repercussions of sin, the argument must be based on biblical precept, not experiences, emotions or any other temporal considerations.

What does God's Word say? How is the RPW applied. Anything beyond this is extrabiblical.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

When a discussion regarding doctrine and practice in light of that doctrine gains pragmatic footing then just about anything can be justified, depending upon the context. Regardless of the repercussions of sin, the argument must be based on biblical precept, not experiences, emotions or any other temporal considerations.

What does God's Word say? How is the RPW applied. Anything beyond this is extrabiblical.

A more simple, to-the-point, and biblical response could not be asked for. Thank you. I have been astounded by the willingness of some to frame their entire arguments around pragmatic, man-centered suppositions. I'm new to PB and while I didn't anticipate being in agreement with everyone, these kinds of approaches to doctrine and issues have surprised me.

Thanks again.

 

[itsreed]

Correct me if I'm wrong brothers, but on what exegetical basis do you conclude it must be wine? I know what the texts say. Consider this before assuming something is misfiring in my synapses:

If pasteurization were known of in ancient times, what convinces you that they would not have served grape juice as the regular dinner beverage? Or if water treatment processes were known, how do you know that they would not have simply been a water drinking community?

My point being is that the case for wine only is inferential at best. I'm familiar and comfortable with the arguments making connection between wine and purifying. Yet they are not conclusive, not "necessary". Its interesting that for some these inferential arguments trump the similar but opposite inferential arguments against using wine based on the host of biblical data on wine and judgment. As at least there are more of these texts, maybe the stronger inferential case is against using wine - if the fruit of the vine is available in a non-alcoholic form.

On what exegetical basis do we conclude that wine served at the LS was not merely incidental? On what exegetical basis do we conclude that if Jesus had a bottle of Manischevitz and Welch's before him, he would say, "give me the Mani."?

Consider some of the info. provided already by others, that the ancients understood the "danger" in wine and ordinarily cut it with water till the alcoholic qualities only effected it purity, and eliminated (practically) its judgment attributes. This, in effect is what grape juice is. By a different process, its purity has been stabilized a 0% alcohol.

For the record, I prefer wine, as I appreciate both the textual and historical consistency it presents (Shiraz left under the communion lid for whole service hits you in the face with a distinct "blood" aroma when you uncover it.)

I am concerned, however, that I not let my preferences bind another's conscious where God has not.

Again, and sincerely, I'd appreciate the exegetical argument that shows God has indeed bound my conscious. I will joyfully shepherd others in the same manner. Until then, I will lead with my preferences gently at most.

 

[JennyG]

Reed, that's really interesting.
I don't say you're right, but actually the same thought has been knocking at the back of my mind too. We know they USED wine, but even so....it's somewhat like when I was discussing OT polygamy with a teenager horrified by it. On one occasion she had me reduced to digging in my heels and saying "show me the text that says, Go thou and do likewise!!"
Ok it's not really like that at all, except that I would be puzzled to show a text on wine use that says in effect "go thou and do likewise".
"Do this as oft as ye shall drink it" seems much less categorical.
But I'm ready to learn.

 

[DonP]

Point is, why change it unless there is a strong reason to.

So the question is not why use wine, but why would you not? Is there any good reason?
No
So we use wine and make exceptions as needed.

We always continue as it was unless we are told not to, in the worship of God.

They could have used water. They drank water in those days.

And it had nothing to do with pasteurization it had to do with preservation.

As for alcohol, grape juice contains alcohol, they don't remove it all. It just has very low levels. So the question is how much alcohol is an issue?

As for alcoholics, much of their physical weakness has to do with the fact they generally have a lage yeast overgrowth in the intestines and when they get sugar in their diet the yeast makes alcohol inside their intestines.

So they never go off of alcohol unless they go on a no sugar diet and take supplements to reduce the yeast load and probiotics to get the good healthy bacteria restored and growing on the intestinal wall to prevent regrowth of yeast and other pathogens.

 

[Paul Nowlan]

Point is, why change it unless there is a strong reason to.

So the question is not why use wine, but why would you not? Is there any good reason?
No
So we use wine and make exceptions as needed.

We always continue as it was unless we are told not to, in the worship of God.

They could have used water. They drank water in those days.

And it had nothing to do with pasteurization it had to do with preservation.

As for alcohol, grape juice contains alcohol, they don't remove it all. It just has very low levels. So the question is how much alcohol is an issue?

As for alcoholics, much of their physical weakness has to do with the fact they generally have a lage yeast overgrowth in the intestines and when they get sugar in their diet the yeast makes alcohol inside their intestines.

So they never go off of alcohol unless they go on a no sugar diet and take supplements to reduce the yeast load and probiotics to get the good healthy bacteria restored and growing on the intestinal wall to prevent regrowth of yeast and other pathogens.

Don, you have made a number of health claims lately.

One, on another thread, you claimed very long life spans in years past for people with "simple diets."

Here, you have made more claims.

Being that this site is visible world wide by people of *all ages*, could you please provide credible and detailed evidence from reputable sources, like accredited universities and licensed MDs. Please also provide peer-reviewed evidence.

I am not disputing these claims, but I don't think the PB or the Christian community at large, wants to propagate unfounded health claims.



Many claims have been made, by many, on this site, such as communion wine is always not hazardous to problem drinkers and man-made drugs are to be avoided.

This claims may cause weaker brothers - or ignorant lurkers - to stumble. Please be careful and provide credible evidence.

Also, these claims and church practises have legal implications.

If a pastor preaches that no accommodation is allowable for reformed alcoholics and a reformed alcoholic drinks Communion wine and fall off the wagon, I wonder what a lawyer may say?

"You Pastor.....by your own Bible and confession say that you are obligated to care for your flock (who pay your salary).

You Pastor ......., knew this man had a drinking problem.

You Pastor .....didn't feel it necessary to accommodate this problem with grape juice.

In fact, you Pastor .......applied subtle pressure and guilt about self control on this admitted former alcohol."

(I believe this term may be undue influence.)

Please be careful. I've been in churches that outreach to troubled souls. This situations are tricky. I've known troubled souls that didn't follow doctor's advice and took "a step in faith." Please be careful.

 

[OPC'n]

Is this the longest post on PB yet?

 

[Paul Nowlan]

My apologies Sarah. This issue really gets my goat. I can't shut up.

BTW sorry to nitpick, but in another thread I believe you referred to a cow as "he."

A cow is "she" and a bull is "he." A group of cows and bulls are "cattle."

Cows are gentle, peaceful females with deep blue eyes and lovely long eyelashes.

 

[OPC'n]

are you talking about my madcow? that's a he/she