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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Reed,

Your questions are the right ones. We may disagree with how to apply what we find in Scripture, which is based on our hermeneutics. But your approach is correct. Much of the problem in this discussion centers not around what the Bible states or allows, but around pragmatic considerations that are clearly humanistic, in that they are centered on man and his feelings. This should not sway us any more than God ordering Israel to kill every man, woman, child and beast among pagan nations. We must strive to understand what God says and means in order to think His thoughts after Him. That is, after all, the goal. And when God ordained the LS he already knew about alcoholism and the challenges that would be involved. So, what does Scripture say?
You already lean toward wine, so I presume that you consider it most consistent, but allow a measure of leniency. My position is similar. However, there is no exegetical proof that the wine partaken was cut in any fashion. Yes, it was a common practice. But it was also common to drink it straight. And the reasons for the man's comments at the wedding indicate some toxicity involved. Jesus changed the water into wine. He didn't mix them.
Would Jesus use Welch's if it was available? I tend to doubt it. Can I prove it? Not beyond a shadow of a doubt. But I do know, as a fact, that He used wine. That's what I'm given. It's all I have to stand on in regard to direct precept.
While it's true that there are many negative comments about wine in the OT, it is equally true that they discuss abuse, not use. And, it is equally true that there are many statements revealing the blessing of wine. However, before considering that, we must consider the fact that the LS is a symbol. It is a remembrance. It is a reminder. Christ is present only in so much as our faith is present. He is present in the chosen ones, regardless of whether or not we are able to take communion physically. It is a symbol of the inner reality. As Grudem points out, "We feed upon Him in our hearts with thanksgiving" (ST, 995). To think one has to partake physically to worship accordingly has a semi-Pelagian influence, at the very least. If one cannot partake because of physical reasons this does not mean that he cannot partake spiritually and know all the benefits of our great Passover Lamb. Consider this quote from Shedd.
If a man by reason of extremity of sickness or any other just impediment do not receive the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, the minister shall instruct him that if he do truly repent him of his sins and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ has suffered death upon the cross for him and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he has thereby and giving him hearty thanks therefore, he does eat and drink the body and blood of our Savior Christ profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth. (Episcopal prayer book, cited by Shedd, 812)

Communion also prefigures the marriage supper of the Lamb of God. Jesus says He will partake of the fruit of the vine with us one day. What will that be? Welch's? Grape juice? Wine? We only have one example for us in Scripture. The real question to ask is, "What gives us the right to change the only point of reference that we have?" If there is biblical justification, then let us pursue that. But let us forsake emotional and pragmatic discussions that denigrate the intent of Scripture so that we may turn our minds more fully to Christ.
 
Paul:
"Cows are gentle, peaceful females with deep blue eyes and lovely long eyelashes..."

No kidding? In Canada cows have blue eyes?
Oh well, we have tartan sheep and feral haggises, so I shouldn't be too surprised, lol!
 
The other problem we run into, when we pay so much attention to what is exactly allowed as the elements for the Lord's table, is that the elements become more important than the sacrament itself.

Do we not believe that God is gracious, and if anyone has a legitimate reason (leaving the legitamacy to God to judge), God will grant him the grace in partaking only of the elements he/she has the ability to partake of, as if he/she had communed in both kinds?

That is also what my wife found when she, do to prescription drug contraindications, she was unable to partake of the wine.
 
Paul:
"Cows are gentle, peaceful females with deep blue eyes and lovely long eyelashes..."

No kidding? In Canada cows have blue eyes?
Oh well, we have tartan sheep and feral haggises, so I shouldn't be too surprised, lol!

Ah, to be more precise holstein cows, or Sarah's cow, have dark blue or violet or purple eyes. (I don't know the precise colour - I am a guy. Guy's only know about 10 colours. Beige is white, burgandy (sp?) is red, tan is brown.....
 
Methinks that if a person feels that he/she is truly converted unto God and is still tempted by the use of wine at the Lord's table then that person should only partake of the visible gospel until the Holy Spirit gives him/her the freedom.





.
 
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.

No one should contest enough wine will make people drunk, and therefore should not be overindulged. There is no evidence distilled spirits existed in Biblical times. Distilling seems to have been discovered later by my Irish Celtic ancestors. “Strong drink” in the Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew “shekar” meaning an intoxicating beverage made from something other than grapes, usually grain. Thus, “strong drink” was a form of beer or ale, probably without hops. Shekar is the word used for beer in Israel today. Though shekar would contain no more alcohol than wine, enough of it will still make one drunk; thus, the biblical warnings about both. But, there is also biblical permission to purchase and consume both in Deut. 14:26. Shekar was certainly not non-alcoholic.
 
Andrew, what you need to be careful of:

Example 1.

"I read the Puritanboard. Some poster- who is really smart- said I should avoid man-made medicines and take ............ You can buy............... at the local health food store."

PB can be a blessing when it provides information on Calvinism, etc. It can a curse if I encourages weaker brothers to make poor health decisions.

Example 2:

"I know I am a former alcoholic, your Honour, and I didn't think I should take Communion wine, however my Pastor said a little wine would't hurt. But boy, when I tasted that alcohol again......."

"Anyway, after Communion service I went home and had a real bender. Then I started drinking again, your Honour."

"You know your Honour, I know I shouldn't have had the thimble full of wine, but when I became a Christian, my Pastor said that God would heal me of my alcoholism. I doubted this, but you see your honour, I really trust my Pastor and I figured I could trust God and Godly self control to keep me straight.

Plus, I felt that if I didn't take the wine, my Pastor would be disappointed You see your Honour, I really trusted my Pastor. My Pastor is an member of Puritanboard, and the other pastors there agreed with him"

"Anyways, a few months ago, as you know, I was involved in a serious alcohol-related car crash......"

I am an uneducated lay person. If you people think that my posts are incorrect then please feel free to delete them.

Maybe I am totally wrong, in which case I pray that they are deleted.

Many times, people will attend a church only after they are in crisis.
One thing about people in crisis is that they can be easily mislead and take unnecessary risks. I've heard of people taking poison because of some Bible verse that says....... I know of one individual who stopped taking medication, became violent....

Andrew, I know you wouldn't hurt a fly intentionally. But an alcoholic may have weaknesses that you can't imagine.

I used to be a greeter a at big church. I came to realize that I had to watch every word. For example, you can't joke to any woman about her weight, because even if she looks like Jennifer Lopez, she may be extremely nervous about her weight.

An alcoholic - especially alcoholics new to the faith - may have all sorts of issues. He may have been influenced by the "Word of Faith" movement, then hear you speak about the safety of Communion wine and take a some sip and......

Please research the effect a little wine can have on a former alcoholic.

Don't trust me. I have never been an alcoholic and only drink it when someone offers it for free. I hate whiskey, wine and pretty well everything else but a cold beer on a hot day.

Andrew, if you guys think I am wrong, then I have absolutely no qualms about you deleting these posts. I am no expert on alcoholism, or health food, or even the Bible.

Andrew, I think you want to be a great pastor. I think you are straight. You might want to research - from reputable sources - the effect small amounts of alcohol can have on former alcoholics.

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 10:35:35 EST-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The big issue:

Jesus performed Communion a certain way.

If we still strive to maintain the same spiritual reality of Communion, would Jesus mind if we altered some physical elements to protect weaker, humble brothers?
 
Jesus said "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Christ instituted the Lord's supper with the elements of bread and wine and it is these elements, not beverage and not food generally, nothing of our devising beyond Christ's example (for good intent or otherwise, LC 109) which "have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ ..." (CF 29.5). Now, it may be that grape juice which was not possible in biblical times nor at the time of the Westminster Assembly, is still properly fruit of the vine (that seems a legitimate inquiry); but surely water or some other beverage is not. We should not intentionally alter the elements Christ has instituted if for no other Scripture than Lev. 10: 1. "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not."

This subject has had enough of a run for now; it needs a rest.
Thread closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top