Wine? or Grape Juice?

[JOwen]

Interesting. We have gone completely to something other than wine (for a similar situation; recovering alcoholics); I think denatured wine, at least I was told that the after I first remarked, mmh, the wine certainly has been tasting pretttty bad lately. But someone is experimenting as it seems to taste different every week. Some of it tasted pretty sweet. So we may be having juice sometimes (strictly speaking the Westminster Standards say wine, not fruit of the vine). I know what welches tastes like and we haven't had that at least. Logistically perhaps trying a split tray is too difficult the way we do things; or perhaps the unity in one type of drink is the question. We don't have both wine and the other. Dunno.
Is someone who is allergic to wine, also allergic to denatured wine?

I don't know if someone who is allergic to wine is also allergic to denatured wine. It seems to be the fermented quality that disagrees with some constitutions. I have also heard of someone in the PR who is allergic to gluten having a special "non gluten" bread used at the table.

As Rev. Pronk told me not too long ago, we do not gather around the fermentation at the table but the fruit of the vine. This could be fermented or non-fermented so far as we see it.

Blessings!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I've been meaning to put together some kind of paper about the use of grape juice at the Lord's Supper. The only (less answered) arguments I've seen for its use are either medical or anti-alcoholic. I'm going to try to get a hold of one of my hepatologist (=medical, study of the liver) friends to get their medical opinion re: the stage of liver failure and possible reactions with medications. I think I can answer the anti-alcoholic argument - it's not the thing that's the sin, the "set" of taking a thimbleful of wine at church is completely different than throwing back a six-pack at the local tavern, etc.

I have two unpublished papers by friends of mine who wrote to affirm the RPW's requirement for the use of wine in the Lord's Supper. They are both well-researched.

 

[elnwood]

Amen. But let's revise.

The Bible speaks only of wine being used in the Lord's Supper, and for those denominations that claim to adhere to the Bible and the Regulative Principle....only wine is mentioned for use in the sacrament.

Where does the bible mention "wine" for use in the Lord's Supper? I only see "fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18).

My question is whether the alcoholic nature of the wine was an inherent must-have trait of the wine used in Communion, or whether it just incidentally happened rapidly with any grape beverage in the times before pasteurization.

Case in point, did it have to explictly be wine or was it just that all grape juice would almost immediately become wine in those times? Would communion with grape juice that was literally fresh pressed that morning and thus barely fermented at all have not been legitimate?

Grape juice is legitimate.

 

[MrMerlin777]

I personally believe that wine is the appropriate element to be used in the supper. That and unleavend(sp?) bread.

But truthfully, I'm not gonna hammer an anvil over it.

(Or pound the table like Luther did when discussing the presence of Christ in the supper.)

 

[Larry Hughes]

Why not Pepsi or tea or strawberry juice since it is red?

Luther said it would be better to not have the Sacrament than to change its elements. Luther was right. The very fact that this board is debating it proves this very point for the weaker brother is not the one most think, but the one wondering if he/she really is receiving the sacrament if he drinks grape juice, the doubt is introduced BY the introduction of grape juice in place of wine. The grape juice creates the legalism then defends itself by calling the real Gospel sacrament ‘legalism’. Quite a clever move by the devil we must admit. I will not waste time arguing the scientific reality that this didn’t exist at that time and Jesus said THIS is blood, meaning wine.

The point of the sacrament is for the faith and weakness of faith and the introduction of grape juice has in fact proved itself to introduce doubt among the faithful as to whether they do or do not receive the true sacrament, which is the ENTIRE point. The legalism lay in the grape juice proponents NOT the wine proponents. For its NOT a LAW that it need be wine but grace that it necessarily need be wine, this is what the Lord said, THIS IS my blood shed for the forgiveness of sins.

It is dangerous to alter the sacraments of God, not because of legalism, but because they are His gifts to His people for their faith IN HIS SON who was crucified for us.

Thus 500 years later Luther has been proven correct.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Believe me. I agree with Luther's statement. I'm just not going to start a fight over it that's all.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Why not Pepsi or tea or strawberry juice since it is red?

Luther said it would be better to not have the Sacrament than to change its elements. Luther was right. The very fact that this board is debating it proves this very point for the weaker brother is not the one most think, but the one wondering if he/she really is receiving the sacrament if he drinks grape juice, the doubt is introduced BY the introduction of grape juice in place of wine. The grape juice creates the legalism then defends itself by calling the real Gospel sacrament ‘legalism’. Quite a clever move by the devil we must admit. I will not waste time arguing the scientific reality that this didn’t exist at that time and Jesus said THIS is blood, meaning wine.

The point of the sacrament is for the faith and weakness of faith and the introduction of grape juice has in fact proved itself to introduce doubt among the faithful as to whether they do or do not receive the true sacrament, which is the ENTIRE point. The legalism lay in the grape juice proponents NOT the wine proponents. For its NOT a LAW that it need be wine but grace that it necessarily need be wine, this is what the Lord said, THIS IS my blood shed for the forgiveness of sins.

It is dangerous to alter the sacraments of God, not because of legalism, but because they are His gifts to His people for their faith IN HIS SON who was crucified for us.

Thus 500 years later Luther has been proven correct.

Excellent post highlighting how Pharisaism can be used of the Devil to introduce doubt into a Sacrament that is meant to feed the believer in faith.

I was in discussion with my current Pastor on this a couple of weeks ago over the fruits of this "taste not, touch not" theology. He's a young man and doesn't remember the Toronto Blessing or the Pensacola Outpouring. It's probably good that he didn't. My dear friend and fellow Marine, Jay, and I attended the same OPC in Temecula from 2000-2003. His step-father was an "elder" in the Assemblies of God and a worship leader. His father saw nothing wrong with the heresy and abberant practices ongoing in Pensacola. The usual "I know men who are part of this and they're such good Christians..." and "...don't quench the Spirit..." were the typical mindless replies to Jay.

Anyhow, Jay's mother and step-father visited our Church one Sunday. Communion was passed around and he was absolutedly mortified when he discovered wine was being served. Pensacola outpouring=good. Drinking wine=abmonination. His theology was completely upside down but it is so typical of many Evangelicals.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Excellent post highlighting how Pharisaism can be used of the Devil to introduce doubt into a Sacrament that is meant to feed the believer in faith.

I was in discussion with my current Pastor on this a couple of weeks ago over the fruits of this "taste not, touch not" theology. He's a young man and doesn't remember the Toronto Blessing or the Pensacola Outpouring. It's probably good that he didn't. My dear friend and fellow Marine, Jay, and I attended the same OPC in Temecula from 2000-2003. His step-father was an "elder" in the Assemblies of God and a worship leader. His father saw nothing wrong with the heresy and abberant practices ongoing in Pensacola. The usual "I know men who are part of this and they're such good Christians..." and "...don't quench the Spirit..." were the typical mindless replies to Jay.

Anyhow, Jay's mother and step-father visited our Church one Sunday. Communion was passed around and he was absolutedly mortified when he discovered wine was being served. Pensacola outpouring=good. Drinking wine=abmonination. His theology was completely upside down but it is so typical of many Evangelicals.

Had a simillar happening once with my T-totaler (though not charismatic in any way as she is under the teaching of a Reformed SBC pastor) mother in law. She was unaware of the wine in our communion cups and when she went to drink it I think she nearly choked(in retrospect it's actually sort of humorous but I really should have warned her , in my own defense though I thought she knew). She did down it though as it was the Supper of the Lord and she does take that pretty seriously.

 

[Larry Hughes]

This has been said by far better and smarter men than I pretend to be but any spirit that doesn't give forth Christ is another spirit and any Jesus that speaks of another Jesus other than the Crucified One FOR us is another Jesus. It is keen on the Apostle Paul's part that he warned us of another spirit, another Christ, another gospel...he did not say another religion...hence showing the real subtleness of the devil...'here is Christ, there is Christ" Jesus warned, "...do not believe them...".

The tragedy is those poor souls fooled by it, as some of us have been in various ways in the past too.

Ldh

 

[Larry Hughes]

From Keith A. Mathison's book:

The Testimony of the Church

We have already mentioned that wine was universally used by the entire church for the first 1,800 years of her existence. During those years, there was never any suggestion that another drink should be used. In the early church, for example, we find clear testimony to the use of wine by such men as Justin Martyr (The First Apology, 65) and Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 2.2). In the eighth century, the Synod of Constantinople bore witness to the continued use of wine in the Lord’s Supper.

At the time of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation, there were disagreements over virtually every other issue related to the sacrament, but there was no disagreement over the use of wine. All of the churches continued to teach that bread and wine are the proper elements to be used in the Lord’s Supper. Martin Luther taught this in his Small Catechism of 1529, and the Lutheran church continued to teach it in the Augsburg Confession (art. 10). The Anglican church taught the use of actual bread and wine in the Thirty-nine Articles (art. 28). Even the Anabaptists continued to teach this in the Dordrecht Confession of 1632 (art. 10).

IN the Reformed branch of the church, the use of wine was taught and practiced by John Calvin. It was also taught in the great six-teenth-century Reformed confessions, such as the Belgic Confession (art. 35), the Heidelberg Catechism (Q. 79), and the Second Helvetic Confession (chap. 19). The use of wine is also clearly taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. This Confession teaches that Jesus has appointed his ministers to “bless the elements of bread and win” (29.3). The Larger Catechism repeatedly declares that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are bread and wine (Qq. 168-69, 177). Every Reformed theologian form the time of Calvin forward taught that bread and wine were the proper elements to be used in the Lord’s Supper. This teaching is found in the writings of Robert Bruce, William Ames, Francis Turretin, Wilhelmus a Brakel, Jonathan Edwards, Herman Witsius, Charles Hodge, AA Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, WGT Shedd, BB Warfield, John Murray and Louis Berkhof, among many others.

The use of wine in the Lord’s Supper not only is unanimously taught by all the Reformed theologians and confessions from the sixteenth century forward, but also is explicitly taught in modern Presbyterian directories of worship. The Book of Church Order of the PCA, for example, is clear in its teaching that the proper elements to be used in the Lord’s Supper are bread and wine…

…The PCA’s directory of worship is in perfect agreement with her doctrinal standards. Both the Confessions and The Book of Church Order clearly declare that the proper elements to be used in the Lord’s Supper are bread and wine, not bread and grape juice.

It may come to a surprise to some, but even the great theologians and confessions of faith in the historic Baptist church taught that bread and wine were the proper elements to be used in the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Great Baptist theologians such as John Gill, John L. Dagg, and James P. Boyce all taught that wine was to be used in the Lord’s Supper. The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 closely follows the wording of the WCF when it says, “The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine.” (30.3). The Southern Baptist Abstract Principles of 1859 says, “The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ to be administered with the elements of bread and wine…” (art. 16). Even the BF&M, written in 1925, long after the beginning of the temperance movement, declares that bread and wine are to be used in the Lord’s Supper (art. 13).

Until the middle of the nineteenth century, the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper was simply a non issue for Christians. Agreement on the matter was so universal that most confessions and theologians in the history of the church mention the subject in passing, as if they are simply stating the OBVIOUS (emphasis added – ldh). They do not even bother to present arguments for the use of wine because no one had ever suggested that anything else be used. They consider the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper to be as biblically self-evident as the use of water in baptism. The nineteenth-century theologians, such as the Presb. AA Hodge and the Baptist John L. Dagg, who were the first to be confronted with the question, were adamant in their refusal to change the elements of the Lord’s Supper in order to pacify the legalistic spirit of the age.

Excerpt on the elements: “Given For You”, Keith A. Mathison, Pp 301-304.

 

[Larry Hughes]

One last point: The entire question is the wrong question and betrays the fallen nature of man to ask of God “Why He did this or that?” What the faithful should be doing is observing in awe, “Isn’t it wonderful that He chose to distribute His gifts this way?” Not why? The entire question as to “why” betrays the fallen nature of man to question God and ascend to be wiser than He is, even more pious which is the true Satanic nature of the fall of man.

 

[Augusta]

The entire question as to “why” betrays the fallen nature of man to question God and ascend to be wiser than He is, even more pious which is the true Satanic nature of the fall of man.

Heavy and spot on.

 

[Archlute]

Luther said it would be better to not have the Sacrament than to change its elements. Luther was right.

Luther said it (and Luther's statement supports my assertion) = therefore Luther was right. Wrong. The only thing that you've done here is make an "illegitimate appeal to authority" fallacy.

The very fact that this board is debating it proves this very point for the weaker brother is not the one most think, but the one wondering if he/she really is receiving the sacrament if he drinks grape juice, the doubt is introduced BY the introduction of grape juice in place of wine.

I've never run into a true believer of the Gospel who was all worked up over the thought that using grape juice in the place of wine might "invalidate" the sacrament. If I ever had, I might have called him a superstitious papist....

The grape juice creates the legalism then defends itself by calling the real Gospel sacrament ‘legalism’.

Actually, either the wine or the grape juice position, held in a theologically totalitarian way that is devoid of love for the brethren, would be considered legalism in my book.

The point of the sacrament is for the faith and weakness of faith and the introduction of grape juice has in fact proved itself to introduce doubt among the faithful as to whether they do or do not receive the true sacrament, which is the ENTIRE point.

See my preceding "superstitious papist" comment #1.

The legalism lay in the grape juice proponents NOT the wine proponents.

See my preceding "you're both legalists" comment #1

For its NOT a LAW that it need be wine but grace that it necessarily need be wine, this is what the Lord said, THIS IS my blood shed for the forgiveness of sins.

I find your mixing categories of law and grace into a defense of the material elements of the supper to be a very unhelpful confusion of theological terminology. Maybe you should stick to being a geologist for the time being....

It is dangerous to alter the sacraments of God, not because of legalism, but because they are His gifts to His people for their faith IN HIS SON who was crucified for us.

The last time I checked, Reformed theology was much more emphatic about the danger of changing the preached message of the Gospel, without which the sacraments (whether dispensed with wine or grape juice) are mere "dumb" symbols. They do not proclaim the Gospel in and of themselves. The emphasis is upon the hearing of the preached Word a la Paul in Romans 10:14ff.

It seems that you've been sitting under (or reading) some sacramentally imbalanced theology, and you might do well to clear your head a bit, and focus on the Gospel message again. The last time I read the Scriptures and our confession on this, I seem to remember that the emphasis was upon the Holy Spirit giving us faith in the Son by the preached Word, and the supper merely benefiting that faith. The real danger comes when that Gospel message is distorted, and I find that often to be the case in churches that have an unhealthy focus upon the sacraments/covenant/take your pick of modern "reformed" aberrations that fail to preach justification through faith alone sort of churches.

BTW, I'm all for weekly communion and the regular use of wine, but wine makes my wife vomit, even the smell of it during the service makes her sick. Therefore, out of Gospel love for her and others in the body who have troubles with drinking the wine, our church uses both in our observance. Again, as noted in an earlier post, pastoral love and wisdom will trump legalism and heavy-handedness any day. Do we worship Christ by faith, and serve His body in deference to one another, or do we worship the particulars of the administered elements, and slap our dear sisters in the face who won't comply with our demands? I couldn't see the Christ of the Gospels getting all worked up like that over this issue. In fact, I could easily see Him giving us one of His classic rebukes for missing the very point that he was trying to communicate.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Adam,

I’m not teaching a legalism here, I’m all for the purity of the Gospel. Anybody that knows me on these web pages knows that. In fact I take more hits for that from some than just about anyone posting on here. In fact if you search my posts you will find they pretty much singularly are constantly going to the cross and purity of the Gospel, and not “what can we or can we not do”. So please be careful before you issue forth such slander.

I've never run into a true believer of the Gospel who was all worked up over the thought that using grape juice in the place of wine might "invalidate" the sacrament. If I ever had, I might have called him a superstitious papist....

Then I must say that your ministry world is quite small. Adam Myer says its so = must be true.

Actually, either the wine or the grape juice position, held in a theologically totalitarian way that is devoid of love for the brethren, would be considered legalism in my book.

This would be true excepting that Christ said “THIS is my blood…” Then you contradict your “love” here:

I've never run into a true believer of the Gospel who was all worked up over the thought that using grape juice in the place of wine might "invalidate" the sacrament. If I ever had, I might have called him a superstitious papist....

No, they merely believe what Christ said, “This is My blood…”.

And I’ve quoted the church’s historic position, reformed.

May Christ be richly yours,

Larry

 

[Me Died Blue]

Again, as noted in an earlier post, pastoral love and wisdom will trump legalism and heavy-handedness any day. Do we worship Christ by faith, and serve His body in deference to one another, or do we worship the particulars of the administered elements, and slap our dear sisters in the face who won't comply with our demands?

Adam,

With all due respect, this really does not get at the issue one way or the other. In fact, it honestly sounds like a lot of the typical objections many evangelicals have to the Regulative Principle as a whole. Please note that I am not at all saying that you do not uphold the Regulative Principle, but rather merely noting that your argument here really is no more relevant to the issue of using wine versus juice in the Supper than the same type of argument (e.g., "It's only about the heart and intent; the particular elements or expressions of worship don't matter; you're just being legalistic; do you worship God or the RPW?" etc.) by broad evangelicals is to the Regulative Principle overall.

So even if one does want to argue for the equally legitimate use of juice in the Supper, I would venture to say that your points above that I quoted are not the way to go about doing so. Rather, such an argument seems to more biblically and logically lie in the issue of the original function of the wine in the sacrament, and the extent to which the fermentation was or was not incidental due to the New Testament times (as Don Lowe has mentioned above).

Furthermore, though I agree with most here that wine is the biblically-assigned element in the Supper, I would not claim juice to invalidate it, any more than I would claim a partial misinterpretation of a particular verse to invalidate a whole sermon as a means of grace. Even so, in both cases, that does not take away from the importance and responsibility of getting it right.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Amen. But let's revise.

The Bible speaks only of wine being used in the Lord's Supper, and for those denominations that claim to adhere to the Bible and the Regulative Principle....only wine is mentioned for use in the sacrament.

Not to be picky, but technically, the Bible doesn't use the word "wine." It uses the word "cup" (poterion) and the phrase "fruit of the vine." (geneimatos teis ampelou). Yes, I know that "fruit of the vine" is often translated "wine" and that they would have been drinking wine at the passover meal out of necessity because of lack of pasteurization. But, the Bible does NOT speak of wine being used. It speaks of a cup and fruit of the vine.

Matthew 26:27-29 - Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

Mark 14:23-25 - Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. 25 "Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

Luke 22:17-20 - Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 "for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25-26 - In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.

"oinos", the normal word for wine is used 34 times in the New Testament, but never in conjunction with Communion. "oxous" is used 6 times in the NT, but never in conjunction with Communion. "glucos" is used once in the NT, but not in conjunction with Communion.

I would think if it were so important that wine be used, the Holy Spirit would have inspired the writers to use the word for wine, rather than such a general word that could also include unfermented grapejuice.

Incidentally, do those who insist that it must be wine also insist that the bread used must be the exact kind of unleavened bread that would have been used at passover?

 

[elnwood]

Thank you, Calvibaptist, for showing us that the word "wine" is never used in conjunction with communion. If anything, Paul looks down on the fermented aspects of wine rather than commending it because in 1 Corinthians 11, people are getting drunk off of it.

All the Mathison quotation does is reinforce the stereotype that Reformed people care more about what church history, church tradition and their confessions say than what the bible explicitly teaches. Of course church history unanimously testifies to fermented grape juice over unfermented grape juice: the latter didn't exist. Pasteurization wasn't invented until the 19th century!

 

[Archlute]

Adam,

With all due respect, this really does not get at the issue one way or the other. In fact, it honestly sounds like a lot of the typical objections many evangelicals have to the Regulative Principle as a whole. Please note that I am not at all saying that you do not uphold the Regulative Principle, but rather merely noting that your argument here really is no more relevant to the issue of using wine versus juice in the Supper than the same type of argument (e.g., "It's only about the heart and intent; the particular elements or expressions of worship don't matter; you're just being legalistic; do you worship God or the RPW?" etc.) by broad evangelicals is to the Regulative Principle overall.

So even if one does want to argue for the equally legitimate use of juice in the Supper, I would venture to say that your points above that I quoted are not the way to go about doing so. Rather, such an argument seems to more biblically and logically lie in the issue of the original function of the wine in the sacrament, and the extent to which the fermentation was or was not incidental due to the New Testament times (as Don Lowe has mentioned above).

Furthermore, though I agree with most here that wine is the biblically-assigned element in the Supper, I would not claim juice to invalidate it, any more than I would claim a partial misinterpretation of a particular verse to invalidate a whole sermon as a means of grace. Even so, in both cases, that does not take away from the importance and responsibility of getting it right.

Chris,

I agree with much of what you have said, but the reason that I have emphasized the elements of pastoral love and wisdom here is that these elements are indispensable to the practice of ministry, especially regarding the implementation of the regulative principal. One of the weaknesses of this board is the lack of pastoral insight and experience among its members. Many here have no real pastoral experience, and tend to theologize from the arm chair of their hermetically sealed studies. I have several years of pastoral experience, and I can assure you that all the argumentation and logic you can throw at a congregation to uphold convictions about the RPW will cause huge problems in your church if not under-girded by the elements of love and wisdom. Systematic/exegetical theology can never rightly be accomplished in the abstract, it must always interact with pastoral issues. Pastoral issues do not change the understanding of systematics/exegesis, but they do directly bear upon our application of these things. Ministers work with real people, and real sessions, all of whom may not agree with you on any given position. Will you act as a number of reformed pastors/sessions have, as petty tyrants, imposing your interpretation of the confessions/Scripture by divine right, by virtue of your office? I wish to believe not, but there are numbers of men who do so, and who will be held accountable by Christ in the last day.

While I appreciate your attempts to give wisdom, I believe that it is near impossible for a young man, with little life experience, still completing an undergraduate degree, to speak with any real insight to ministerial issues. Philosophy, exegesis, and historical theology comprise only a small part of the minister's tool box. Finish your studies, get some seminary under your belt, maybe even get married, have a family, and hit some hard work in the real world, and then get back with me. I guarantee you, your thoughts on numerous matters will have changed with experience.

 

[Archlute]

Not to be picky, but technically, the Bible doesn't use the word "wine." It uses the word "cup" (poterion) and the phrase "fruit of the vine." (geneimatos teis ampelou). Yes, I know that "fruit of the vine" is often translated "wine" and that they would have been drinking wine at the passover meal out of necessity because of lack of pasteurization. But, the Bible does NOT speak of wine being used. It speaks of a cup and fruit of the vine.

I would think if it were so important that wine be used, the Holy Spirit would have inspired the writers to use the word for wine, rather than such a general word that could also include unfermented grapejuice.
QUOTE]


The entirety of the OT demonstrates the use of wine during festivities, and this is not due to lack of pasteurization. If pasteurization had been available, these feasts most surely would have included wine drinking regardless, for the Psalmist states, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that God gave wine to men as a gift to make their hearts glad (Ps. 104:15). Why leave the "gladdening" element of alcohol out of wine if it is a divinely given gift? The Song of Solomon compares the kisses of the beloved woman's mouth with the best wine (Cant. 7:9/7:10 MT). It simply would not be the same to them to say that her mouth was like the best of Welch's! Wine is good, and its use should be affirmed (although with pastoral gentleness towards the weaker brother, as noted above). It does not seem that the Spirit would need to explicitly include something that would have been a given understanding with earlier generations of readers.

John Chrysostom wrote a great sermon on this issue that can be found in the NPNF first series, vol. 9, pp. 329-344. In it he rebukes both those who would shun wine itself (simple ones who thus treat God with contempt -his words, not mine!), as well those who sin and cause others to stumble by drinking intemperately. Maybe you would find it helpful reading.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Please don't blame Mathison as I didn't have time to type up his entire chapters on the Scriptures themselves. I took the smallest chunk I could in the time I had, a lot of typing.

And the rank slander about the "reformed" only being concerned with history over scriptures is the most dated cheap shot I know of. I come from non-reformed circles and I know first hand where that comes from.

It is indeed quite odd that it is an act of Christian "love" to hold forth a normative grape juice position, but yet a man is a "papist" if he upholds the most obviously atested to position by reformed, baptist and lutherans and so would be all dear Christians who wonder about it, AND I KNOW MANY, if it is correct to use grape juice.

At least none discussing the atested position on the wine side, that I noted, had the wicked audacity to call their bretheren "non-christians" (papist). I would NEVER presume to doubt a man's being a Christian. I can conceive of no greater hatred on the part of one supposedly foisting forth the Gospel and Christian love than to say, "If you oppose me with facts, you are non-christian (papist) and if anyone dare struggle with the issue they are the same."

A very odd Gospel/love position to be in.

Ldh

 

[Archlute]

If anything, Paul looks down on the fermented aspects of wine rather than commending it because in 1 Corinthians 11, people are getting drunk off of it.

There is no proof of this in the text. The only thing that Paul looks down upon here is drunkenness, selfishness, and profaning the Lord's body. These are all out-workings of the uncontrolled sinful nature, not of the element of drink.

Of course church history unanimously testifies to fermented grape juice over unfermented grape juice: the latter didn't exist. Pasteurization wasn't invented until the 19th century!

This makes it sound as if the alcoholic byproduct of the fermentation process has always been a bad thing, and that mankind was only uniquely blessed by God in the 19th century with finally being able to rid ourselves of that nasty stuff we had before! As noted in the Scriptures referenced above, God sees wine as a good thing, as a gift to his creation. Pasteurization may help in many ways, but ridding us of alcoholic content is not to be seen as one of them, according to Scripture.

Respectfully,

 

[Archlute]

It is indeed quite odd that it is an act of Christian "love" to hold forth a normative grape juice position, but yet a man is a "papist" if he upholds the most obviously atested to position by reformed, baptist and lutherans and so would be all dear Christians who wonder about it, AND I KNOW MANY, if it is correct to use grape juice.

At least none discussing the atested position on the wine side, that I noted, had the wicked audacity to call their bretheren "non-christians" (papist). I would NEVER presume to doubt a man's being a Christian. I can conceive of no greater hatred on the part of one supposedly foisting forth the Gospel and Christian love than to say, "If you oppose me with facts, you are non-christian (papist) and if anyone dare struggle with the issue they are the same."

A very odd Gospel/love position to be in.

Ldh

Well, Larry, I did not mean to cause you the hurt that I apparently did in my earlier post, but I did not call a man who holds to the importance of wine vs. exclusive grape juice to be a papist. That term I reserved specifically for those who would attach so much importance to the element being used as to actually call into question the validity of the sacrament. So if we had a misunderstanding, I apologize. If, however, a man still believes that the use of grape juice "invalidates" the sacrament (in whatever respect he may hold it to do so), and feels like his faith is placed in danger, due to the failure to employ the wine, then, yes, I would consider that man to be held under the bondage of superstitious, papistical thinking, and I would counsel him to get a grip on the Gospel. Our faith is not bound to the realm of types and shadows, but in spiritual realities and faith in the revealed Son.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Adam,

Of course I accept your kind apology and I very much appreciate it and the maturity attending it. I never intended those facts I posted to be anymore than discussion points.

You will find me not your enemy on the Gospel, I know what it's like to suffer the torments of the devil and considering suicide numerous times (a thing WELL outside of my personality before faith) by his torments of preaching your damnation from awakening to final sleep to your conscience literally all the time, at work, at home, at all times. I understand the afenchtung first hand, or whatever term you might use for that and my wife could well testify to this as she had much fear for me during those years. The first death never scared me, men of certain personality can muster up a steel against that nearly trivial death, the second death was greater terror than I have words to express. I did this for 7 LONG and dreadful years, every SINGLE WAKING HOUR. I cling to the Gospel above all, I will NEVER intensionaly make an argument FOR or AGAINST a thing based upon "law". I will never intensionally bind a conscience, but give it Gospel.

You will find my base hermenuitic, such as a layman may have one, the lens of the Cross. And on this I stake all that I am.

May Christ ALWAYS richly show you the depths of His Gospel,

Larry

 

[Archlute]

Adam,

Of course I accept your kind apology and I very much appreciate it and the maturity attending it. I never intended those facts I posted to be anymore than discussion points.

You will find me not your enemy on the Gospel, I know what it's like to suffer the torments of the devil and considering suicide numerous times (a thing WELL outside of my personality before faith) by his torments of preaching your damnation from awakening to final sleep to your conscience literally all the time, at work, at home, at all times. I understand the afenchtung first hand, or whatever term you might use for that and my wife could well testify to this as she had much fear for me during those years. The first death never scared me, men of certain personality can muster up a steel against that nearly trivial death, the second death was greater terror than I have words to express. I did this for 7 LONG and dreadful years, every SINGLE WAKING HOUR. I cling to the Gospel above all, I will NEVER intensionaly make an argument FOR or AGAINST a thing based upon "law". I will never intensionally bind a conscience, but give it Gospel.

You will find my base hermenuitic, such as a layman may have one, the lens of the Cross. And on this I stake all that I am.

May Christ ALWAYS richly show you the depths of His Gospel,

Larry

Larry,

I have been sobered to hear of the deep trials by which you have been beset in past times. Satan's work is indeed real and dark. It sounds as though you have been strengthened and delivered from these assaults in recent years (to God be the glory!), yet I will continue to pray for your strength in the battle. I thank God for the courage that he has given you, and for your faith in Christ. Again, my apologies (I thought that the content of this thread required a fermented resolution, rather than a mere handshake!)

 

[Me Died Blue]

Chris,

I agree with much of what you have said, but the reason that I have emphasized the elements of pastoral love and wisdom here is that these elements are indispensable to the practice of ministry, especially regarding the implementation of the regulative principal. One of the weaknesses of this board is the lack of pastoral insight and experience among its members. Many here have no real pastoral experience, and tend to theologize from the arm chair of their hermetically sealed studies. I have several years of pastoral experience, and I can assure you that all the argumentation and logic you can throw at a congregation to uphold convictions about the RPW will cause huge problems in your church if not under-girded by the elements of love and wisdom. Systematic/exegetical theology can never rightly be accomplished in the abstract, it must always interact with pastoral issues. Pastoral issues do not change the understanding of systematics/exegesis, but they do directly bear upon our application of these things. Ministers work with real people, and real sessions, all of whom may not agree with you on any given position. Will you act as a number of reformed pastors/sessions have, as petty tyrants, imposing your interpretation of the confessions/Scripture by divine right, by virtue of your office? I wish to believe not, but there are numbers of men who do so, and who will be held accountable by Christ in the last day.

While I appreciate your attempts to give wisdom, I believe that it is near impossible for a young man, with little life experience, still completing an undergraduate degree, to speak with any real insight to ministerial issues. Philosophy, exegesis, and historical theology comprise only a small part of the minister's tool box. Finish your studies, get some seminary under your belt, maybe even get married, have a family, and hit some hard work in the real world, and then get back with me. I guarantee you, your thoughts on numerous matters will have changed with experience.

Adam,

Thanks for your response. I could not agree more that there is an overwhelming imbalance of "internet theology" that is done outside any non-textbook thought whatsoever. As James White once roughly put it, there seems to be such a prevailing mindset in our day that the "experts" are indispensable in fields such as science, accounting, music and history, but that "in religion, everyone's opinions are equal." That widespread mindset (to which I must admit I'm certainly not always immune) is one reason I'm so glad we have a very significant number of elders and pastors here on the board.

In light of that, I certainly do not claim to have direct experience in dealing with people in a pastoral setting with regard to applications of the Regulative Principle. Thus, while I certainly understand and uphold the need for wise love and patience in such situations, that understanding and upholding is essentially based on a knowledge of the biblical necessity of those things, and is not accompanied by an experiential seeing of just how they often play about in situations - such as, in this case, people's reaction to wine.

Even so, I still see the main point I was trying to make as valid, which is that the need for such love, patience and understanding does not in itself automatically justify the use of juice in the Supper as biblical. Again, I know there are many people who are also uncomfortable with, say, the lack of contemporary worship, and to use an even more "obvious" example, infant baptism. And at this point, I can only imagine how much charitable patience would be needed in discussing such issues with them. Yet we would all agree that that need certainly does not simply mean that it is biblically permissible to change those things. Likewise, all I'm observing is that I don't see any principled difference in approaching people's discomfort with wine as the liquid element in the Supper (if it is indeed purposefully-instituted as the biblical element). Juice may indeed have a biblically-permissible use (e.g., the line of thought I highlighted in my previous post) - but do you agree that the immense necessity for wise and loving patience and understanding in dealing with people on the issue does not automatically, in and of itself justify that use?

Again, I fully admit I still have much to learn as far as how one might actually go about discussing this issue with some people who may be uncomfortable with wine. But the point I'm making above revolves around the theological backdrop for such discussion - and I'm certainly attempting to engage in the mutual iron-sharpening and thinking-through of that theology during this stage in my life, even though I am not yet in the stage of directly applying it to teaching and service that so many people here are.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

I always thought of grape juice as unfermented wine myself, our PCA offers both so that children, alcoholics or people who just don't like the taste can have an alternative.

I will argue against those who say alcohol is evil and shouldn't be used but I will not object to choosing to use both.

Lambast me, I can take it.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Thanks for your response. I could not agree more that there is an overwhelming imbalance of "internet theology" that is done outside any non-textbook thought whatsoever. As James White once roughly put it, there seems to be such a prevailing mindset in our day that the "experts" are indispensable in fields such as science, accounting, music and history, but that "in religion, everyone's opinions are equal." That widespread mindset (to which I must admit I'm certainly not always immune) is one reason I'm so glad we have a very significant number of elders and pastors here on the board.

Good stuff Chris. Do you happen to know the citation for James White's statement?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Good stuff Chris. Do you happen to know the citation for James White's statement?

White's statement was in reference to Dave Hunt's charge of "elitism" since White challenged Dave on his use of Greek and history, and lack of formal training in either area. It was in the context of White addressing Hunt's charge of elitism that he basically made that point: That if you dare assert that things like an extensive knowledge of Greek and significant study of history might actually be necessary for a complete exegesis of Scripture, you are an unfair elitist - since other fields have their experts, "but in religion, everyone's opinions are equal" (I'm fairly sure those were White's exact words).

Though I explicitly remember the context and even wording of the statement, I cannot for the life of me seem to find it. Here you can see the articles that were at WhatLoveIsThis.com. The article on that page that is closest to the same basic message White was trying to get across when he made the statement is "The Charge of Elitism: A Response to Dave Hunt." The previous "open letter" to Hunt (also on that page) is good as well.

 

[Calvibaptist]

The entirety of the OT demonstrates the use of wine during festivities, and this is not due to lack of pasteurization. If pasteurization had been available, these feasts most surely would have included wine drinking regardless, for the Psalmist states, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that God gave wine to men as a gift to make their hearts glad (Ps. 104:15).

You will find no argument from me on any of this. My dissent was from the person who said that "the Bible speaks ONLY of wine being used in the Lord's Supper." My point was that the Bible technically does not speak of wine, it speaks of the cup and the fruit of the vine. So those who use grapejuice are using the fruit of the vine in a cup. To say that it has to be wine because they were drinking wine is akin to saying that it has to be the same type of unleavened bread they were using and you have to be sitting barefoot on the floor around a table.

BTW, I do not oppose wine or any other alcoholic beverage. I just think the Bible is significantly silent on whether it should be wine or grapejuice.

 

[elnwood]

You will find no argument from me on any of this. My dissent was from the person who said that "the Bible speaks ONLY of wine being used in the Lord's Supper." My point was that the Bible technically does not speak of wine, it speaks of the cup and the fruit of the vine. So those who use grapejuice are using the fruit of the vine in a cup. To say that it has to be wine because they were drinking wine is akin to saying that it has to be the same type of unleavened bread they were using and you have to be sitting barefoot on the floor around a table.

BTW, I do not oppose wine or any other alcoholic beverage. I just think the Bible is significantly silent on whether it should be wine or grapejuice.

For the record, I do not think that Reformed types hold church history and confessions over the bible. I merely said that a hard position on wine based on the testimony of history, and not the testimony of scripture (which never mentions wine and communion together) is one of the things that permeates that stereotype.

I am not against alcohol per se. Of course wine makes the heart glad, and it was used in festivals. But I don't see anything in scripture about the Lord's Supper needing the alcohol in order to make the heart glad.

In 1 Corinthians 11:22, Paul says, "What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and to drink?" In essence, I think he is condemning people who are using an element of the Lord's Supper to get "glad" when that sort of social drinking should be reserved for people in their own homes.

I see grape juice fulfilling the "fruit of the vine" passage, and if with modern science we can avoid people from getting intoxicated from it when taking the Lord's Supper, I say, what's the problem? i don't see grape juice over wine as a requirement, but I think it's a good change.

In this whole thread, not a single person has argued against wine because alcohol should across-the-board not be consumed by Christians. We should just forget about that argument and focus on what the bible actually says.