Wine or Juice? A possible solution.

[non dignus]

I am now used to wine. I don't know how to put it-
grape juice doesn't seem to have the 'gravitas'.

Perhaps using grape juice is a relatively new American phenomenon distilled from prohibition.

America ALSO gave the world American Cheese.

 

[fredtgreco]

There is another factor to be considered:

It is a fact that Mr. Welch invented his "grape juice" with the express purpose of assisting churches in having communion without the sinof touching a drop of alcohol.

It is also typical of juice advocates to have prohibitionist views, and that is why they do not want to use wine.

I don't think I have ever heard of a church that refused to use wine for practical reasons (e.g. cost)

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Peter
Likely, however irrelevent in my opinion. I don't think we have to replicate all the circumstances of what a 1st century palestinian (or greek) celebration of the Lord's Supper might have been like. Personally, I think the color (red) of the element is more important than the flavor or alchohol content

I can see where you are coming from Peter, but at least for me, I would prefer to stick as closely as possible to the ordinances. I realize that some would take this to the nth degree by including all "circumstances" of worship, but as of now, I am not convinced that the alchoholic nature of the cup is not part of the "elemental" nature of the ordinance.

I do enjoy this conversation though, and hope it continues.

Christ commands the fruit of the vine to be used, the precise properties of which are inconsequential. I dont know much about wine but I know enough to know that the quality of wine is effected by the climate and the soil the grapes grow in. I imagine the type of wine produced in a hot arid area of the world is much different then what most people use in communion services in the US. To add to this, I'm sure the method of making wine has changed a lot in 2000 yrs. If the qualities of the wine must be the same as was used in first Lord's Supper the presence of fermentation is not the only thing which is required.

 

[Mike]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Mike
What do we take "fruit of the vine" to mean? Shall we serve a watermelon?

Obviously, we understand the phrase as an idiom, referring to something different than the simple meaning of the parts of the phrase. It seems like common usage and Biblical context would lead us to believe what the idiom refers to is wine. Is that not the case?

Is alcohol a necessary element of wine, or is it the juice of grapes that matters?

False dichotomy. Wine, AKA "the fruit of the vine," is both.

 

[Mike]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I think what is required by the RPW is the juice of grapes, the fruit of the vine. Alcohol seems more like a side-issue or a non-important factor as a whole.

Why is that?

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by non dignus
I am now used to wine. I don't know how to put it-
grape juice doesn't seem to have the 'gravitas'.

Perhaps using grape juice is a relatively new American phenomenon distilled from prohibition.

My wife has trouble drinking wine - she believes the sulfites, both natural and added, are the problem.

America ALSO gave the world American Cheese.

And you can find out more about one of our government's regulatory actions with regards to "American" cheese here. It is a PDF file.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

I would think that since the description of the bread is actually more specific than that of the drink ("fruit of the vine") it would actually be a greater problem to use unleavened bread than wine. (I am personally opposed to unleavened bread because the text points against it, and because of the sanctimonious attitude of almost every unleavened advocate I have met).

I'm a non-sanctimonious unleavened bread advocate. Christ instituted the Lord's Supper during a Passover meal. He would have used unleavened bread, so that is my particular preference, though I'm not willing to die on that hill. To me it's like quibbling over the mode of baptism, something the early church did not do.

By the way, living in the deep South, I have come to learn that behind every dry county, there's a baptist lurking! (But it was not always so...)

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by fredtgreco

I would think that since the description of the bread is actually more specific than that of the drink ("fruit of the vine") it would actually be a greater problem to use unleavened bread than wine. (I am personally opposed to unleavened bread because the text points against it, and because of the sanctimonious attitude of almost every unleavened advocate I have met).

I'm a non-sanctimonious unleavened bread advocate. Christ instituted the Lord's Supper during a Passover meal. He would have used unleavened bread, so that is my particular preference, though I'm not willing to die on that hill. To me it's like quibbling over the mode of baptism, something the early church did not do.

By the way, living in the deep South, I have come to learn that behind every dry county, there's a baptist lurking! (But it was not always so...)

I didn't know you were wrong...um... I mean... an unleavened bread advocated.

I do know that you are never sanctimonious!

Seriously, what do you do with the clarity of the Greek difference between unleavened bread ( ἀζυμος ) and leavened bread ( ἀÏτος ), in which the latter is always used of the Supper, even in the Supper account in Mt 26:26, Mark 14:22; and Luke 22:19 ?

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

I didn't know you were wrong...um... I mean... an unleavened bread advocated.

I do know that you are never sanctimonious!

Seriously, what do you do with the clarity of the Greek difference between unleavened bread ( ἀζυμος ) and leavened bread ( ἀÏτος ), in which the latter is always used of the Supper, even in the Supper account in Mt 26:26, Mark 14:22; and Luke 22:19 ?

I didn't realize a different word was used...let me research it and get back...in a non-sandtimonious way. :bigsmile:

 

[Jie-Huli]

I am not posting this as an answer to the question of whether grape juice may be used for the Lord's Supper, but for informational purposes here is some discussion from Peter Masters' "Should Christians Drink?", concerning the alcoholic content of the wine of the New Testament period (as I saw in some earlier posts that this is in dispute):

"The highest achievable alcohol content of wines produced by ordinary fermentation - the only process available in Bible times - is around 14%. In those days, however, wine was not normally fermented anywhere near to that ceiling because of the unpleasant taste produced by extraneous bacteria which their technology could not eliminate. These joined in the fermentation process turning the sugar into vinegar. The common wines of Palestine were fermented for only three to four days (compared with the six-month period of the Greeks), and while their strength is not known, the indications are that they were extremely weak . . .

"Indeed, much of it never became true wine at all - 'It was just aerobically fermented must.' 'Must' is the juice of the grape, which begins to ferment as soon as it is pressed from the grape. The must was left in open jars or vats to undergo aerobic fermentation (in Palestine for only a few days). The next stage of the wine-making process - anaerobic fermentation (i.e.: shut off from air or oxygen) - was very difficult in olden times due to their porous containers and poor stoppers. Thus the cheaply produced 'ordinary' wines were stunted in development, sometimes lacking any anaerobic fermenation, which has been described as the 'birth' of the wine. Andre Bustanoby appropriately comments: 'Much of the confusion over the drinking habits of the ancients arises from a failure to understand this fact. Until the juice of the grape undergoes anaerobic fermentation it is really not wine. It is merely fermented must, or new wine of low alcohol content.'

The common wine of ancient Palestine was certainly fermented and no doubt intoxicating in quantity, but it was an exceptionally weak product by today's standards, estimated at being between 2% (for lightly fermented must) to 6% in strength . . .

Even the low (2% - 6%) strength of ordinary wine, however, is not the whole picture, for it is most probable that the Jews of old, like other peoples of those times, drank their wine in a diluted form, rather like a cordial. It is well attested that in the cultures both of the Greeks and the Romans, wine - weak as it was by comparison with many of today's drinks - was usually mixed with water. Sometimes the degree of dilution was very great. Homer's Odyssey includes mention of a 20-to-1 water-wine mixture in the case of a strong wine - and we remember that strong in those days could not exceed 14%."

[Among the Scripture verses cited as evidence that the Jews mixed their wine:

*Song of Songs 5:1
*Isaiah 55:1
*Proverbs 9:2
*Revelation 14:10]

 

[fredtgreco]

Which begs an obvious question: if that was true of the alcoholic content, it would take more wine than could be physically drunk to become drunk.

 

[VictorBravo]

As a grape grower and a wine maker, I find these wine/grape juice discussions a bit silly. The basics of wine making haven't changed since the days of Noah. The modern methods produce more consistency, but grape juice that produces 12 % alcohol wine now is the same grape juice that produced 12% wine in days past. It all depends upon the sugar content of the ripe grapes.

I once made a small batch of wine by simply mashing some grapes and then pouring the juice into a bottle. I put a balloon on top, which was the closest thing to a wineskin I had. I waited two months. In the end, I had a perfectly drinkable, if not award winning, young wine. The alcohol content was 12.3%.

It's been long known that 12% alcohol is the minimum content to preserve wine from spoiling. If you harvest grapes in October, and drink the juice in Spring without getting sick, I'm pretty sure the alcohol content was at least 12 %.

As for mixing with water, I'm sure that was done. But I think the host's comment at the wedding at which Jesus made wine is telling: "You saved the good stuff for last." The fact that he was surprised indicates that the common practice was to get the guests tipsy a bit with good wine first, and then try to pass off the bad stuff after their palates were dulled.

Vic

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Which begs an obvious question: if that was true of the alcoholic content, it would take more wine than could be physically drunk to become drunk.

No one denies that there was still alcoholic content to the wine, and that it could produce drunkenness when consumed in great quantity.

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by victorbravo
As for mixing with water, I'm sure that was done. But I think the host's comment at the wedding at which Jesus made wine is telling: "You saved the good stuff for last." The fact that he was surprised indicates that the common practice was to get the guests tipsy a bit with good wine first, and then try to pass off the bad stuff after their palates were dulled.

Vic

I have seen this stated before, but there is no reason whatsoever to deduce from the wedding passage that the normal practise was to get guests "tipsy" with good wine before serving them inferior wine. And it would seem without doubt to me that Jesus certainly would not have produced wine to aid anyone in getting "tipsy".

It is clear that, whatever the nature of the drink/food being consumed, people's palates are always more sensitive to the first sips/bites than they are later. With a chocolate cake, for example, the same thing would apply . . . the first bites are given much more focus than after the guests have been eating for a while; the more they eat, the less it becomes a matter of tasting and the more it becomes a matter of just becoming full. I believe the wedding passage in which Jesus turns water into wine reflects the same thing, the normal downward curve of the importance of taste in accordance with the increase in the amount consumed. There is certainly no compelling reason to believe the contrary.

With due respect, I do not believe Dr. Masters' points which I cited above are "silly", and though you may know a lot about wine production, you may not know all there is to know about wine production in ancient Palestine. I believe the points stand, and there is good reason to believe alcohol commonly consumed at that time was of a much weaker variety.

What that means to the discussion of wine vs. grape juice in the Lord's supper I will leave it to others to conclude, and I will not write any more on the alcoholic content point since it is not the main purpose of this thread. I just wanted to share the information for the purpose of encouraging a more thorough understanding of the questions involved.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

 

[VictorBravo]

Jie-Huli, my apologies for using the term "silly". Later, as I was driving home, I realized that I was being a bit arrogant. I regret the characterization and withdraw it.

With respect and return blessings.

Vic

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by victorbravo
Jie-Huli, my apologies for using the term "silly". Later, as I was driving home, I realized that I was being a bit arrogant. I regret the characterization and withdraw it.

With respect and return blessings.

Vic

No worries.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli

 

[just_grace]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue


Firstly, what evidence is there that Jesus used "low alcohol wine"?

Secondly, the biblical command to abstain from things in certain believers' presence that would likely cause those particular people to stumble or sin (be it alcohol, meat or you name it) cannot be said to apply to the commanded elements of worship; otherwise we would be biblically forced to discontinue things like the singing of the Psalms and the preaching of the Word in a particularly expository manner if someone claimed to believe those things were unbiblical (and there are preachers who claim a narrative approach to preaching is the biblical model) - and we would all hopefully agree that the notion of that approach to worship being biblical is absurd.

There is nothing wrong with wine...I like a glass myself.

The problem is with us.

Life is hard. Lets not make it harder for others. Again, as a new Christian I came into a church ( Baptist thing ) as a born again person ( elect ), not even the devil can take that away from me . Who served non alcoholic wine at the Lords supper...

to be honest it upset me then, because some approved and some did not.

I am a brand new Christian (then) , and what do I find, is a church that does not know Scripture.

Or at least does not 'live it '

Does it matter?

Yes I think it does.

Maybe all churches should offer a choice and all should show grace and comply?

After all, it is very basic ( first century teaching )

David

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by non dignusPerhaps using grape juice is a relatively new American phenomenon distilled from prohibition.

You are entirely correct in your historical assumptions. I attended a PCA church that offered both at Communion so folks could choose for themselves.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Here's some good stuff on the discussion I found:

Excerpts from: PROTESTANT TRANSUBSTANTIATION
Part 3: Historic Reformed & Baptist Testimony
by Keith A. Mathison
We turn now to the testimony of the historic Reformed and Baptist churches. Because American Baptists and Presbyterians have been among those at the forefront in rejecting the biblical and historical practice of using wine in the Lord´s Supper, the following list of quotations from prominent Reformed and Baptist theologians and confessions is provided to show that the historic position even of these denominations was the same as the rest of the church. Some of the quotations provide evidence that the use of wine was simply taken for granted, that it was not an issue in the church. Others argue more forcefully that the use of wine is not an optional matter. All testify against their denominational descendants who have rejected the use of wine in the Lord´s Supper.
John Calvin (1540)
"œWhen we see wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must reflect upon the benefits which wine imparts to the human body. We thus come to realize that these same benefits are imparted to us in a spiritual manner by the blood of Christ. These benefits are to nourish, refresh, strengthen and gladden" (Treatise on the Lord´s Supper; as quoted in Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought, p. 185).
Robert Bruce (1589)
"œEvery ceremony which Christ instituted in the Supper is as essential as the bread and wine are, and you cannot leave out one jot of them without perverting the whole institution; for whatever Christ commanded to be done, whatever He spoke or did in that whole action, is essential, and must be done" (The Mystery of the Lord´s Supper; p. 43).
"œIn Baptism, the thing that represents Christ is water; in the Supper, the things that represent Christ are bread and wine. Water is appointed to represent Christ in Baptism, because it is most appropriate to represent our washing with the Blood of Christ... In the Sacrament of the Lord´s Supper, He has appointed bread and wine, because there is nothing more appropriate to nourish the body than bread and wine. Thus the Lord has not chosen these signs without a reason" (Ibid., p. 76).
Comment
This Scottish Presbyterian points out that Christ did not use the elements simply because that was all he had available at the time, but that He chose the elements for a reason. They are the most appropriate elements to symbolize the spiritual reality to which they point. But they are not only the most appropriate elements that Jesus could have chosen - they are also essential to the proper observance of the sacrament. Bruce also rightly points out that to change the sacrament is to pervert the sacrament.
Westminster Larger Catechism (1648)
Question 168: What is the Lord´s Supper? (See also WSC 96.)
Answer: The Lord´s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is shewed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with the other, as members of the same mystical body.
Question 169: How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord´s Supper?
Answer: Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord´s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.
Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord´s Supper differ?
Answer: The sacraments of baptism and the Lord´s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord´s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.
Comment
The Westminster Confession and Catechisms state that the Lord´s Supper consists externally in the use of bread and wine. This confessional standard singles out these as the elements Christ ordained, and as the elements ministers of the gospel are to set apart, bless, and give to the people. Many of the churches which have replaced wine with grape juice are led by elders who have taken ordination vows indicating their agreement with and subscription to the Westminster standards.
The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689
"œThe Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine" (Chap. 30, sect. 3).
Comment
One of the earliest Baptist confessions repeats the doctrine of the Westminster Confession almost word for word. It again points out that the elements of bread and wine are those that Jesus appointed for this sacrament.
Jonathan Edwards (1746)
"œChrist, by the speeches and actions of the minister, makes a solemn profession of his part in the covenant of grace: he exhibits the sacrifice of his body broken and his blood shed; and in the minister´s offering the sacramental bread and wine to the communicants, Christ presents himself to the believing communicants, as their propitiation and bread of life; and by these outward signs confirms and seals his sincere engagements to be their Saviour and food, and to impart to them all the benefits of his propitiation and salvation" (The Works of Jonathan Edwards; Vol. I, p. 458).
John Gill (1767-1770)
"œThe wine is another part of this ordinance, and of the matter of it, and one of the outward elements of it, a symbol of the blood of Christ...It is also a question, whether the wine used was mixed or pure; since it was usual with the Jews, whose wines were generous, to mix them, Prov. 9:2. But there is no need to dilute them in our climates; and as the quantity is so small drank at the ordinance, there is no danger of intoxication in those who are least used to it" (A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity; p. 918).
Comment
Gill, a Baptist, points out that although the purity of the wine used by Christ is a matter impossible to ascertain and thus indifferent, it shouldn´t be a concern. Even if perfectly pure wine is used, there is no danger of intoxication since the amount used in the Lord´s Supper is so small.
John L. Dagg (1858)
"œThe Jewish ceremonies were typical of Christ to come; but the Lord´s Supper is a memorial of Christ already come. It is, therefore, not included in the meat and drink intended by the apostle... Paul says, "˜Let no man judge you in meat or in drink.´ The abrogated ceremonies are now without divine authority; and, therefore, he calls these meats and drinks the commandments of men. But the bread and wine of the Supper, are commandments of the Lord" (Manual of Church Order; p. 208).
"œIn this, we have ascertained, that Christ designed a literal use of bread and wine, and, this point being ascertained, our duty is determined; whatever doubt and obscurity may remain respecting any other subject" (Ibid., p. 209).
Comment
This early Southern Baptist theologian points out that although there may be confusion and uncertainty on a number of issues surrounding the Lord´s Supper, the use of bread and wine is not one of them. Since Christ clearly ordained the use of bread and wine, it is our duty to follow this command.
Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles (1859)
"œThe Lord´s Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ to be administered with the elements of bread and wine, and to be observed by His churches till the end of the world."
Comment
This early Southern Baptist statement of faith unambiguously states that the Lord´s Supper is to be administered with the elements of bread and wine, not bread and grape juice.
A.A. Hodge (1860)
"œWhat is the meaning of the term oinos, wine, in the New Testament, and how does it appear that wine and no other liquid must be used in the Lord´s Supper?"
"œIt is evident from the usage of this word in the New Testament that it was designed by the sacred writers to designate the fermented juice of the grape - Matt. 9:17; John 2:3-10; Rom. 14:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:8; 5:23; Titus 2:3. This is established by the unanimous testimony of all competent scholars and missionary residents in the East... That wine and no other liquid is to be used is clear from the record of the institution, Matt. 26:26-29, and from the usage of the apostles" (Outlines of Theology; p 633-634).
Comment
Hodge plainly argues that wine is the only element to be used with bread in the Lord´s Supper.
Charles Hodge (1871-1873)
"œBy wine as prescribed to be used in this ordinance, is to be understood "˜the juice of the grape;´ and "˜the juice of the grape´ in that state which was, and is, in common use, and in the state in which it was known as wine. The wine of the Bible was a manufactured article. It was not the juice of the grape as it exists in the fruit, but that juice submitted to such a process of fermentation as secured its preservation and gave it the qualities ascribed to it in Scripture. That oinos in the Bible when unqualified by such terms as new, or sweet, means the fermented juice of the grape, is hardly an open question. It has never been questioned in the Church, if we except a few Christians of the present day" (Systematic Theology; Vol. 3, p. 616).
Comment
Hodge points out first that the element to be used in the Lord´s Supper is wine and not grape juice. He also points out that, until his day, this practice has never been questioned in the history of the church.
James Petigru Boyce (1887)
Question: In what does this ordinance [The Lord´s Supper] consist?
Answer: In eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Christ" (A Brief Catechism of Bible Doctrine; In Abstract of Systematic Theology; p. xxiii).
Comment
Boyce, a Southern Baptist and the principal founder of the first Southern Baptist Seminary, states that bread and wine are the elements to be used in the Lord´s Supper.
Baptist Faith and Message (1925)
"œ"¦the Lord´s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ."
Comment
It is quite ironic to note that even at this late date when virtually all Southern Baptists had already rejected the God-ordained use of wine, their statement of faith (in an accidental oversight?) bore witness against their actual practice.
John Murray (1937-1966)
"œThey [the sacraments] are ordinances in which material elements and visible signs are used, in baptism water and washing with water, in the Lord´s supper bread and wine and the oral participation of these" (Collected Writings; Vol. 2, p. 366).
"œVALIDITY
What is necessary to their administration?
1. The elements.
2. The actions.
3. Intention - of doing what Christ commanded"
(Collected Writings; Vol. 2, p. 369).
Comment
Murray argues that several factors must be present in order for the sacraments to be valid and properly administered. One of these factors is the use of the correct elements, which he states are water, bread, and wine. Since the proper administration of the sacraments is one of the marks of a true church, the rejection of one of the proper elements is not a trivial matter.
Herman Hoeksema (1966)
"œIt is true that in the institution of the Lord´s Supper Jesus did not use the symbol of water, but that of wine. For this we can find two reasons. In the first place, wine is the color of blood, and the wine at the communion table is the sign of the blood of Jesus Christ. And, secondly, wine is a symbol of communion, of prosperity and joy, according to Scripture [Gen. 14:18; 27:27, 28; 49:10-12; Deut. 7:13; 33:28; Psalm 104:14, 15]. Wine is the symbol of heavenly joy, and therefore it was very fitting at the wedding of Cana that the heavenly bridegroom should change the water into wine. And thus we can understand that at the Lord´s Supper it is not water but wine that is used as the proper sign of the blood of the Lamb, by which not only our sin is changed into righteousness, but also our earthly life is translated into the joy of God´s heavenly tabernacle" (Reformed Dogmatics; p. 706-707).
Comment
Hoeksema provides one of the reasons why the choice of wine by Jesus was not an arbitrary choice. Jesus chose wine because of what it symbolized in the Old Testament and because of what He would ordain it to symbolize in the New. It already symbolized heavenly joy in the Old Testament, and by declaring it also to symbolize His shed blood in the New, Jesus subtly demonstrated their inseparability. By partaking of wine in the Lord´s Supper, we point back to His shed blood and forward to the wedding supper of the Lamb, and we symbolically declare that only those who participate in the reality of the first will participate in the reality of the latter.
The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America
"œThe table, on which the elements are placed, being decently covered, and furnished with bread and wine, and the communicants orderly and gravely sitting around it (or in their seats before it), the Elders in a convenient place together, the Minister should then set the elements apart by prayer and thanksgiving" (58-5).
Comment
The PCA´s Book of Church Order, in agreement with its doctrinal standards, declares that the proper elements of the Lord´s Supper are bread and wine.
Conclusion
The testimony of historic Presbyterians and Baptists is remarkable in its agreement on this subject. Until the middle of the 19th century, the use of wine in the Lord´s Supper in accordance with Christ´s institution was a non-issue for most of these theologians. Because no one since the early gnostics had made any argument or attempt to change the elements, they simply state the use of these elements as a given fact. Those Presbyterians and Baptists, such as A.A. Hodge and John L. Dagg respectively, who were forced in the 19th century to deal once again with radical ascetic and gnostic tendencies within the church were adamant in their refusal to change the elements of the Lord´s Supper in order to pacify the spirit of the age. Sadly, their followers have not been as careful, in some cases going so far as to ignore the clear statements of confessions and directories for worship to which they have vowed to adhere.
It is clear from our survey, not only of Presbyterian and Baptist sources but of sources from the entire spectrum of historic Christianity, that the use of wine in the Lord´s Supper has been the unexceptional and universal practice of all orthodox Christian churches from the time of Jesus until today. The only historic precedent for the recent American evangelical alteration of the sacrament is found in the practice of ancient heretical sects.

 

[Swampguy]

 

[non dignus]

It seems blending juice and wine together would not suit either side. It's like trying to appease young people and old people in their different tastes in music. Adding drums to Beethoven's fifth is sacrilege to the classicist and hopelessly square to the teenager. The mix alienates both tastes.

I believe there is a Roman Catholic tasting room here in Los Angeles that deals in communion wine.

I'm going to check it out- for the sake of church order.............

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Here's some good stuff on the discussion I found:

Excerpts from: PROTESTANT TRANSUBSTANTIATION
Part 3: Historic Reformed & Baptist Testimony
by Keith A. Mathison
We turn now to the testimony of the historic Reformed and Baptist churches. Because American Baptists and Presbyterians have been among those at the forefront in rejecting the biblical and historical practice of using wine in the Lord´s Supper, the following list of quotations from prominent Reformed and Baptist theologians and confessions is provided to show that the historic position even of these denominations was the same as the rest of the church. Some of the quotations provide evidence that the use of wine was simply taken for granted, that it was not an issue in the church. Others argue more forcefully that the use of wine is not an optional matter. All testify against their denominational descendants who have rejected the use of wine in the Lord´s Supper.
John Calvin (1540)
"œWhen we see wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must reflect upon the benefits which wine imparts to the human body. We thus come to realize that these same benefits are imparted to us in a spiritual manner by the blood of Christ. These benefits are to nourish, refresh, strengthen and gladden" (Treatise on the Lord´s Supper; as quoted in Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought, p. 185).
Robert Bruce (1589)
"œEvery ceremony which Christ instituted in the Supper is as essential as the bread and wine are, and you cannot leave out one jot of them without perverting the whole institution; for whatever Christ commanded to be done, whatever He spoke or did in that whole action, is essential, and must be done" (The Mystery of the Lord´s Supper; p. 43).
"œIn Baptism, the thing that represents Christ is water; in the Supper, the things that represent Christ are bread and wine. Water is appointed to represent Christ in Baptism, because it is most appropriate to represent our washing with the Blood of Christ... In the Sacrament of the Lord´s Supper, He has appointed bread and wine, because there is nothing more appropriate to nourish the body than bread and wine. Thus the Lord has not chosen these signs without a reason" (Ibid., p. 76).
Comment
This Scottish Presbyterian points out that Christ did not use the elements simply because that was all he had available at the time, but that He chose the elements for a reason. They are the most appropriate elements to symbolize the spiritual reality to which they point. But they are not only the most appropriate elements that Jesus could have chosen - they are also essential to the proper observance of the sacrament. Bruce also rightly points out that to change the sacrament is to pervert the sacrament.
Westminster Larger Catechism (1648)
Question 168: What is the Lord´s Supper? (See also WSC 96.)
Answer: The Lord´s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is shewed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with the other, as members of the same mystical body.
Question 169: How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord´s Supper?
Answer: Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord´s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.
Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord´s Supper differ?
Answer: The sacraments of baptism and the Lord´s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord´s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.
Comment
The Westminster Confession and Catechisms state that the Lord´s Supper consists externally in the use of bread and wine. This confessional standard singles out these as the elements Christ ordained, and as the elements ministers of the gospel are to set apart, bless, and give to the people. Many of the churches which have replaced wine with grape juice are led by elders who have taken ordination vows indicating their agreement with and subscription to the Westminster standards.
The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689
"œThe Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine" (Chap. 30, sect. 3).
Comment
One of the earliest Baptist confessions repeats the doctrine of the Westminster Confession almost word for word. It again points out that the elements of bread and wine are those that Jesus appointed for this sacrament.
Jonathan Edwards (1746)
"œChrist, by the speeches and actions of the minister, makes a solemn profession of his part in the covenant of grace: he exhibits the sacrifice of his body broken and his blood shed; and in the minister´s offering the sacramental bread and wine to the communicants, Christ presents himself to the believing communicants, as their propitiation and bread of life; and by these outward signs confirms and seals his sincere engagements to be their Saviour and food, and to impart to them all the benefits of his propitiation and salvation" (The Works of Jonathan Edwards; Vol. I, p. 458).
John Gill (1767-1770)
"œThe wine is another part of this ordinance, and of the matter of it, and one of the outward elements of it, a symbol of the blood of Christ...It is also a question, whether the wine used was mixed or pure; since it was usual with the Jews, whose wines were generous, to mix them, Prov. 9:2. But there is no need to dilute them in our climates; and as the quantity is so small drank at the ordinance, there is no danger of intoxication in those who are least used to it" (A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity; p. 918).
Comment
Gill, a Baptist, points out that although the purity of the wine used by Christ is a matter impossible to ascertain and thus indifferent, it shouldn´t be a concern. Even if perfectly pure wine is used, there is no danger of intoxication since the amount used in the Lord´s Supper is so small.
John L. Dagg (1858)
"œThe Jewish ceremonies were typical of Christ to come; but the Lord´s Supper is a memorial of Christ already come. It is, therefore, not included in the meat and drink intended by the apostle... Paul says, "˜Let no man judge you in meat or in drink.´ The abrogated ceremonies are now without divine authority; and, therefore, he calls these meats and drinks the commandments of men. But the bread and wine of the Supper, are commandments of the Lord" (Manual of Church Order; p. 208).
"œIn this, we have ascertained, that Christ designed a literal use of bread and wine, and, this point being ascertained, our duty is determined; whatever doubt and obscurity may remain respecting any other subject" (Ibid., p. 209).
Comment
This early Southern Baptist theologian points out that although there may be confusion and uncertainty on a number of issues surrounding the Lord´s Supper, the use of bread and wine is not one of them. Since Christ clearly ordained the use of bread and wine, it is our duty to follow this command.
Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles (1859)
"œThe Lord´s Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ to be administered with the elements of bread and wine, and to be observed by His churches till the end of the world."
Comment
This early Southern Baptist statement of faith unambiguously states that the Lord´s Supper is to be administered with the elements of bread and wine, not bread and grape juice.
A.A. Hodge (1860)
"œWhat is the meaning of the term oinos, wine, in the New Testament, and how does it appear that wine and no other liquid must be used in the Lord´s Supper?"
"œIt is evident from the usage of this word in the New Testament that it was designed by the sacred writers to designate the fermented juice of the grape - Matt. 9:17; John 2:3-10; Rom. 14:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:8; 5:23; Titus 2:3. This is established by the unanimous testimony of all competent scholars and missionary residents in the East... That wine and no other liquid is to be used is clear from the record of the institution, Matt. 26:26-29, and from the usage of the apostles" (Outlines of Theology; p 633-634).
Comment
Hodge plainly argues that wine is the only element to be used with bread in the Lord´s Supper.
Charles Hodge (1871-1873)
"œBy wine as prescribed to be used in this ordinance, is to be understood "˜the juice of the grape;´ and "˜the juice of the grape´ in that state which was, and is, in common use, and in the state in which it was known as wine. The wine of the Bible was a manufactured article. It was not the juice of the grape as it exists in the fruit, but that juice submitted to such a process of fermentation as secured its preservation and gave it the qualities ascribed to it in Scripture. That oinos in the Bible when unqualified by such terms as new, or sweet, means the fermented juice of the grape, is hardly an open question. It has never been questioned in the Church, if we except a few Christians of the present day" (Systematic Theology; Vol. 3, p. 616).
Comment
Hodge points out first that the element to be used in the Lord´s Supper is wine and not grape juice. He also points out that, until his day, this practice has never been questioned in the history of the church.
James Petigru Boyce (1887)
Question: In what does this ordinance [The Lord´s Supper] consist?
Answer: In eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Christ" (A Brief Catechism of Bible Doctrine; In Abstract of Systematic Theology; p. xxiii).
Comment
Boyce, a Southern Baptist and the principal founder of the first Southern Baptist Seminary, states that bread and wine are the elements to be used in the Lord´s Supper.
Baptist Faith and Message (1925)
"œ"¦the Lord´s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ."
Comment
It is quite ironic to note that even at this late date when virtually all Southern Baptists had already rejected the God-ordained use of wine, their statement of faith (in an accidental oversight?) bore witness against their actual practice.
John Murray (1937-1966)
"œThey [the sacraments] are ordinances in which material elements and visible signs are used, in baptism water and washing with water, in the Lord´s supper bread and wine and the oral participation of these" (Collected Writings; Vol. 2, p. 366).
"œVALIDITY
What is necessary to their administration?
1. The elements.
2. The actions.
3. Intention - of doing what Christ commanded"
(Collected Writings; Vol. 2, p. 369).
Comment
Murray argues that several factors must be present in order for the sacraments to be valid and properly administered. One of these factors is the use of the correct elements, which he states are water, bread, and wine. Since the proper administration of the sacraments is one of the marks of a true church, the rejection of one of the proper elements is not a trivial matter.
Herman Hoeksema (1966)
"œIt is true that in the institution of the Lord´s Supper Jesus did not use the symbol of water, but that of wine. For this we can find two reasons. In the first place, wine is the color of blood, and the wine at the communion table is the sign of the blood of Jesus Christ. And, secondly, wine is a symbol of communion, of prosperity and joy, according to Scripture [Gen. 14:18; 27:27, 28; 49:10-12; Deut. 7:13; 33:28; Psalm 104:14, 15]. Wine is the symbol of heavenly joy, and therefore it was very fitting at the wedding of Cana that the heavenly bridegroom should change the water into wine. And thus we can understand that at the Lord´s Supper it is not water but wine that is used as the proper sign of the blood of the Lamb, by which not only our sin is changed into righteousness, but also our earthly life is translated into the joy of God´s heavenly tabernacle" (Reformed Dogmatics; p. 706-707).
Comment
Hoeksema provides one of the reasons why the choice of wine by Jesus was not an arbitrary choice. Jesus chose wine because of what it symbolized in the Old Testament and because of what He would ordain it to symbolize in the New. It already symbolized heavenly joy in the Old Testament, and by declaring it also to symbolize His shed blood in the New, Jesus subtly demonstrated their inseparability. By partaking of wine in the Lord´s Supper, we point back to His shed blood and forward to the wedding supper of the Lamb, and we symbolically declare that only those who participate in the reality of the first will participate in the reality of the latter.
The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America
"œThe table, on which the elements are placed, being decently covered, and furnished with bread and wine, and the communicants orderly and gravely sitting around it (or in their seats before it), the Elders in a convenient place together, the Minister should then set the elements apart by prayer and thanksgiving" (58-5).
Comment
The PCA´s Book of Church Order, in agreement with its doctrinal standards, declares that the proper elements of the Lord´s Supper are bread and wine.
Conclusion
The testimony of historic Presbyterians and Baptists is remarkable in its agreement on this subject. Until the middle of the 19th century, the use of wine in the Lord´s Supper in accordance with Christ´s institution was a non-issue for most of these theologians. Because no one since the early gnostics had made any argument or attempt to change the elements, they simply state the use of these elements as a given fact. Those Presbyterians and Baptists, such as A.A. Hodge and John L. Dagg respectively, who were forced in the 19th century to deal once again with radical ascetic and gnostic tendencies within the church were adamant in their refusal to change the elements of the Lord´s Supper in order to pacify the spirit of the age. Sadly, their followers have not been as careful, in some cases going so far as to ignore the clear statements of confessions and directories for worship to which they have vowed to adhere.
It is clear from our survey, not only of Presbyterian and Baptist sources but of sources from the entire spectrum of historic Christianity, that the use of wine in the Lord´s Supper has been the unexceptional and universal practice of all orthodox Christian churches from the time of Jesus until today. The only historic precedent for the recent American evangelical alteration of the sacrament is found in the practice of ancient heretical sects.

Keith Mathison's work on this subject is excellent. I also recommend William Sprague's On the Danger of Being Over-Wise, as well as the info below from a previous thread.

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
You might mis-understand.

To clarify, this person was arguing that wine was not a part of the Passover celebration, so the fact that Jesus and His disciples had wine at Passover shows that there is no RPW, since they would be breaking the RPW by having wine with Passover.

This is a very peculiar argument. As has already been noted, there is no particular beverage commanded to be a part of the Passover, yet wine in the Old Testament is clearly considered a blessing and would have been a natural part of such a meal. The beverage of the Passover meal then was not regulated but the food was. Regardless of whether wine was or was not included in the Passover, and I believe it was the norm (see below), the Lord Jesus Christ most certainly had the authority to institute a sacrament and make any changes that he wished to make (WLC #162). The institution of the Lord's Supper alone -- given that wine is clearly commanded to be an element (WLC #168-169) -- ought to settle the question of the lawfulness of wine in the Lord's Supper. Jesus was without sin. Jesus never broke the RPW (nor did he repeal the RPW, a necessary inference of the Second Commandment). It's a funny argument to make since the usual argument that I hear from today's Christian is that wine is not commanded to be part of the Lord's Supper and the inclusion of wine is not a matter regulated by the RPW.

For further study on the question of wine in the Lord's Supper, I recommend reading the following:

Brian Schwertley's Critque of Steve Schlissel on the Regulative Principle of Worship

William Sprague on the Danger of Being Over-Wise

God Gave Wine by Ken Gentry

Drinking With Calvin and Luther by Jim West

In addition, there is an unpublished paper by a cousin of mine called On the Question of the Necessity of Using Wine in the Lord's Supper and a similar paper called Sacramental Wine by a friend of mine, who is a member of this Board, both well-researched. For access to those, please u2u me for further information.

Philip Schaff, ed. A Religious Encyclopedia of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal and Practical Theology, 1887:

"The expression the "fruit of the vine" is employed by our Savior in the synoptical Gospels to denote the element contained in the cup of the Holy Supper. The fruit of the vine is literally the grape. But the Jews from time immemorial have used this phrase to designate the wine partaken of on sacred occasions, as at the Passover and on the evening of the Sabbath. The Mishna (De. Bened, cap. 6, pars 1) expressly states, that, in pronouncing blessings, "the fruit of the vine" is the consecrated expression for yayin. . . . The Christian Fathers, as well as the Jewish rabbis, have understood "the fruit of the vine" to mean wine in the proper sense. Our Lord, in instituting the Supper after the Passover, availed himself of the expression invariably employed by his countrymen in speaking of the wine of the Passover. On other occasions, when employing the language of common life, he calls wine by its ordinary name" (p. 2537-2538).

John D. Davis. Illustrated Davis Dictionary of the Bible, 1973:

"Fruit of the vine, the designation used by Jesus at the institution of the Lord's Supper ... is the expression employed by the Jews from time immemorial for the wine partaken of on sacred occasions, as at the Passover and on the evening of the Sabbath (Mishna, Berakoth, vi. 1). The Greeks also used the term as a synonym of wine which was capable of producing intoxication (Herod i. 211, 212)" (p. 868).

Gerhard Kittel, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1967:

"It is obvious ... that according to custom Jesus was proffering wine in the cup over which He pronounced the blessing; this may be seen especially from the solemn genema tes ampelou [fruit of the vine] ... which was borrowed from Judaism" (Vol. V, p. 164).

T.K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black. Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1903:

"In the Gospels we find wine designated 'the fruit of the vine'..., a periphrasis doubtless already current in Jewish speech, since it is found in the time-honoured benediction over the wine-cup in Berakh 6.1..." (p. 5309).

Joachim Jeremias. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 1966:

"Jesus and his disciples drink wine at the Last Supper ... the annual festivals provided an occasion for the drinking of wine, especially the three pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles); the drinking of wine was prescribed as part of the ritual of Passover..." (pp. 50-51).
"...to genema tes ampelou ('the fruit of the vine') for 'wine' is in the Judaism of the time of Jesus a set liturgical formula at the blessing of the cup, both before and after the meal" (p. 183).

William Lane. The Gospel According to Mark, (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 1974:

"By his prophetic action in interpreting these familiar parts of the ancient paschal liturgy Jesus instituted something new in which the bread and wine of table-fellowship become the pledge of his saving presence throughout the period of time prior to the parousia and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in its fulness" (pp. 507-508).
"The cup from which Jesus abstained was the fourth, which ordinarily concluded the Passover fellowship. The significance of this can be appreciated from the fact that the four cups of wine were interpreted in terms of the four-fold promise of redemption set forth in Exod. 6:6-7: "I will bring you out ... I will rid you of their bondage ... I will redeem you ... I will take you for my people and I will be your God" (TJ Pesachim X. 37b). Jesus had used the third cup, associated with the promise of redemption, to refer to his atoning death on behalf of the elect community. The cup which he refused was the cup of consummation, associated with the promise that God will take his people to be with him. This is the cup which Jesus will drink with his own in the messianic banquet which inaugurates the saving age to come. The cup of redemption (verse 24), strengthened by the vow of abstinence (verse 25), constitutes the solemn pledge that the fourth cup will be extended and the unfinished meal completed in the consummation, when Messiah eats with redeemed sinners in the Kingdom of God (cf. Lk. 14:15; Rev. 3:20f.; 19:6-9)" (pp508-509).

Norval Geldenhuys. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 1951:

"All that is taught in Matthew, Mark, and I Corinthians xi in the original Greek is that on the occasion of the Passover the Saviour instituted the Holy Communion by giving bread and also by giving wine" (p. 554).

R. C. H. Lenski. The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel, 1946:

"The efforts that are put forth to read wine out of this account are unavailing. Because oinos, the word for "wine," does not occur, the presence of wine is at least gravely questioned, which means practically denied. Luke's "the fruit of the vine"... the lovely liturgical term for the wine that was used in the Passover ritual, which Matthew makes even more specific by writing "this fruit of the vine," the one that was regularly used in the Passover and was used at this Passover by Jesus, is misunderstood by these commentators, for they assert that grape juice fits this phrase better than does wine - although such a thing as grape juice was an impossibility in April in the Holy Land of Christ's time. It could be had only when grapes were freshly pressed out, before the juice started to ferment in an hour or two" (pp. 1043-1044).

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Would anyone here who argues that wine is required by Scripture and the RPW have a problem with "non-alcoholic" wine (NOT grape juice)?

[Edited on 1-2-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Would anyone here who argues that wine is required by Scripture and the RPW have a problem with "non-alcoholic" wine (NOT grape juice)?

[Edited on 1-2-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]

This was a major issue for me and my family when we were preparing to join an RPCNA congregation that served at the time only grape juice. After a great deal of prayerful discussion and consideration, the session agreed to use a split cup of grape juice and non-alcoholic wine. It was a compromise, but I don't really think it satisfied anyone entirely (which is in the nature of compromises). The fact is, non-alcoholic wine, so-called, actually retains a slight percentage of alcohol.

Is non-alcoholic wine an acceptable option?

First introduced to the marketplace about 20 years ago, "de-alcoholized" wine is typically made by fermenting grapes to make wine the old-fashioned way, with alcohol; most of the alcohol is then removed by any of a variety of high-tech or low-tech processes, yielding a result that - in theory at least - is more akin to real wine than to unprocessed grape juice.

Note that I said "most of the alcohol" is removed. These de-alcoholized beverages are usually labeled as "less than 1/2 of 1 percent alcohol," in contrast with the 11 to 14 percent alcohol content typical of standard wines. This alcoholic content is low enough to exempt the product from alcoholic-beverage regulation in most jurisdictions, and producers often point out that fresh-squeezed orange juice may contain similar amounts of alcohol through natural fermentation. But those who wish to avoid all alcohol for health or religious reasons should be aware that a tiny bit remains.

Source

I am in a different church now, and I presently lean towards to the position that the commanded element at issue here is wine, and we ought not to take measures to dilute it to the extent that it barely qualifies as wine. Scripture does not specify precisely what type of wine to be used, but it should be real wine, not something that has been through a process to make it seem like it is not real wine. That's my

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by non dignus
It seems blending juice and wine together would not suit either side. ...like trying to appease young people and old people in their different tastes in music. Adding drums to Beethoven's fifth is sacrilege to the classicist and hopelessly square to the teenager. The mix alienates both tastes.

I believe there is a Roman Catholic tasting room here in Los Angeles that deals in communion wine.

I'm going to check it out- for the sake of church order.............

A Christian Culture-Watch:
Having worked at 4 wine-tastings this last month....and being party to many in the past, experience shows me that there is something complex and beautiful about God's creation. Sorry...wine is not juice (as we know) and the many descriptions I hear from the Sommelier's (wine expert) unpack (for me) deeper meanings of why its one of the sacramental elements. It truly is the perfect correlate to "blood." (For another thread? Bread is a perfect correlate to "body" -- as steak would not be.)

I find no dichotomy between "classic and contemporary" - rather, it's a distinction between the qualities: trivial/superficial vs. meaningful and profound. Let us consider, God is Author to the beautiful, majestic and excellent things. He is not responsible for cheap, commercial, quick, trivial, vacuous, banal (Etc.) versions of His creation. Man's sins always reduce the splendours of God's gifts.

At least, that's the way I see it....

Robin

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The first Protestant colony in the Western Hemisphere was a French Huguenot settlement which eventually lead to the founding of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1555. The leader of the colony, Nicolas Durand de Villegaignon, began his tenure as a professed Huguenot but eventually reverted back to Roman Catholicism, which lead to the persecution and execution of some Huguenots and the final destruction of the colony. Villegaignon got it into his head that the wine used in communion should be watered down. This became, along with a number of other issues, a point of contention between the Huguenots and Villegaignon. Those Huguenots who were persecuted wrote a confession of faith before they were killed which is known as "The Martyrs' Confession," and is considered the earliest Protestant confession of faith in the New World. It says in part:

"œWe believe that if it were necessary to add water to the wine, the writers of the Gospels and Saint Paul himself would not have omitted telling us something of such great importance. As for the early church Fathers who may have observed this custom, we cannot agree that it is essential today. They may have based their observance on the fact that blood mixed with water flowed from the side of Jesus Christ at His crucifixion, an event which occurred after the institution of the Holy Supper; we believe its observance must be based upon God´s Word." (source: The Martyrs of Guanabara, John Gillies, Moody Press, 1976, p.166 ff.)

The practice of mixing water with wine for communion purposes is part of Roman canon law. But it has not gone unchallenged by Protestants in the past.

From A.A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology in the chapter on the Lord's Supper on the 7th question:

The Romish Church contends, on the authority of tradition, that water should be mingled with the wine ("œCat. Conc. Trident., Pt. II., Ch. iv., Ques. 16 and 17). But this has not been commanded, nor is it involved in any way in the symbolical significancy of the rite.

and

That wine and no other liquid is to be used is cleared from the record of the institution, Matt. xxvi. 26-29, and from the usage of the apostles.

[Edited on 1-3-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

In 1877, Charles Spurgeon reviewed a book by Rev. A. M. Wilson called The Wines of the Bible: an Examination and Refutation of the Unfermented Wine Theory:

Mr. Wilson has written the thick volume now before us to settle the matter, and we believe that he establishes beyond reasonable debate that the wines of the Bible were intoxicating, and that our Lord did not ordain jelly or syrup, or cherry juice to be the emblem of his sacrifice."

(The Sword & the Trowel, p.437. For the full review, see here.)

 

[CalsFarmer]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
In 1877, Charles Spurgeon reviewed a book by Rev. A. M. Wilson called The Wines of the Bible: an Examination and Refutation of the Unfermented Wine Theory:

Mr. Wilson has written the thick volume now before us to settle the matter, and we believe that he establishes beyond reasonable debate that the wines of the Bible were intoxicating, and that our Lord did not ordain jelly or syrup, or cherry juice to be the emblem of his sacrifice."

(The Sword & the Trowel, p.437. For the full review, see here.)

And that my friends is the last word on this

(hic)

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
In 1877, Charles Spurgeon reviewed a book by Rev. A. M. Wilson called The Wines of the Bible: an Examination and Refutation of the Unfermented Wine Theory:

Mr. Wilson has written the thick volume now before us to settle the matter, and we believe that he establishes beyond reasonable debate that the wines of the Bible were intoxicating, and that our Lord did not ordain jelly or syrup, or cherry juice to be the emblem of his sacrifice."

(The Sword & the Trowel, p.437. For the full review, see here.)

That is an interesting link. I am in basic agreement with what Mr. Spurgeon has said. I also, though generally abstentionist, am open to use of wine at the Lord's table (though perhaps watered down a bit since I believe that consistent with the wine used in the New Testament period).

We wish the utmost success to the abstinence cause, and, therefore, trust that there will be no pressing of the question of unfermented wine at the Communion, for it will not promote the cause, and will create much heartburning, and, worst of all, it will be contrary to the Divine precedent. The question is not necessary to the temperance [moderation] movement, and we wish it had never been raised.

Does anyone know of any churches today that generally promote abstinence from alcohol, but which still use fermented wine for Communion?

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
I also, though generally abstentionist, am open to use of wine at the Lord's table (though perhaps watered down a bit

According to Scripture, it is a *negative* thing to water down wine (Isaiah 1:22).


Would God use watered-down-wine as a *negative* sign in Scripture, and then turn right around and use the same thing to symbolize the perfect blood of His Son?



(I'm not picking on you too badly . . . my current church uses grape juice, although I wish they would use wine.)