Drinking With Calvin and Luther

[Bulldog]

I have heard of a church using Doritos and Pepsi.

I remember having goldfish (the crackers!) at my old church.

Anyway, if wine v. grape juice is splitting hairs, how can we say that there's something wrong with chips or cookies and cola? I think that once we decide that wine doesn't have to be wine, I think we're opening too many doors.

Well, everyone would draw the line somewhere.

If a "brother" is offended by that, then I question his convictions.

It's not so much that they're offended as it is that they have drinking problems which they do not want to stimulate.

 

[Jon_]

It's not so much that they're offended as it is that they have drinking problems which they do not want to stimulate.

I've heard this given as a reason as well. Allow me to pose a little question. Is it better that we obey God and trust that he shall keep us from temptation or to disobey God thinking that will keep us from temptation?

I do not have and have never had a drinking problem, so I cannot comment on what causes what, but I would find it quite startling to learn that a sip of wine taken during communion would somehow set off a drinking binge. That sounds like an excuse to me, and a poor one at that. But maybe I'm just being insensitive.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

It's not so much that they're offended as it is that they have drinking problems which they do not want to stimulate.

Hey Bulldog,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them and I know the reason you give above is a common argument for grape juice over wine, but it is not valid. The same drinking problems existed in Christ's day when the Supper was instituted. Drinking problems are not new. The Bible address drunkenness from cover to cover, yet at the same time God gave wine as a blessing and instituted the Supper with wine.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Knight]

"This do in remembrance of me" (1 Cor. 11:24, 25 KJV).

Which institutes the Lord's Supper not mandate specific nature of the elements.

"This" was the partaking of unleaven bread and wine. "This do" is clearly a commandment. I don't know what criteria you ascribe to "biblical mandate," but there is no uncertainty regarding communion.

A Biblical mandate would be explicit teaching that the elements were such and such type of bread and wine.

It isn't there.

As for opinion, I've noticed you make a habit of stressing that when you disagree with another person. Try to water it down all you want, the Bible is clear. And the observance of the sacraments is not open to "opinion."

I am not allowed to have an opinion on disputible matters?

 

[Knight]

Knight,

Thank for the comment. I do have to ask one question. So you believe that all the church for almost 1,900 years used wine only because it was the opinion of men? I find that not possible to believe.

I haven't studied church history extensively so I cannot comment on this.

I will stick with the opinion existed in all the Christ church before the Unitarians gave the American Evangelical church the Temperance Movement.

That is your perrogative. You want to use wine then go ahead and use wine. I'll not declare you any kind of heretic for doing so.

I've read up on some of the theological research into this and do not find any conclusive Biblical proof that fermented wine must be used in the Lord's Supper.

For my part, even if I agreed with your view, I have no authority in our local church to change the practice so the point is moot.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I'm all for having a nice frosty beer - but this whole issue with the grape juice and wine just tells me one thing - that even after 2000 years we still can't get on the same page with communion...

Hey Dave,

The thing is, the whole church was on the same page for about 1900 years. It is only in recent years (starting in the U.S. and then spread by us elsewhere) that wine has ever even been questioned .

In fact, before Dr. Welch it would have been near impossible to have grape juice in Communion unless you squeezed the grapes just before the service. Grapes ripen in the mid to late summer. By spring for passover there was only wine available for the meal.

I make both wine and beer . Wine is natural and was not invented by man; it is a gift from God. It was discovered by him. Natural Yeast is on the skins of the grapes, when the grapes are squeezed the yeast begins to work. In less then two weeks all the sugar has been made into alcohol.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Jon_]

Which institutes the Lord's Supper not mandate specific nature of the elements.

That doesn't follow. The Lord's Supper is the eating of unleaven bread to commemorate the body and wine to commemorate the blood. The Lord's Supper without the elements is meaningless. Your objection is invalid.

A Biblical mandate would be explicit teaching that the elements were such and such type of bread and wine.

It isn't there.

I am not allowed to have an opinion on disputible matters?

The former is very much an opinion. There is no biblical basis for what you call a "biblical mandate." Your criteria are arbitrary and non-binding. In fact, your criteria are so contricting they deny scriptural support of the Trinity. There is no explicit teaching that God is one Being in three Persons. The Trinity is implicit, and is inferred from a number of texts.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I haven't studied church history extensively so I cannot comment on this.

Considering that the making of grape juice was impossible for the first 1900 years of church history, the argument is completely solid. The movement against wine is a recent phenomenon brought on by lies perpetrated by the evangelical temperance movement.

The technique of heating the juice above 185Fº was unknown before germs were discovered and Pasteur found that heating substances killed those germs and made them safe to eat/drink. As Kenneth has already expounded very well, it is impossible to stop grape juice from fermenting unless the organisms that cause fermentation are killed. This information was unknown to man for the majority of the history of the church. As a result, wine was used throughout the history of the church, with the intolerance toward it being a recent objection, one founded in legalism, not Scripture.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Knight]

That doesn't follow. The Lord's Supper is the eating of unleaven bread to commemorate the body and wine to commemorate the blood. The Lord's Supper without the elements is meaningless. Your objection is invalid.

I speak to the context of the passage you quoted. Paul is not establishing any criteria on the alcohol content of the wine to be used. He is talking about the establishment of the ordinance.

The former is very much an opinion. There is no biblical basis for what you call a "biblical mandate." Your criteria are arbitrary and non-binding. In fact, your criteria are so contricting they deny scriptural support of the Trinity. There is no explicit teaching that God is one Being in three Persons. The Trinity is implicit, and is inferred from a number of texts.

This whole thing is a matter of opinion...

A Biblical mandate wold simply be a clear Scriptural teaching that only fermented wine is acceptable for use in the Lord's Supper. Either explicitly laid out in Scripture or through a reasonable reading of Scriptures.

I do not dispute that wine (fremented) was used. I dispute the idea that fermented drink is required by the Bible and that taking the Lord's Supper without it is sinful and makes the Communion somehow invalid.

Which is more important? The fermented drink or the meaning behind it?

This is not a hill on which to die...

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Knight,

I believe the point is this: THe Jews always had wine at Passover. In the New Covenant Passover wine became Communion wine. All the church for 1900 years used wine and all the Old Covenant Church since Moses used wine, then in the 19th century American Evangelicals decided they were wiser than God on this issue and switched to grape juice when it became possible.

I think there is something VERY wrong with that picture. We are not wiser than God. He could have made it possible to have grape juice remain unfermented in nature, but He did not, and he gave these meals (Passover and Communion) at times when wine HAD to be used. Why do we change what God has given to us?

I think there is something very wrong at the core of those who moved the evangelical church this way.

I too am not willing to be burned at the stake on this issue, but I do believe it is only the surface manifestation of a bigger problem in Evangelical thinking.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Knight]

Knight,

I believe the point is this: THe Jews always had wine at Passover. In the New Covenant Passover wine became Communion wine. All the church for 1900 years used wine and all the Old Covenant Church since Moses used wine, then in the 19th century American Evangelicals decided they were wiser than God on this issue and switched to grape juice when it became possible.

I think there is something VERY wrong with that picture. We are not wiser than God. He could have made it possible to have grape juice remain unfermented in nature, but He did not, and he gave these meals (Passover and Communion) at times when wine HAD to be used. Why do we change what God has given to us?

I think there is something very wrong at the core of those who moved the evangelical church this way.

I too am not willing to be burned at the stake on this issue, but I do believe it is only the surface manifestation of a bigger problem in Evangelical thinking.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Regardless, there are far more important issues facing the church today than fermented wine vs. grape juice.

Needless to say, I think there is already too much energy wasted on nonessentials in the church today. This is the reason that things like this frustrate me so.

I'd rather focus on the essentials than have people look over my church's shoulder and point at non-essentials saying "You've got it wrong!!!"

Peace on this issue brothers. I'll agree to disagree but let's not divide this forum over things like this.

 

[Jon_]

I speak to the context of the passage you quoted. Paul is not establishing any criteria on the alcohol content of the wine to be used. He is talking about the establishment of the ordinance.

Hmm, I wasn't talking about alcohol content, either. I was talking about the elements, well, wine in particular.

This whole thing is a matter of opinion...

Communion is a matter of opinion? Or wine? How do you know it's just a matter of opinion? Wouldn't that necessitate that the ordinance of communion is itself entirely open to opinion. Wouldn't that mean cookies and Coca-cola are just as proper as bread and wine? That's not really what you mean, is it?

A Biblical mandate wold simply be a clear Scriptural teaching that only fermented wine is acceptable for use in the Lord's Supper.

Hang on a second. There is a very clever and somewhat sneaky redundancy here. You use the term "fermented wine." That, my friend, is the only kind of wine there is. Fermentation is inherent in the very definition of it. There is no such thing as unfermented wine. That is grape juice, and, as we have already discussed, it is a recent invention of no more than 150 years. We can thus completely rule out that the Lord's Supper was instituted with grape juice, but with wine, and that wine was indeed fermented.

Either explicitly laid out in Scripture or through a reasonable reading of Scriptures.

What is unreasonable about the argument? This is what confuses me. It has already been shown that "fermented" wine was used at the Lord's Supper. What more reasonable reading of the Scriptures is needed? The Lord said to drink wine, so we should. I fail to see how that is unreasonable.

I do not dispute that wine (fremented) was used. I dispute the idea that fermented drink is required by the Bible and that taking the Lord's Supper without it is sinful and makes the Communion somehow invalid.

But using this same line of argumentation, we might as well argue that bread isn't really required, it can be any kind of food. After all, didn't Christ say, "For my flesh is meat indeed" (John 6:55 KJV)? Maybe, since it's just a matter of opinion, we should use fried chicken instead. I like fried chicken.

Which is more important? The fermented drink or the meaning behind it?

The meaning behind it, of course.

This is not a hill on which to die...

Certainly not.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

To All,

I did not question grape juice for many years and even today I will certainly take the Communion cup that contains grape juice, but that is not the point.

I think the point is that in recent history the American Evangelical Church was wrongly influenced by the Unitarian based temperance movement and decided that it could change the elements that God gave us in the the Supper.

I don't think anyone should break fellowship or start a fight at your church over this issue, but I do think we need to see what has happened, find out why it happened and then work to recover the Supper that God had given to us.

Little things like this are usually the by-product of deeper troubles. I think that is true of this issue too.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Knight]

Communion is a matter of opinion? Or wine? How do you know it's just a matter of opinion? Wouldn't that necessitate that the ordinance of communion is itself entirely open to opinion. Wouldn't that mean cookies and Coca-cola are just as proper as bread and wine? That's not really what you mean, is it?

Of course not.

Hang on a second. There is a very clever and somewhat sneaky redundancy here. You use the term "fermented wine." That, my friend, is the only kind of wine there is. Fermentation is inherent in the very definition of it. There is no such thing as unfermented wine. That is grape juice, and, as we have already discussed, it is a recent invention of no more than 150 years. We can thus completely rule out that the Lord's Supper was instituted with grape juice, but with wine, and that wine was indeed fermented.

No deception was intended at all. Merely an attempt at clarification.

What is unreasonable about the argument? This is what confuses me. It has already been shown that "fermented" wine was used at the Lord's Supper. What more reasonable reading of the Scriptures is needed? The Lord said to drink wine, so we should. I fail to see how that is unreasonable.

And I fail to see the requirement for frementation. Yes this was what was available at the time. I do not dispute this.

The meaning behind it, of course.

Good.

Certainly not.

Very good.

 

[Knight]

Little things like this are usually the by-product of deeper troubles. I think that is true of this issue too.

In Christ,
Kenith

My opinion:
Deal with the deeper troubles first then worry about these trivial things.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

My opinion:
Deal with the deeper troubles first then worry about these trivial things.

Hello Knight,

I think the deeper problem in this case is that we have allowed un-biblical thinking to creep into the Church. Many Evangelicals in the 19th, 20th and now 21st centuries have allowed non-biblical thinking to replace biblical thinking on a number of issues including (but not limited to) the consumption of alcoholic beverages in a Godly moderate way.

Which is true -- the cultural taboo or the Word of God?

Is it a sin to have a cold beer or glass of wine or are these things (when used rightly) blessings from God.

THe Temperance movement fought against "demon rum" and the evils of alcohol. They said that God was wrong and His good gifts were actually evil and a curse to man and society.

So, I hope you will join and help us to turn our Evangelical brethren back to the Bible on this issue. It is God's Word that determines what we are to believe and not humanistic social movements, even when they have infiltrated the Church of Christ itself.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Bulldog]

I've heard this given as a reason as well. Allow me to pose a little question. Is it better that we obey God and trust that he shall keep us from temptation or to disobey God thinking that will keep us from temptation?

I do not have and have never had a drinking problem, so I cannot comment on what causes what, but I would find it quite startling to learn that a sip of wine taken during communion would somehow set off a drinking binge. That sounds like an excuse to me, and a poor one at that. But maybe I'm just being insensitive.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Hey Bulldog,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them and I know the reason you give above is a common argument for grape juice over wine, but it is not valid. The same drinking problems existed in Christ's day when the Supper was instituted. Drinking problems are not new.

I suppose you're right, but I'm not quite sure on the issue. Certainly what we associate the elements with is more important than the elements themselves, but if we're allowed any liberty with them, I don't know (for the record, my church and I use wine).

The Bible address drunkenness from cover to cover, yet at the same time God gave wine as a blessing and instituted the Supper with wine.

Yes, but one might argue that God gave grape juice as a blessing for those with drinking problems.

 

[Knight]

Hello Knight,

I think the deeper problem in this case is that we have allowed un-biblical thinking to creep into the Church. Many Evangelicals in the 19th, 20th and now 21st centuries have allowed non-biblical thinking to replace biblical thinking on a number of issues including (but not limited to) the consumption of alcoholic beverages in a Godly moderate way.

Which is true -- the cultural taboo or the Word of God?

I have never advocated that drinking alcohol is sinful. Nor will I. (Drunkenness being a different issue.)

Is it a sin to have a cold beer or glass of wine or are these things (when used rightly) blessings from God.

THe Temperance movement fought against "demon rum" and the evils of alcohol. They said that God was wrong and His good gifts were actually evil and a curse to man and society.

I enjoy a cold one myself from time to time. Not too often but that has more to do with my cheapness than anything else.

Thus far I have not percieved this issue to be in regards to the larger question of temperance but rather the proper type of element to be used for the blood of Christ in Communion.

So, I hope you will join and help us to turn our Evangelical brethren back to the Bible on this issue. It is God's Word that determines what we are to believe and not humanistic social movements, even when they have infiltrated the Church of Christ itself.

I'll rally against any teaching that goes against the Bible. I also acknowledge that there are areas of disputible matters and we ought not divide the body over them.

The trick is discerning one from the other.

 

[Jon_]

And I fail to see the requirement for frementation. Yes this was what was available at the time. I do not dispute this.

I think I understand what you believe to be the univocal characteristic of wine in the Lord's Supper. I think you consider wine as simply "the juice of grapes," whether that is fermented or unfermented. But I fail to see how this is supported from Scripture or language. This seems to be something that you have conceived on your own (granted that many people agree with you).

I might propose a different univocal characteristic. Perhaps fermentation is that characteristic. I could argue just as validly (if your argument is valid) that any fermented drink can serve as the blood in the Lord's Supper. How do you single out that mere "grape juice" is the blood? Why do you discard fermentation as unnecessary? There is no "biblical mandate" for doing so. In fact, all the biblical data lead to a different conclusion. Wine is viewed as a blessing in the Bible and also as an intoxicating drink. This same intoxicating blessing was instituted as the blood to be observed in communion.

I just don't understand how you can acknowledge that the Lord's Supper was instituted with wine, but that wine is not a necessity. Wine is a fermented drink. If you take away the fermentation, you no longer have wine; thus, you no longer have the blood. Instead, something is substituted, not by the command of God, but by the whim of man.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I suppose you're right, but I'm not quite sure on the issue. Certainly what we associate the elements with is more important than the elements themselves, but if we're allowed any liberty with them, I don't know (for the record, my church and I use wine).

I just don't see where liberty with the elements could come into play. Now, when it comes to Christian liberty, sure, we should not drink wine among those it causes to stumble (Rom. 14:21). But our Christian liberty never infringes on the commandments of God. For example, say you are on the Atkin's Diet. Does that mean you get to eat a piece of beef jerky instead of bread at communion? No, of course not.

It just seems that the Bible declares communion is with unleaven bread and wine and then does not address it anymore. Considering that, we should honor it as instituted. There does not appear to be any basis for changing the elements in any way.

Yes, but one might argue that God gave grape juice as a blessing for those with drinking problems.

Ha, ha! But then that one would have no scriptural warrant for such an argument! After all, the canon was closed 1800 years before grape juice came along!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon