Restore Wine to the Table

damo73 · Dec 21, 2006

Jesus was being symbolic or do we believe the wine is his blood also?

I dont think it matters if it is wine or not, it is the point Jesus was making that is,his body that was broken for us , his blood that washed our sins clean, he wanted us to come together and remember the price he paid for us.

Koey · Dec 21, 2006

That's probably right. But, do you also believe it is not important whether a person is immersed at baptism or not? Just wanted to make sure that you were being consistent.

damo73 · Dec 22, 2006

I believe a person should be baptised by full immersion at an age of understanding just as christ showed us, this is clearly completely different than wine or juice.

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · Dec 29, 2006

Where are we authorized to use anything except for what Jesus used? If you want to see what the Jews used during passover they are still using it today and it is wine, fermented, wine. I would like to see where we are authorized to change what was served.

As far as the alcoholic issue goes even AA does not consider it a slip to take communion. They are the strictest organization even barring cold medicines with alcohol and yet communion is allowed. If a person is truly walking with the Lord then taking communion will not cause them to slip. It's an act of faith. Why do we try and impose worldly values on such an act?

It is also legal to serve wine to minors for communion in every state. Wine is served to minors by Jews during passover every year, all throughout the Catholic church, Lutheran church, Anglican church, and more. The minors argument is a moot point.

If it was good enough for Christ it is good enough for me. I am part of a small but growing movement trying to restore the actual elements used in communion in my church (CC) and people have been wonderfully open to the idea.

Wine was used until a member of the Temperance movement and staunch prohibitionist created a process for preserving grape juice. His name should be familiar to everyone: Dr. Welch. In fact the idea of "new wine" and "unfermented wine" had never even been heard of before the temperance movement. Prohibition led to many churches using grape juice and "that's the way we have always done it" has since taken hold and the explaining away of grape juice instead of wine has a firm hold on many churches.

http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/2006/08/03/welchs-grape-juice-worldly-wisdom-and-wine/ is a good article that has great documentation. Due to the temperance movement Protestant churches have fallen prey to propaganda concerning grape juice and many recite as rote the falsehoods from the temperance movement. We should seek to restore the proper elements as well as the proper mindset regarding communion.

Splayd · Dec 29, 2006

Interesting post Edmund. Thanks

InServicetoGod · Dec 29, 2006

One of the churches I frequent uses real wine at the communion every week.
There is not enough given to anyone to cause drunkeness, nor a "relapse" amongst any who may be alcoholic.

PraiseReborn · Dec 30, 2006

I wouldn't mind wine at all at the Lord's supper, however what about health issues?

We have to take in consideration those people who can't drink for medical reasons, such as our (husband and myself) diabetes. We're both fragile diabetics and have to be very careful.

Also, we have to think upon those who just can't handle alcohol physcially, recovering alcoholics, ect. Moderation and the idea of "only on sunday" is a good argument. However to say a person lacks faith because they don't take the wine is a bit extreme, isn't it?

Even if I didn't have to take my diabetes into thought, I still wouldn't take wine. I'm an addictive personality, come from a long line of alcoholics and just don't like the taste of it the few times I've had it.

Is my faith not strong? I don't believe so at all. For my faith is in Christ Jesus, not whether or not I take wine, Supper or otherwise.

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · Dec 31, 2006

PraiseReborn said:
I wouldn't mind wine at all at the Lord's supper, however what about health issues?

We have to take in consideration those people who can't drink for medical reasons, such as our (husband and myself) diabetes. We're both fragile diabetics and have to be very careful.

My father is a very fragile diabetic. The amount of sugar in around 1/2 oz of wine shouldn't be enough to set off the most fragile of diabetics. It is about the same sugar, iirc, you would get from the carbs in one bite of bread. And it is no more sugar than you would get with grape juice to begin with. Even the slight difference in the sugars is negated by the tiny amount of liquid actually consumed. We aren't talking a full glass of wine but the little half ounce communion cups.

Also, we have to think upon those who just can't handle alcohol physcially, recovering alcoholics, ect. Moderation and the idea of "only on sunday" is a good argument. However to say a person lacks faith because they don't take the wine is a bit extreme, isn't it?

I don't think it is extreme at all. AA does not think taking communion will cause a person to slip and they would be the experts. It is less than 1/2 oz of wine. The amount of alcohol in that amount of wine would not be enough to be even detect in a blood test much less affect a person to relapse.

Even if I didn't have to take my diabetes into thought, I still wouldn't take wine. I'm an addictive personality, come from a long line of alcoholics and just don't like the taste of it the few times I've had it.

From a Restoration Movement perspective this argument doesn't hold water. The key to the movement is to practice church as church was practiced in scripture and I assure you they used wine in the time of Christ and the Apostles. You would refuse communion because of the taste? That just seems wrong to me to be honest.

Is my faith not strong? I don't believe so at all. For my faith is in Christ Jesus, not whether or not I take wine, Supper or otherwise.

As this discussion is a church practices discussion in the RM forum the question still remains where do we find the authority to change what was done in the first century church. You have given all sorts of personal reasons, which is fine for you, but for the RM as a whole not a single one of those matters to be completely honest. If we are honestly trying to practice church as the first century church did then we should be using wine.

Splayd · Dec 31, 2006

At the end of the day, here's what I'm certain of:

During communion we drink of the fruit of the vine. Determining whether or not, the early church used fermented wine seems an interesting intellectual exercise, but little more. Regardless of whether or not our grape juice is fermented it remains the fruit of the vine.

Determining that either way is necessary seems to me to be dogmatic and overly complicating the truth of the matter. What next? Do we ensure that we find out which type of grapes they used? Are we required to make it using the same methods too?

I appreciate that not participating because of one's alcohol addiction may in fact be considered as lacking in faith, but by the same token I'd also consider that requiring the wine to be fermented could likewise be considered as much. Frankly, I think God can do whatever He does with it all either way.

Mary of Bethany · Dec 31, 2006

Just as a little FYI, Orthodox begin communing babies once they are baptized, usually around 6 weeks. The way we receive Communion is with leavened bread broken up in the wine, and served by the Priest with a spoon. Babies receive just a tiny little bit of both - all that they can handle.

I don't think that alcoholism or other health problems are an issue when it comes to receiving Communion. But having grown up Baptist, I do understand that many folks have very strong feelings against using wine.

Mary

PraiseReborn · Jan 2, 2007

EdmundBlackadderTheThird said:
My father is a very fragile diabetic. The amount of sugar in around 1/2 oz of wine shouldn't be enough to set off the most fragile of diabetics. It is about the same sugar, iirc, you would get from the carbs in one bite of bread. And it is no more sugar than you would get with grape juice to begin with. Even the slight difference in the sugars is negated by the tiny amount of liquid actually consumed. We aren't talking a full glass of wine but the little half ounce communion cups.

I don't think it is extreme at all. AA does not think taking communion will cause a person to slip and they would be the experts. It is less than 1/2 oz of wine. The amount of alcohol in that amount of wine would not be enough to be even detect in a blood test much less affect a person to relapse.

From a Restoration Movement perspective this argument doesn't hold water. The key to the movement is to practice church as church was practiced in scripture and I assure you they used wine in the time of Christ and the Apostles. You would refuse communion because of the taste? That just seems wrong to me to be honest.

As this discussion is a church practices discussion in the RM forum the question still remains where do we find the authority to change what was done in the first century church. You have given all sorts of personal reasons, which is fine for you, but for the RM as a whole not a single one of those matters to be completely honest. If we are honestly trying to practice church as the first century church did then we should be using wine.

I do have to admit, I was focusing on personal views rather than the whole picture.

Off the topic a bit though, my husband and I were both scared into staying off of fruit juices and alcohol by our nutritionist that we now see. Did a doctor do the same with your father?

Koey · Jan 6, 2007

JDIBe said:
Koey,
So which is more important, the "fruit of the vine" which Christ called His Blood or the ethanol?

If you wish to use wine during the LS, I see no problem with that, but I think it would be very impractical to take everyone's "drink order" before the LS. People who prefer alcohol are not offended by grape juice, but people whose concience will not allow them to consume alcohol in that manner probably would be offended by wine. Tolerance runs both ways you know.....

"Fruit of the vine" according to my theological word book, anciently referred to Passover wine, not grape juice.

You also stated that people who prefer wine are not offended by grape juice. Sorry, but I am, because grape juice is shoved at me week in and week out, even though I requested wine a couple of times. My request has been ignored.

I have heard of churches where both are offered. That to me is just excellent. That way each person's faith is honored.

JDIBe · Jan 6, 2007

Koey said:
You also stated that people who prefer wine are not offended by grape juice. Sorry, but I am, because grape juice is shoved at me week in and week out, even though I requested wine a couple of times. My request has been ignored.

Bring your own....

AJB4 · Jan 7, 2007

To say that the 'wine' they used back then was grape juice is illogical:

HeyHomie said:
Let me also add that the grape juice that we drink on Sunday mornings didn't exist at the time of Christ. In fact, it didn't exist until 1869, when Dr. Welch figured out a way to pasturize it to stop the fermentation.

The Lords Supper wine is alcoholic wine. To say that it's not is an error on the Church of Christ's part. It is scientifically and factually incorrect. If we use grape juice instead of the alcoholic wine they used back then, we may as well just use coke or fanta.

Koey · Jan 9, 2007

Excellent comments both! It is inconsistent to insist upon the original baptism (immerson) and at the same time substitute another original that Christ used (wine). If we say we are restorationists, let's be consistent and restore the original wine. Otherwise, let's just be honest and say that we are comfortable restoring some things, but not others.

Let's be honest and say that we are just like every other church on the planet, picking and choosing, here and there. Let's say that the important things are the commands of Jesus, and that our traditions are dismal shadows by comparison.

JDIBe · Jan 9, 2007

Hmm.... things get a bit more interesting......

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_passoverwinelamb.htm

Ask Rabbi Simmons
Passover Wine and Lamb

Question

What kind of wine was used and is used for the Passover? Fermented or unfermented? Can you give me the names of any books which will give documentation on this? At what hour was the lamb slain on the 14th day of Nisan? At what hour was the lamb partaken of?

Answer

Both fermented wine and unfermented wine is permissible, as documented in the "Code of Jewish Law" O.C. 472:10; MB 37.
The Passover offering wsa eaten on the first evening of Passover, till midnight - Talmud Pesachim 119-121; Zevachim 56b.
With blessings from Jerusalem,
Rabbi Shraga Simmons
*******************
http://www.ok.org/Content.asp?ID=143
OK Kosher Certification:

5. If wine is adulterated with six parts of water, the wine becomes nullified and does not become forbidden by the touch of a non-Jew. However, raisin wine, that is, when water is poured upon the raisins, is considered as true wine.

Again, if it violates your concience that much, then I highly suggest you bring your own. I think everyone else would understand.

mohawk · Jan 10, 2007

I see no reason to think that Christ never had a drink of wine. I find nowhere in scriptures that says this.

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · Jan 10, 2007

JDIBe said:
Hmm.... things get a bit more interesting......

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_passoverwinelamb.htm

Ask Rabbi Simmons
Passover Wine and Lamb

Question

What kind of wine was used and is used for the Passover? Fermented or unfermented? Can you give me the names of any books which will give documentation on this? At what hour was the lamb slain on the 14th day of Nisan? At what hour was the lamb partaken of?

Answer

Both fermented wine and unfermented wine is permissible, as documented in the "Code of Jewish Law" O.C. 472:10; MB 37.
The Passover offering wsa eaten on the first evening of Passover, till midnight - Talmud Pesachim 119-121; Zevachim 56b.
With blessings from Jerusalem,
Rabbi Shraga Simmons
*******************
http://www.ok.org/Content.asp?ID=143
OK Kosher Certification:

5. If wine is adulterated with six parts of water, the wine becomes nullified and does not become forbidden by the touch of a non-Jew. However, raisin wine, that is, when water is poured upon the raisins, is considered as true wine.

Again, if it violates your concience that much, then I highly suggest you bring your own. I think everyone else would understand.

The question posed does not address the historical issue. It says that both are allowed but it does not say what was used in Biblical times.

JDIBe · Jan 10, 2007

mohawk said:
[F Linotype]I see no reason to think that Christ never had a drink of wine. I find nowhere in scriptures that says this.[/FONT]

I think it's an almost certainty He did. Most of the water back then would probably kill you. The issue though, is does the "wine" have to be alcoholic. Apparently it is possible for it not to be.

Right now, I could go either way on this.

The ironic thing about all this is the word "Pharisee" keeps popping up again and again here lately (btw, can we start calling each other "Sadducees" for a week or so to break the monotony? ). Isn't it weird that we are contemplating being EVEN STRICTER than a Pharisee?

Koey · Jan 11, 2007

I think that Pharisees is a good choice of word. When we impose commands upon the church that neither Christ, nor the apostles commanded, we are creating our own new Talmud of do's and don'ts.

Why is it that instead of following Jesus, we instead love to follow the example of those who killed him, those who made up lists of rules, like the Pharisees. I do believe that we who claim to be Christ-ians ought to pay more heed to what Christ said, and less heed to the picky religious ways of the Pharisees.

Restore Wine to the Table

Member

Veteran

Member

Proud member of the Loud Few

Just some guy

Active Member

Active Member

Proud member of the Loud Few

Just some guy

Only one thing is needful.

Active Member

Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Senior Member

Be Not Afraid...

Proud member of the Loud Few

Senior Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency