Another Topic To Chew On For Now
Well, I will be back in just a few more days. Until then, here is another topic for you to discuss.
Does the Bible condone drinking or does it condemn drinking? Is it an "all-or-nothing" issue? Is moderate drinking Biblical or a compromise using today's standards?
Posts
Isaiah 9:3 and the KJV
5 hours ago
73 comments:
Scripture gives us liberty to enjoy alcohol as long as it isn't in excess. In fact, it tells us that wine makes the heart glad.
Until the masses heap upon me, I'll leave you with this:
don’t teach me about politics and government
just tell me who to vote for
don’t teach me about truth and beauty
just label my music
don’t teach me how to live like a free man
just give me a new law
i don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy
so just bring it down from the mountain to me
i want a new law
i want a new law
gimme that new law
don’t teach me about moderation and liberty
i prefer a shot of grape juice
don’t teach me about loving my enemies
don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit
just give me a new law
i don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy
so just bring it down from the mountain to me
i want a new law
i want a new law
gimme that new law
what’s the use in trading a law you can never keep
for one you can that cannot get you anything
do not be afraid
do not be afraid
do not be afraid
in the context of john 2, the master of the banquet clearly indicates both that good "wine" of the sort being discussed has the (intoxicating) effect of dulling the senses AND that Jesus has made some very good wine...never seen anyone get around it without adding something to the text that isn't there.
matt11:18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners..."
again, unless Jesus was eating calorie-free food with His alcohol-free wine, not sure how this verse makes any sense...OTOH, if He was being charged with excess when He partook only in moderation, it makes sense.
-charles
Jesus is a master-brewer - remember the wedding at Canna.
Liquors and brewed products are newer inventions, but the Bible both condones and commands the moderate use of alcohol. It was the common practice of Landmark Baptists until the last fifty years to use "real" wine in the Lord's Supper, because they understood what the Bible has to say about the use of wine.
I personally do not drink wine outside of the ceremonial obserbamce of the Lord's Supper for various cultural reasons. But, it is actually a compromise with Protestantism to teach a variation of teetotalism which is neither found nor commanded in Holy Scripture.
Whoa, whoa WHOA! There are ABA/BMA churches that use wine??!?!?
Color me shocked. Seriously.
There are many Missionary Baptist churches that use wine for the Lord's Supper. As with other things, we never stopped doing it that way.
studymore said...
"There are many Missionary Baptist churches that use wine for the Lord's Supper. As with other things, we never stopped doing it that way."
It's time to really be concerned when you find the Seagram's 7 and Bartles & Jaymes bottles in the trash after communion.
"Thank you for your support!"
For those wound a bit too tight, I'M KIDDING!!
OK. Go ahead with the rest of the discussion.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
I am not saying that it is right or wrong, but i know that the bible says to "abstain from all appearance of evil" and in todays socity it can be looked upon as evil. I just think it hurts your Christian witness when you are going to a bar.
Stubby, if you wanna abstain from all appearance of evil you better quit shaving that head. You big Nazi sympathizer, you.
Some of the churches make their own, most buy Orthodox Passover wine. A few buy naturally fermented wine from local wineries. None go to a bar for communion. Just wanted to let everyone know that!
Studymore said...
"None go to a bar for communion."
I heard of a church that once met IN a bar, but used grape juice for communion. As Alanis once said, "isn't it ironic?"
Stubb,
I hate to break it to ya, but really, "the world" doesn't see drinking as evil. Only teetotalers do.
You know you love me,
Stephanie
And further, that verse is out of context.
:p
Man, Stubb. Steph's never gonna give you a moment of peace! I'd stick up for you, but I just can't quit giggling...
"...in todays socity it can be looked upon as evil."
and so what if it is? i already quoted scripture which tells us that Jesus' eating and drinking with sinners and tax collectors was "looked upon as evil." (luke 15 is most likely one example of Jesus hanging out with random folks at a party while the pharisees kept a safe distance - as you suggest - and criticized Him.) would you seriously like to argue that it was sin for Him to do so? and if such gossip didn't stop Him from eating and drinking with the "sinners," i'm not sure why it should stop us...
(side note: it's interesting that the KJV says to avoid the "appearance" of evil, while the NIV, NASB and ESV translate it as "avoid all forms/kinds of (actual) evil." might be interesting to do a study on whether Jesus was actually concerned with "appearing" righteous or not...)
i said that i was not going to say that it is right or worng, but if you want to go to a bar drinking and try to Witness then you go right ahead there stephanie, i am sure that you will be very productive :)
i'm with charles on this one.
hey stubb, wanna have a beer later?
I enjoy a good beer now and then. We had a wine tasting "fellowship" at a church member's house and had so much fun. We sat on the deck, talked about Scripture, enjoyed the fellowship and grew closer together. The wine tasting probably went better than a food fellowship. At least no one committed the regular sin of gluttony, and nobody came close to drunkenness.
The biggest problem I've got with drinking is what to do with the church covenant. Does it really mean anything? Is it outdated?
Well, the existing Church Covenant is unBiblical.
(i'm about to start running now.)
I posted on this topic recently in my own blog. You folks are more than welcome to stop over there and leave a comment if you've got any thoughts to further the conversation.
For here, I'll post one of the comments left there . . . it was from my pastor:
Reasons I drink:
1. To learn to fear God.
Deut. 14:23 And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
2. So My Household Will Rejoice
Deut. 14:26 spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.
3. Because this day is holy and the joy of the Lord is my strength.
Neh. 8:10 Then he said to them, “Go your way. Eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to anyone who has nothing ready, for this day is holy to our Lord. And do not be grieved, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.”
4. Because God wants my heart to be glad & that’s what some plants are for.
Psa. 104:14-15 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.
5. It’s a reward for my faithfulness in tithing.
Proverbs 3:9-10 Honor the LORD with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.
6. It facilitates romance & marital bliss (If you know what I’m saying- wink wink. nudge nudge.)
Song 8:2 I would lead you and bring you into the house of my mother—
she who used to teach me. I would give you spiced wine to drink,
the juice of my pomegranate.
7. Because I’m practicing for a dinner date I’ve got with Jesus.
Is. 25:6 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.
8. Because I’m thirsty and it’s what Jesus is serving.
Is. 55:1 “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
9. Because I am radiant over the goodness of the Lord.
Jer. 31:12 They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall be like a watered garden, and they shall languish no more.
10. Because it is one way God wants to satisfy me.
Joel 2:19 The LORD answered and said to his people, “Behold, I am sending to you grain, wine, and oil,
and you will be satisfied; and I will no more make you a reproach among the nations.
11. Because God’s goodness is great and it makes the young women flourish.
Zech. 9:17 For how great is his goodness, and how great his beauty! Grain shall make the young men flourish, and new wine the young women.
12. Because that’s how Jesus rolls. (HWJR?)
John 2:9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom
John 2:10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”
13. Because the Bible says it’s good for my health.
1Tim. 5:23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)
14. But mostly because of peer pressure… from Jesus.
Mark 14:23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
Now, obviously the verses and reasons here are a bit tongue-in-cheek, and don't address everything that Scripture has to say about alcohol . . . but I would venture to say that they do a better job addressing it than the arguments of teetotalers.
haha:) na, drinking has never been the thing for me but mabye i can get a DP with you stephanie:)
DP will rot your teeth.
Beer is MUCH better for you.
(i think i just heard JM Carroll turn over in his grave)
i think i would rather have rotten teeth the a liver:)
(he missed the moderation part)
(even just a little DP will rot your teeth)
according to the mayo clinic, moderate alcohol consumption may:
*Reduce your risk of developing heart disease and vascular disease
*Reduce your risk of dying of a heart attack
*Possibly reduce your risk of strokes
*Lower your risk of gallstones
*Possibly reduce your risk of diabetes
they define moderate as 2 drinks per day for adults under 65. at that level, your liver is pretty safe...so if you're looking for support for abstaining from the most current medical studies, you are flat out of luck.
sure, there are circumstances where individuals should abstain (family history of alcoholism, pregnancy, taking certain medications)...but if the best argument against drinking in general is "i don't want to offend any pharisees," then i'm not convinced that argument is generally consistent with scripture.
(OTOH, i would concede that cokes are cheaper than wine and can also be enjoyable (even if that high fructose corn syrup is a bit risky from a health standpoint.) IMO, romans 14 would discourage me from looking down on someone getting a coke as clearly as it reprimands a pharisee who would condemn me for having a glass of wine.)
-charles
I think I've entered the Twilight Zone.
I believe (for all the reasons previously stated) that it is ok to drink a little wine in Moderation ... never to excess. However, as bologna said, the problem is that if you are a member of an ABA church that uses the typical Covenant that most of the ABA churches use, you have covenanted yourself together with a group of God's people and agreed that you will abstain from alcohol. While drinking may be allowed, breaking your covenant is not. OTOH, in most cases people become a member of an ABA church with little to no introduction (much less detailed explanation)in regards to the Covenant. This is especially true in the case of children becoming members. So then my question is, if you become a member of a church without full knowledge of the covenant, are you really bound by the covenant? (I have no idea if this makes sense, I'm not very eloquent)
Now, I'm not going to tell you where I stand on this issue, but I do want to put a warning here. When the Bible uses the word "wine" it does not always mean "wine." It means fruit of the vine which can be alcoholic or non-alcoholic. So, we need to be careful in throwing around verses with the word wine and taking it for granted that it means wine. It may or may not.
Now, that I've given my warning, I also do not believe that wine is to be used for the Lord's Supper. Remember, that the elements of the Lord's Supper was taken from the Last Passover. The Jews were required to remove all yeast from their house one week before. Thus wine would have had to be removed because it contains gluten (yeast). Anyway, see what you think and let me know.
Also, to dispel a common myth...
Grape juice does not start fermenting the moment it "comes out of the grape." There are certain criteria to be met before it can ferment. Also, the ancients did refer to grape juice as "sweet wine."
Just thought I'd throw these in to "stimulate" discussion...hahaha.
hey, me and you agree on something matt:)
Did I read Stubby correctly? Did he just say he'd rather have rotten teeth than a liver? Dude, what have you got against your liver that you'd choose rotten teeth over it?!
Speaking of livers...
The Taco Bell chihuahua, a pit bull, and a Labrador retriever saw a beautiful poodle walking by and began to "come on" to her.
She told them she'd go out with the one who could use the words "liver" and "cheese" most creatively in a sentence.
The pit bull says "I like liver and cheese." She just shakes her head.
The Lab says "I hate liver and cheese." Again, no response.
Then, the Taco Bell chihuahua says, "Liver alone, cheese mine!"
...and they lived happily ever after.
And pray tell...what have you been drinking to make you tell a joke like that?!?
Passover wine. Keepin' it real, Kosher style!
All I have to say about wine and it being fermented, etc. is that Jesus was obviously concerned about folks getting drunk from it, so there was OBVIOUSLY alcohol involved.
That is all.
"When the Bible uses the word "wine" it does not always mean "wine." So, we need to be careful in throwing around verses with the word wine and taking it for granted that it means wine."
i've already demonstrated contextually why Jesus creation of "wine" from water refers to "wine: the sort that, as you drink more of it, dulls your senses and makes it a good strategy to give you mediocre wine after you've already had some good stuff" and why the accusation that Jesus was "drinking" (where John did not) only had teeth if there was a risk that, by drinking to excess, He would actually have been a "drunkard."
in my understanding, the context of the stories continues to make sense...the same with paul's discussion of the Lord's supper in 1 cor 11 (in which some in the early church were going too far and getting drunk) and the prohibition in eph5 not to "get drunk with wine." the "wine" in all of these contexts clearly has intoxicating effects...you don't need to do a word study or get a degree in jewish history, the context tells us what type of drink is being discussed.
OTOH, it sounds like you believe some of the historically dishonest "invented stories" that exist merely to defend a baptist culture which, on this point, stands in opposition to scripture...and therefore the baptists take it into their hands to redefine scripture. i understand that it's well-intentioned enough in this case (drunkenness and alcoholism are ugly and dangerous, it makes sense to try to build extra fences around the received law of God to provide a little more safety...the pharisees were innovators in that sort of thinking), but it's a scary thing to open yourself up to.
if you can explain how your understanding actually fits the context of scripture, i'd like to hear it. otherwise, i'll keep it filed away with the other baptist urban legends like the "eye of the needle gate" (which teaches that Jesus said that rich people can be saved if they get on their knees like a camel squeezing through a tiny gate...while the context of the scriptural story actually teaches that the disciples were freaking out because Jesus said it was "impossible, short of a miracle" (matt19:26) for even the best religious people - the rich in jewish society - to be saved.)
"i'll keep it filed away with the other baptist urban legends like the "eye of the needle gate" (which teaches that Jesus said that rich people can be saved if they get on their knees like a camel squeezing through a tiny gate..."
WHAT?!! Someone taught that? WOW!
Hey, here's a good one for the weirdo file - http://geocities.com//blackrootswisdom/
Read the WHOLE thing. I've got another link with all of this, plus a bit more. Crazy/scary!!
Okay, Anon,
First of all, you are attributing many urban legends to baptists that did not originate with baptists. So stop. Also, if you will study the Scriptures, you will "honestly" find out that many times the word wine does not mean wine! It's not something we're making up, it's the Scriptures! Why do so many people not understand this?!? I'm not saying where or when it means one or the other, I am just saying it does NOT ALWAYS mean wine of the alcoholic type.
One more thing. What demonination do you belong to (if you belong to one), for I would love to tell you the truth that Baptists as a whole are closer to the truth than anyone other denomination as a whole!
Wow, Matt. You might wanna hold off on blanket statements like that.
And regarding "wine" not meaning "wine" places in Scripture... Well yeah. Sometimes, it's used as a metaphor. Big deal. How does that prove a point one way or another?
What other denomination holds to biblical truth as close as the Baptist (speaking of the U.S. denominations)?
On the wine issue, it does make a difference. Many people have not the slightest clue that wine can mean fruit of the vine fermented or unfermented. Now I'm not saying it always mean one or the other, but it should at least be understood by all in this discussion. For so many people see the word wine and run off not knowing what it may or may not mean.
In my opinion, the PCA (not ALL presbys, but this sect) has a pretty firm grasp on Biblical truth. Sure, there are some areas of concern-- but just about as much as the Baptist church finds.
Isn't it the same word used for wine when Melchizedek brought it out for Abraham and when Lot's daughters got Lot drunk with it? Doesn't it come from the meaning to bubble up or ferment? (yayin)
Grapes naturally contain yeast on them, it is the white powdery stuff. So yeast would have to be washed off to keep grape juice from fermenting. Fermented grape juice keeps longer than grape juice, so practically I would think it would be in the homes. Used in the passover??? I don't know. Personally, I think it is irrelevant... they ate bread with yeast just not at the Passover. So why not wine??
I don't think that wine in the Bible had the same alcohol content as it does today.
I don't think Paul would have had to exhort Timothy to drink wine if it had no alcohol content. Why?? Umm... BrotherMatt I exhort you to drink more water... Hmmm, well maybe noting your DP intake ... maybe that isn't such a good argument ;o)
My opinion is that Timothy abstained because of the exhortations to not be given to much wine, so Paul had to make the point that some wine is good.
Well, "hi" y'all.
Kristin
still think we need a message board
Oh... you know you don't want to get me started LOL
"Appearance of Evil" I don't think that is an accurate translation... Jesus did many things that appeared evil to society of that day... eat with sinners, talk to women, work on the Sabbath etc... He never was and still isn't concerned with appearance. He is concerned with the heart. The image of the person/church, I feel, is a great "idol" in many churches today. To worry about appearance instead of what God wants means you have to be focused on others and not God. If you live your life to please God, He will take care of the image.
Lastly ... I think ;) ... While I don't think drinking is necessarily wrong, it is an indulgence... not a necessity. So while I will never condone a legalistic thumb that tries to squish the work of the Holy Spirit out of a person .... if drinking will turn a person from the faith because they are weak, I will chose to always abstain.
Now if you are going to drink DP... you had better spike it with Apple Cider Vinegar so you at least get something good out of it. :o)
(still waiting for a message board)
Dude, your DR. Pepper indulgence just got spiked!
DANG GINA... err... I mean KRISTIN!
hehe
.... scratching head....
Who's Gina?
"DANG GINA!" is a reference to that old show "Martin". He used to say that all the time.
I am just SO very young to remember that! :o)
oh... I looked it up... guess it wasn't THAT long ago :)
Hey, I like living in my box .... closing the lid....
Kristin,
I agree with everything you said except for one thing that needs some clarification. You said:
"Grapes naturally contain yeast on them, it is the white powdery stuff. So yeast would have to be washed off to keep grape juice from fermenting."
Just because grapes naturally contain yeast does not mean that they will ferment even with the yeast present. There must be the correct ratio of sugar to the yeast and the temperature must be in a certain range. If there is an incorrect ratio of sugar:yeast:juice and the temperature is not in the correct range, then the grapes will not ferment. So, yes, there is yeast, but that by itself does not mean they will ferment. However, on the flip side, I do believe that many times the Bible does refer to wine as alcoholic wine. And yes, there wine, for the most part, is much different than our wine today. Maybe I'll talk more about that later.
And leave me and my Dr. Pepper addiction alone!!!
Hahahaha...
"Also, if you will study the Scriptures, you will "honestly" find out that many times the word wine does not mean wine!"
except that i have studied the scriptures...and i have shown you why, contextually, the scriptures are speaking of alcoholic wine. it might be less alcoholic than our wine (i'm aware that some jews began diluting their wine with water to conform with greek practices around the time of Christ) but "alcoholic" nonetheless.
you have yet to present an argument that can begin to explain how Jesus came "drinking" in such a way that made Him open to charges of drunkenness. (as opposed to john the baptizer - who came "neither eating bread nor drinking wine" - luk7:33 - and thus had to be dismissively labeled as crazy or demon-possessed.)
"It's not something we're making up, it's the Scriptures!"
then discuss it from the scriptures...if you are going to bring in historical/cultural arguments (of dubious origin?), then explain how they tie into the scripture as logically as the notion that "Jesus drank alcoholic wine in moderation, which is not a sin, but which allowed for charges of the sin of drunkenness." if all the jewish weddings were using nonalcoholic wine, then why did "everyone serve the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine?" why does paul condemn the corinthians in 1cor11, not primarily for the use of alcholic wine leading to drunkenness, but for the lack of sharing that such results demonstrated. "one gets nothing and others get too much"..."when you come together to eat, wait for one another."
i think the scriptures are very clear on this...so long as you don't start with an agenda.
" 'Appearance of Evil': I don't think that is an accurate translation..."
i think i like kristin...where was she during the KJVO post and discussion? :)
as for background, i used to go to a SBC church in HS and even spent a few years in the baptist student union in college. the cultural crap was a lot to put up with (drinking/mixed race dating/"membership" was a joke) but the politics was just exasperating - we got to a point where we spent more time talking about the "autonomy of the local church" and "priesthood of the believer" (used as a justification for all forms of sin) than scripture, so i left.
i'm a big fan (and longtime member) of the PCA, which i started attending in college. (good call, stephanie!)
and baptists can't possibly be "closer to the truth" - you don't even baptize your babies... ;) (i did read that the SBC baptized more children in the 1-5 year old range than ever before, so maybe some of y'all are headed in the right direction... ;) )
Well, anon... they're FAR from being SBC, as I'm sure some will retort in a moment. But, good post!
Anon,
Baptists are much closer to the truth than the PCA obviously. Especially since infant baptism is UNSCRIPTURAL!!! :) However, I do agree that there are issues of politics, etc. that we must deal with in order to be what God would have us to be.
Furthermore, you have missed my whole point about the word "wine". I'm not saying it was never used in cases of alcohol. I'm saying that there were/are cases where it can/is used to mean grape juice. That is all. I just did not want anyone to leave this discussion not knowing the truth of the matter. Sorry, that I could not relay that through my typing, but that is what I meant.
Oh, and Steph...what exactly do you mean by saying that we are FAR from being SBC? Is that a compliment or an insult??? :)
Baptists are much closer to the truth than the PCA obviously. Especially since infant baptism is UNSCRIPTURAL!!!
Even if I agreed with you, my response would be: so is denial of the Church.
The ABA is very adamant that they are so far from the SBC. I say not so much, but hey... whatever you want.
I've never denied the church is a group of scripturally baptized believers that have covenanted together to carry out the Great Commission...
Don't be coy.
"Furthermore, you have missed my whole point about the word "wine". I'm not saying it was never used in cases of alcohol. I'm saying that there are cases where it is used to mean grape juice."
is it fair to observe that this point only serves to muddy the original question: "is moderate drinking of ALCOHOL scriptural?"
i've raised 3 examples from scripture which IMO clearly refer to wine, in context, as an alcoholic drink. if scripture so clearly teaches that Jesus came drinking alcohol and turning water into alcohol, and we know from 1cor11 that the 1st century church used alcohol in the Lord's supper (since the corinthians were castigated for abusing it and getting drunk), then it still remains to be shown why so many are "nullifying the Word of God for the sake of their tradition."
if you disagree that these verses clearly refer to alcohol, i'd like to know your reasoning why. if you just want to reference some other odd verses that you believe have "grape juice" mistranslated as "wine", that's fine also...but IMO, it doesn't seem to relate to the primary discussion...
Wine is called unleavened in the scriptures. Grape juice is leavened because it contains those yeasts that are naturally present in grape juice in the pressing process. Jews would cast out the leaven, including the lees left behins during fermentation.
Sorry, guys, if you are using grape juice in the Lord's Supper (Welch's or otherwise), you are using a leavened product that is unauthorized by scripture. And you are going the way of the Temperance Movement Protestants, like Welch and Patten.
Secondly, grape juice does ferment as soon as it is pressed. I have been making wine for years now for the Lord's Supper. Do not trust something some uunlearned person told you, actually investigate it yourself. When left to natural process, you will actually see the bubbling of fermentation the moment you begin to crush the grapes.
What is necessary for fermentation? Water, yeasts, and sugar. These things are all present naturally in the grape. During the fermentation process, the yeasts are cast off, leaving uunleavened wine.
Now, all Old Testament offerings were considered unleavened, and they used Yayin, which is a fermented wine. Isaiah 25:6 speaks of a wine on the lees well refined.
I could actually open the scriptures up from beginning to end and point out the meaning of the words wine, but suffice it to say, it is inconsistent and unbiblical to use grape juice in the Lord's Supper.
Dear Anon,
Your statement:
"Secondly, grape juice does ferment as soon as it is pressed."
This statement is scientifically incorrect. It only ferments if the correct ratios of sugar and yeast are present and the right temperature has been attained. Now it can ferment as soon as it is pressed, but in other cases it cannot ferment because of certain chemical conditions that are not met (ratios, temperatures, etc.).
Also, according to you grape juice contains yeast...okay...but so does wine! Then neither one should be used. I could also use Scripture and show why wine is not to be used in the Lord's Supper. However, this is a debate that is left up to each church.
pitWine does not contain yeast, after the fermentation process, the cream of tartar (lees, yeasts) precipitates to the bottom. That is why wine is considered by the Lord in the Old Testament to be unleavened.
As to your idea that it only ferments when the "correct ratios of sugar and yeast are present," naturally grapes already contain enough sugar and yeasts to do the job. The temperature necessary for fermentation is quite broad, and unless it is freezing or you are on the planet Mercury, fermentation will occur. There is a difference between optimal conditions and necessary conditions.
You really need to study the actual science of it, instead of claiming you know it. Most of the things you say have their origin with Patten, and not Baptists.
From a tract:
How can you get the yeast out of grape juice?
When the yeast has consumed the sugar from the juice, the yeast dies and settles to the bottom of the fermentation vat. Or, if the grape is very sweet, then when enough sugar has been converted to raise the alcohol level to approximately 15%, the alcohol itself kills the yeast and the yeast settles to the bottom of the fermentation vat with the skins and other sediment.
What we have at this point was called new wine in the first century.
The next step in the process, after all the sediment has gone to the bottom, is to rack the new wine. Racking is the process of pouring off the cleared wine from the top and leaving the dead yeast and other sediment - the lees - in the vat. If wine is left too long on the lees, it spoils - it ruins. Just as Moab had done, it becomes good for nothing but fertilizer.
Much of the new wine in Jesus' time was poured out as a drink offering at the altar as an act of worship. This symbolized God drinking the firstfruits. This symbolized God drinking wine.
Some will say that such an idea is blasphemy. If blasphemy, then I ask, just what is the symbolism when one poured out the very best wine as an act of worship at the altar? Especially when the very best of everything was God's?
They poured some of the new wine into jars or into new animal skins, where some very slow, minor fermentation (called malolactic fermentation, which takes away some of the tart taste and makes the wine smoother and more mellow) continued for a few days. That's why it was important that new skins be used for new wine.
Even children in Jesus' time understood the process. They knew the consequences of using old, stretched skins.
The small quantities of carbon dioxide created by the slow residual fermentation would split stiff, old skins and waste the wine and ruin the old skin (which, by the way, would still have been good for carrying water or aged wine).
What we have left after the racking process is pure, clear, unleavened wine. The marvelous living creature - yeast has done its job, settled out and is gone. Since God put all the ingredients together in one so perfect a package as the grape, can any mere man deny that His purpose for grapes is to make wine - not grape juice?
When I further consider that bread and wine alone together make a completely nourishing meal and can sustain a person for their entire life with no other food sources - then I conclude that wine is no accident nor freak of nature. God intended it for man's use.
But back to the yeast. Since grape juice has yeast in it - yes, even Welch's pasteurized variety is full of yeast - it could not have been used for the Passover beverage. Grape juice is leavened. The Jews used wine. Wine is unleavened.
But someone said to me -"The Bible speaks of unleavened bread. But, it never says anything about anything else being unleavened."
Let me urge you to go back and again read the laws given for the Passover feast and the week of the Unleavened Bread Feast.
The Jews were required to make a fastidious search for yeast (leaven). Not only was yeast to be removed from the house, but yeast was not to be found in the Jew's "borders". They knew what yeast was, they knew what it looked like, and they knew what normally contained it. Otherwise how could they have found yeast to comply with the command to destroy it completely?
Scripture makes no "big deal" of how they handled their "leavened grape juice" during the search for and the destruction of yeast. The reason for that is quite simple. They didn't have grape juice around.
Regardless of what you may read in some prohibitionist literature or in "two-wine theory" books, there is no solid evidence that the Jews ever knew how to preserve and keep grape juice as juice.
All evidence points to the fact that their sole purpose in the back-breaking work of tending vineyards was to make wine. Apparently the only time fresh grape juice may have been consumed was when it may have been sampled while fresh in the fermentation vat. Even then, they guarded it jealously so that it could be processed by nature into the food that God intended for man.
Amen a hundred times over to Anon.
Sorry, Matt. I think you're way off on this one.
Matt i think your right on with this one:)
"I could also use Scripture and show why wine is not to be used in the Lord's Supper."
i've already used scripture to show that it was used in the Lord's supper, so that surely will be interesting post...
at any rate, it's about time for the no-alcohol side to start to dicuss scripture...not counting a misinterpretation of 1thes5:22, i believe it will be the first...
Just because you squeeze a grape and juice comes out does not mean fermentation has already started occuring...goodness.
Okay, first of all, for those of you who think I'm way off...you don't even know where I stand! So ha! Secondly, how could John the Baptist participate in the Passover with the "wine" (whatever you take it to mean...) being used? I have my answer...but I want to see what you have. Who knows we may even agree on this.
And just remember...you have no clue what I hold to on this...or do you?!?
Matt, it is obvious to me that you have never studied enology, and you don't have too, the Bible is clear enough. I am not sure where you are going with the John the Baptist thing. There is no vow in the scriptures that limit someone to only drinking grape juice, because the concept of grape juice as we know it was unknown in the New Testament. Check out the Nazarite vow, it limits the person from using any product of the grape. A person under a Nazarite vow would have refrained from drinking the wine at the Passover. If John was under any restriction concerning grapes, it would have been a restriction against all grapes. It seems to me that this may have been the case, as John only ate locusts and wild honey.
By the way, Matt, we do know where you stand on the wine thing. You are such a teetotaller that you have even gone so far as to modify the elements of the Lord's Supper to pacify an extrabiblical restriction against a God-ordained, God-blessed, and GOd-authorized substance. That is enought for me. There are so many Baptists today that figure the ordinances are free to modify to fit the current theology. And, it is clear to me that both of the ordinances are under the ownership of the Lord with the church as custodian. Since the Lord's Supper is the Lord's, I am wondering how much you think man can alter it and it still be His. Can we change the bread to leavened bread? Can we open the participants to include all the saved? Can we modify the drink element to some leavened state, full of yeasts? I would say this is not allowed by the scripture.
And this is the inconsistency that church groups like the PCA can hold against us. We say we believe the scripture on the ordinances, but when it comes to such a painfully obvious subject as the fact that Jesus drank wine, we just go the way of the gnostic fundamentalists. It is time for true thinking Baptists to stand up and reject this teaching that makes us oppose ourselves. How can we say we are putting on Christ in the ordinances while we reject the elements that Christ told us to use?
as studymore beat me in pointing out, a nazarite could be a faithful jew while avoiding the passover wine.
as far as i know, there's no record in scripture telling us how john handled passover, but we can conclude that he wouldn't be unique in not drinking the wine.
so let's get back to discussing what scripture says, rather than speculating in areas where the bible is silent...
Ahh...studymore, first of all you are actually wrong! I'm not a teetotaller. I do have questions concerning certain issues, but I'm not a 100% teetotaller. (Now, having said that, I, myself, do not drink...for several reasons, one of which is that I do not like the taste of alcohol...I'd rather have Dr. Pepper!) Concerning John the Baptist, I'm not 100% sure how he handled the Passover either, but I do agree that he did not drink wine nor grape juice. I believe (and I could be wrong here) that there were provisions concerning the Passover given for people who had taken a Nazarite vows, etc. I've heard even that water could be used in place of the wine.
Also, unbeknownst to most people (some of you included!), the "ancients" (Jews included) did know what grape juice was. They drank grape juice along with wine! It is a popular misconception that is taught that they could not drink the water nor did they know what grape juice was. Of course, they could drink much of the water, and they would at times drink grape juice. However, they also drank wine. So, I encourage all of us, myself included, to stop putting what the "ancients" into a box and saying that they could only drink one thing when in fact that is not historically true.
Furthermore, studymore (like the rhyme?), I do not believe that man can alter the elements of the Lord's Supper or alter Baptism. Having said that, I believe that juice and not wine was used at the Lord's Supper. However, if a church deems that it is scriptural to use wine...then so be it. I know that there will probably never be 100% agreement on what was used concerning the wine/juice, however, we can agree that unleavened bread was used along with the Lord's Supper being a restriced (or closed) communion.
Oh well, I've rambled enough for now. I'll be back later to see what y'all have said.
"I'm not a teetotaller. I do have questions concerning certain issues, but I'm not a 100% teetotaller. (Now, having said that, I, myself, do not drink.)"
if you don't drink, you could still technically be considered a teetotaler...but if you don't look down on drinkers and you endorse biblical freedom on the issue, that is certainly a positive.
i'm still curious how you understand the wedding at cana and Jesus' admission that He came "drinking." discussing some of rae's verses would be interesting as well...(how exactly does grape juice "gladden the heart?") lots of scripture has been brought to bear on this issue - but you keep going on about "grape juice" from a (disputed) historical context. i was hoping you'd start addressing things from a more scriptural context.
"I do not believe that man can alter the elements of the Lord's Supper or alter Baptism. Having said that, I believe that juice and not wine was used at the Lord's Supper."
again, why? from scripture.
(we get that you allow that it's an area of freedom for different churches to decide - still, take a minute to explain your position.) and please do include a discussion of 1cor11 and why paul didn't seem shocked that alcohol was being used and didn't take the opportunity to forbid alcohol or address the "drunkenness" other than to command them to share and wait for each other as they honor Christ with the meal...
All the Old Landmark Baptists believed that Jesus used wine. All the commentators believed He used wine.
J.R. Graves said,
"The Wine.—The Savior used wine made of "the grape" —it was "the fruit of the vine." He commanded; and, if it was not lawful for leaven to be used in this feast, He certainly did not use an element that was little less than leaven itself. It could not have been unfermented wine He used and commanded, as some, more zealous than wise, are now teaching; for unfermented wine, in the first place, is a misnomer. There never was, there can not be, a drop of wine without fermentation. It is must, and not wine, until fermentation ensues, and unfermented juice of the grape is but a mass of leaven. It is this element in the juice that causes it to ferment, and fermentation is the process by which it throws off, and clears itself, of this impurity. Thoroughly fermented wine contains no leaven, and, therefore, it is only after this natural clarification of itself that the Savior used, and commanded His churches to use it; and, limiting this element to wine, He forbade the use of any other liquid than the pure juice of the grape, when fermented and clarified."
As the temperance movement began to gain steam in the 1800s, one pastor stated, "Another way in which men make themselves over-wise on this subject is by modifying the ordinance to suit their own views; especially by inculcating the doctrine, or adopting the practice, of dispensing with the appropriate elements, or of substituting something in place of them, which the scripture does not warrant; or to come fully to the point which I now have more particularly in view, and on which the movements of the present day will not allow me any longer to be silent — THE EXCLUSION OF WINE FROM THE LORD'S SUPPER. Do you say that it is impossible there should be any danger of such extravagance in an enlightened community like this, and that I am giving a false alarm in expressing the opinion that there is danger? You shall know then the grounds of my apprehension, and judge for yourselves of their validity."
He further states, "I have never seen an intimation in the history of the Christian Church, nor heard of an individual that had, that the unfermented juice of the grape was ever used in the sacrament of the Supper. At any rate, it has not been used in our day, nor in the days of our fathers, or our forefathers, to any period of antiquity to which we can go back. Now I ask whether this is not a most speaking silence in ecclesiastical history, in favor of the conclusion that it was never used at all? If it had been the beverage with which Christ instituted the ordinance, and especially if it had been wrong to use any other, is it not marvellous indeed that fermented wine should have been introduced, and yet no record remain of the unhallowed innovation? Various other innovations in reference to this ordinance are distinctly marked, but to this no author that I have heard of even alludes. Could this have been so, if such an innovation had ever occurred? And if it did not occur, was not fermented wine originally used in the communion?"
So, here we have a pastor who preached about this and insisted from his research that fermented wine was used in the original Lord's Supper. I believe this to be the universally accepted and most scriptural view until the 1950s when fundamentalists went on a rampage and modified both of the ordinances, allowing simply "believers baptism" instead of "church baptism" and forcing churches into the unscriptural position of using leavened and unfermented juice for the Lord's Supper.
Scripture must be twisted to allow for such a view, and once again I will state for the record that as long as we modify one ordinance to suit our theology, we might as well not pick on other churches for modifying the other.
Post a Comment