Baptists that have alcohol for Communion

.

 

Prior to the invention of Welch's grape juice in the middle of the nineteenth century, all Baptist churches used wine. Using juice is a relatively modern invention.

 

So Baptists let Methodists push them into a new practice.

 

Now, this is a patently false statement because you cannot prove there were no exceptions. Universal statements are always false because you cannot prove universals.

 

Proverbs tell us that a wise man will learn from others and be the wiser for it. Of course, I don't know how wise some hardheaded Baptists are.

 

IMHO, the question of wine at the Lord's Table is only practiced among those using beverage alchohol as well. If beverage alcohol is acceptable, then wine at the Lord's table is generally accepted. Do anyone know where this is not the case? On the converse side, if wine is not used in Communion, then beverage alcohol is frowned upon. There is an organic connection.

 

Does anyone have easy access to Baptist Life and Thought: A Source Book, edited by William H. Brackney, (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1998; a revised edition of the original published in 1983)? According to a book review by Pamela Robinson Durso, "One highlight of this collection is that Brackney has captured some of the quirkiness of Baptist life. For example, excerpts are included about the debate among Baptists in the late-nineteenth century concerning the use of wine versus grape juice in communion and the use of the common cup versus the individual communion cup."

I have access to the old book, but I don't think it contains those things about communion. I think one will find there was not much debate about wine for communion prior to the late 19th century. paidagogos may be right about Chad making a too "universal" statement. Certainly we can never prove there are "no exceptions". But I think he or anyone else will be hard-pressed to find examples of Baptists using anything but wine prior to the late 19th century.

paidagogos' last post is probably mostly correct, because most American Christians did not have the same aversion to wine as a beverage before the temperance movement as we do now. But I would claim to be an exception, however inconsistently so. I do not use nor recommend alcholic drink as a beverage, yet I do believe in fermented wine for communion.

I think Ben's original question has been mostly answered. Historically, as far as I am aware, most Baptists in the U. S. once used wine for communion. Primitive Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, United Baptists still do, though not universally so. Some Missionary Baptists and Sovereign Grace Baptists that I know do as well. Not sure about Southern Baptists; I'm not aware of any that use wine, but I'd expect that there are some. SB's are quite a diverse group.

I think Brackney's book would throw some historical light on the subject (at least the wine/juice controversy) via some primary writings (if the review is accurate).

 

From "The New Doctrine of the Cup," a pamphlet by Elder Earl Saunders, pastor of Landmark Missionary Baptist Church of Stuttgart, Arkansas,

"Let it be known that, first of all, this writer has never used whiskey or beer in any way. He has only used wine at the Lord’s table, and that alone. Now, many will say, well, he does not know how detrimental alcoholic beverages can be. On the other hand, if he had used the alcoholic beverages, then it could be said he is defending the drink he likes. So, please, do not be confused on personal likes or dislikes."

"I notice many of the Baptist churches who oppose wine for the Lord’s Supper will not oppose or exclude one who drinks beer or whiskey from her fellowship. This writer believes in church discipline enough to practice it. Those who oppose the Bible in serving wine at the Lord’s table, do any of their people work in grocery stores selling beer? Why not oppose this? How many of their people drink socially, and they let it slide because it would cause trouble in the church, or it would cut off financial offerings? A day of tickling of ears."

"Let’s look at what wine declares, as it has no leaven in it—the leaven in the grape juice is gone by the process of fermentation. So wine declares the purity of the blood. Remember, no leaven in the drink as well as no leaven in the bread, as both the bread and drink represent the one Savior, Jesus Christ. Wine in the Old Testament declared Christ to be the Son of God—Wine in the New Testament declares Christ to be the Son of God. If wine was demanded then, it is now. Remember the Bible says God does not change. Wine declared Christ to be the Savior before the death of Christ—it declares Him to be the Savior after His death—same Lord. If wine declared Christ to be the Lamb of God before the cross—wine declares Him to be the Lamb of God after the cross—same Lord. Wine declares Christ to be virgin born, as wine has no leaven in it (which the leaven represents sin) and Jesus had no sin, so no leaven can be used at the Lord’s table. If wine was demanded by God to declare the innocence of Jesus in the Old Testament—wine declares the innocence of Jesus in the New Testament—same Jesus. Wine will not mold or rot. Why? It has no leaven in it."

Those are excerpts from his pamphlet, but demonstrate that it is not the case that those who use alcohol as a beverage also use it at the Lord's table, and vice versa. If one of our church members is found drinking in public, he/she will be promptly excluded, as they have violated our church covenant.

 

Whether or not ALL Baptist churches at some point in history used wine is not the point. The real point is: prior to 1869, grape juice was not known to western "civilization".

Some may have used coconut milk.

The question is: Are we following the Biblical pattern? Anything else is "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men".

Does it matter? Yes. See Mt. 28: The Commission.

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. Anyone want to talk about "open" and "closed" communion?

 

The point has already been addressed. The Scripture does not specify that the wine must be fermented or alcoholic. You have tried to establish it by inference and reasoning. Both inference and reasoning, although based on a Scriptural passage, is one step removed from Biblical teaching. Therefore, you cannot make it a clear Biblical mandate. The best you can do is say, "This is what I believe or think." I do not think alchoholic wine is mandated for the Lord's Table. Your arguments may show that it was historically used but they are not persuasive in establishing a mandate. If mandated, it's man's doing, not God's.

 

Now, this is a patently false statement because you cannot prove there were no exceptions. Universal statements are always false because you cannot prove universals. </font>[/QUOTE]How's this for a universal statement?:

Romans 3:23-
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Yeah, I can see how some people may feel that those pesky "universal" statements can be troubling at times!

It certainly cannot be said however that "Universal statements are always false...".

 

I wish I could reply to some of this but I must remind you guys that the moderator stated,

"We're getting off topic. The thread is supposed to be about the historical practices of Baptists, not a debate on the merits."

If we want to continue discussing the merits of wine vs. jucie, we probably need to comply with his request and move it to another forum.

 

My understanding is that it would have been almost impossible for it to have been pure grape juice because in Israel where the temp is very warm the juice would begin fermenting pretty quick. Also the reason why our Welch's does not ferment is because of pasterazation (Sure I mispelled that)

Welch was a Methodist layperson who made his non alcoholic wine to be a communion wine. It became so popular that we now drink it as a beverage. He was a leader in the prohibition movement. I am not sure Baptists of 150 years ago before Welch's would have thought about using grape juice. Where would they keep it? (No refridgeration) Non pasteurized grape juice is either going to spoil of ferment without being refridgerated. Many Baptist Churches years ago had Communion more frequent than we do now. Where are you going to find grapes in January to squeeze for grape juice in 1856? My understanding is the use of grape juice was introduced by prohibitionists.

I have no problem either way for both have the blood of grapes.

 

Now, this is a patently false statement because you cannot prove there were no exceptions. Universal statements are always false because you cannot prove universals. </font>[/QUOTE]Since unfermented grape juice is not possible without pasteurization (1862) and refrigeration (1895 for commercial uses, icehouses before then), both recent in their application to fruit juices, this is a provable statement.

 

As temperance was just beginning to take off, and people were substituting raisin water, and other elements for wine, we actually do have history of the discussions. One such example is William B. Sprague.

The complete sermon he preached entitled "Danger of Being Over Wise" was preached on June 17, 1835 at the Second Prebyterian Church in Albany. It covers the trend at that time to leave the fermented wine and go to a new element. Throughout the sermon, Sprague calls this an "innovation." Sprague was not a Baptist, so far as I can tell, but I submit this to you as an example of the fact that using anything other that real wine at the feast is an innovation.

The Danger of Being Overwise

William B. Sprague wrote in August of 1835 these words, "I appeal to ecclesiastical history in support of my position. 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?"

From an article by Greg Wills on Baptists,
"They made a distinction between the church and congregation—they invited members of the church to the table and they invited the congregation to stay and observe. Baptists visiting from other churches usually participated (they called this 'transient communion'). They usually took the bread and wine in their pews. They used fermented wine until the late nineteenth century, when some Baptists began to use grape juice, or as they called it, 'unfermented wine.' They used a common cup. In the early twentieth century churches switched to the use of individual cups."

There are so many books on Baptist doctrine and history that demonstrate that Baptists all used wine until the latter part of the nineteenth century. I am surprised it is not simply a universally agreed upon reality.

I am always shocked to see that prohibitionists and teetotallers have rewritten history to the degree that they have. If wine was not used before there was pasteurization, then what was? There are only two choices: 1) the feast was held once a year during grape harvest, and the juice was fresh-squeezed and 2) raisin water was used.

To settle this discussion, I request that you look into your own church history. If there are any old churches in your area, or if you belong to one, check out their past. Most of the churches in our fellowship continued to use wine up until the 1950s. You will too find what I found, that churches historically have used wine. It is really no secret history.

 

The Romans called it "sapa", which means it is "must" (which is grape juice before or during fermentation).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062&layout=&loc=sapa

Peck (author cited in link above) tied the latin "sapa" to a Greek word, "hepsêma"

According to Apicius it was boiled down a third, which would make sapa a thick sap.

The closest Greek word used in the New Testament, is "gleukos" used in Acts*, but this word means its been fermented and is inebriating. (No, hepsema is not used in the New Testament, as far as I can tell)

*Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.


In short, it seems that wine is what was used by Jesus and his disciples. It would seem Baptists using wine are being consistent with scripture.

[ June 13, 2005, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Shammai ]

 

Thank you for the help. I will be looking for this word in its classic use. I have a classic Greek dictionary that I use (for non-biblical studies.) It was published by the Follett Publishing Company in 1930. It records no such word, but I may be misspelling it.