NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I only use grape juice in the Lord's Table. I think, there are plenty of principles to support such a stand, but we are hard pressed to find an absolute prohibition on using fermented wine.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Obviously...Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Thanks, BB. But Welch was a Methodist.
"given to wine" means addicted to it. It means a wine-bibber, if you will. It does NOT mean refusing to take a sip or a few ounces of it!Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Another verse to show the pastor would not be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper can be found in the qualifications of a Bishop.
One of those verses plainly states 'not given to wine'.
If he partook of wine at the communion, would he not be given to wine?
I am not the one who put forth premise that most Baptists used real wine in communion before prohibition. Therefore, the burden of proof for this debate does not fall to me. The burden of proof for debate purposes falls to those who agree with and/or put forth the premise stated that "most Baptist churches served real wine before prohibition."Originally posted by natters:
LadyEagle, the facts are still there, regardless (unless you are implying that Presbyterians are liars). I'll look again for something specifically Baptist, but I'm sure you can use google just as easily as I can.
How about you find some evidence that shows Baptists using grape juice before the 1800s?
Actually, I disagree (what else is new, eh?Originally posted by LadyEagle:
I am not the one who put forth premise that most Baptists used real wine in communion before prohibition. Therefore, the burden of proof for this debate does not fall to me. The burden of proof for debate purposes falls to those who agree with and/or put forth the premise stated that "most Baptist churches served real wine before prohibition."
Actually, the opposite is true - if Baptists throughout history were different than the rest of the church on this issue, there would be plenty of evidence of it. There is no evidence for being different if they weren't different in their use of wine. Baptists were very prolific in explaining and defending all their other doctrines where they differ from the rest of the church, why not with wine in communion? Because they weren't different.One would think that since I've heard it claimed that Baptists continued from John the Baptist (who was a Nazarite, Nazarite vow, BTW, forbidden to drink strong drink), there would be plenty of historical information written by Baptists, Anabaptists, or whatever, discussing the issue of real wine, if the premise that "most Baptist churches served real wine before prohibition" is indeed accurate.
If he had been alive, he could not have drank from the cup-- whether it had become noticeably fermented or not-- since a Nazarite was never to so much as touch a grape (besides never allowing a razor to touch his hair and never touching a dead body) [Numbers 6].Originally posted by C4K:
I disagree the all Baptists come from John the Baptist. This is a weak leak in the arguement for grape juice only at the Lord's Table. He was dead before the first Lord's Table as well.