Is there anything I can't do...........

oh ok, just as I assumed, you have no proof, it is just a statement that sounds good.

No, actually we do not use real wine. But I have no problem if a church wants to use wine. Using grape juice has become a tradition of man that is not worth the battle of fighting, IMO.

 

Prove my statement wrong, then.

How many SBC churches do you know that serve real wine for communion? If nothing is wrong with it, why are you so "stuck in tradition?"

 

Anytime someone knows they have no proof for a statement they make, they try to turn the tables.

Nice try. You made a statement and you have no proof for it. If you have some, please feel free to post it.

 

What kind of proof do you seek?

Perhaps the water is muddied because some Baptists claim to be fundamentalists and are not accepted as fundamentalists by other fundamentalists.

Over the course of 50 years, I have known thousands of Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB, GARB, etc.) pastors, preachers, evangelists, missionaries, seminary professors, not counting regular Baptist church members, and not a one of them espouses or espoused (in the case of those already gone to be with the Lord) the serving wine for the Lord's Supper or advocate/d it is okay to drink alcohol in moderation. Perhaps among SBC it is different. Of course, the SBC is regarded by some IFBs to be modernistic, just as some in the SBC regard the KJVOs to be militant.

 

I would like proof that what you said is true, the "majority" of fundamental baptists believe what you said.

From my perspective and I think this board supports this, the issue is split pretty even.

 

Perhaps we should do a poll.

 

I would be interested in knowing how many Fundamental Baptist Churches have joined ranks with the Lutherans and Catholics by serving a "choice" at the communion table - wine for those who prefer it, and grape juice for those who don't.

Next, we could do a poll on whether or not beer is served at the Deacon meetings or socials.

 

Sure do a poll.

 

It was not until the still was invented in Arabia in the 8th or 9th centuries AD that the history of distilled beverages began. Liquor appeared in Europe, and then spread towards the eas by the Mongols and has been in China since about the 14th century.

However, there were some who could distill ethyl alcohol before that in very, very small quantities, mostly for perfumes and such.

However, recent archeological evidence may support that China has had distilled beverages from several thousand years BC, even though that knowledge was lost for thousands of years.

Paracelsus is the person who gave alcohol its modern name. He took it from the Arabic word which means "finely divided", which is a reference to distillation.

Before this time, they had only fermented beverages. Using fermentation, you cannot achieve greater than 15% alcohol, except under a few brewing processes that can achieve slightly more.

Liquor is only a little more than a thousand years old.

 

I found these on the web about the SBC:

Re SBC Adrian Rogers (past President of SBC):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Rogers


And Richard Land:

http://www.sbcannualmeeting.org/sbc99/min615af.htm

Since the SBC comprises the largest Baptist population, and abstinence has been the historical stance, then I believe I've proved my point (aside from the other sources posted about "wine.") Perhaps that has changed/is changing.

 

You quoted 2 people out of how many? I do not think that in any way proves your point.

 

Two past Presidents of the largest Baptist denomination to which you belong don't count? Okay. I think I understand.

 

Actually you quoted one past president. Land has not been president of the convention, he is president of the ERLC.

I never said they did not count. But they do not support your claim that the "majority" believe that way.

Ok I am done banging my head here. Someone else can come play for awhile.

 

"Play?"

 

I would say LadyEagle has produced a valid proof of her statement. I have visited many churches in my life and only a couple served real wine, or even approved of it. And they were not Baptist.

As she said, if one does a search on the internet for FB churches, I daresay at least 97% will tell you they are against alcohol consumption... even moderately

 

That's still the teachings of man that adds to Scriptures, even if a majority do believe it. That also makes you wonder why they believe it. Perhaps they've been taught these teachings of men their entire lives. This happens with many things, such as the belief that you must be baptized to be saved, or you must partake of communion every week to be saved, or you have to attend a certain church to be saved.

 

I believe that they are not adding to scripture, but rather lining up with scripture

 

I posted a poll here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/39/1553.html?

 

Thanks, but you may need to clarify "in the Bible." If it's not too late to edit your question.

 

ok whatever you would like.

So far it is split 50/50 ..2 yes..2 no.