Wine vs. Grapejuice @ Communion

The command is not 'Tarry not thou at the wine,' it is 'Look not thou upon the wine.'

Stop twisting the Holy Scriptures!

 

As I pointed out, the word for drunken is 'methuo.' 'Methuo' has other meanings as well; one of them being 'drink well.'

When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise [you] not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)

If Paul was speaking of drunkenness, he would have not told them they could drink at home; he would have told them drunkenness was a sin.

He did not tell them drunkenness was a sin. He did not reprimand them for drunkenness. He reprimanded them for their gluttony.

If it was for drunkenness, the context would show Paul was saying don't get drunk at church, stay home and get drunk. Context shows that Paul was addressing gluttony, not drunkenness.

 

Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow?
Those that take a small, moderate drink?
No! Those that tarry LONG over the wine.
Those that seek mixed wine.

 

But he DID tell them they could drink at home! Not in a drunken and gluttonous manner but they could drink.
And I think from the text it is clear that they could drink more at home appropriately than at church.

moderation fits every passage.
Your view requires a twisting of every passage.

 

I thought this thread was about the transformation of the cup from alcoholic to non-alcoholic in US churches?

 

It was supposed to me...it has gotten a bit sidetracked.

 

Wrong! if Paul was addressing their drunkenness, then context would be telling them to sin. Paul would be saying, "For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunk. Do you not house to get drunk in?"

Context and common sense shows they were not drunk.

 

That is not what it says.

It says drink, not "get drunk"

 

Back to the when it changed.

It changed from juice to alcohol when man decided he wanted to bring his vices into the sanctuary and defile God's Church.

It changed again when the temperance movement began back in the 1800's. Sadly, the temperance movement was again eventually recanted and people once again began disobeying God's Word by bringing alcoholic beverage into the institution known as the Lord's Supper.

 

Then Paul did not address drunkenness at all in the passage.

And you say I'm twisting the Scriptures?

 

I am a little amazed that you know men's hearts today. I am a lot amazed that you know their hearts back then.

 

The Spirit reveals what is in men's hearts. Men also reveal what is in their hearts.

For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.

 

Yup...you got that one right

 

Going from wine to grape juice is a fairly recent event....now SFIC must show that for hundreds of years all churches were wrong and had defiled the Church.

 

So, for how many hundreds of years did these wicked vile men continue with their vices in the church?

Threadis thread is about the history of the type of fruit of the vine used in the Lord's Table.

Were there any godly men for these hundreds of years?

 

And if it was defiled to the point that SFIC thinks the "sin" of alcohol was, did the gates of hell prevail against the church?

 

Would this mean that the Wesleys, Carey, Edwards, Taylor, et al were ungodly men whose desire was to defile the church with their vice?

 

Leviticus 10:8-11
8And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying,
9Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
10And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
11And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

SFIC has a Biblical case. Why would God tell His priests not to drink it and then God the Son do so at the Last Supper? Answer is, He wouldn't. Verse 9 says do not drink it. It says nothing about drunkenness. Then in context verse 10 gives us reason why. To know what is clean and unclean, holy and unholy. Therefore it is Unholy to do so. Was Christ unholy? I should think not.

 

That actually proves the point of moderation. It was ok at normal times but not then.
And even at that, it does not prove your point: look at this passage about meats:

 

I do not see a cluster of grapes in that dream or a Budweiser. It is about meats. Did not Jesus talk about the avoidance of yeast or leaven?