Only if you think it is worthwhile, try this experiment.
We shall see.
Grant:"The Scriptures use the phrase 'fruit of the vine' to describe the cup at its institution but the early believers would only have known this to mean fermented wine, as would have been almost universally the understanding of Christians to the 19th century. The confessions knew of no other drink. Therefore, wine is what was instituted."
My own position, based on my convictions of the scriptures and my denominations confession and BCO:
There are 2 elements that were commanded in the Lord's Supper in scripture:
1) Bread
2) The fruit of the vine
*During the Lord’s Supper, all communicates should partake of the same bread and the same fruit of the vine*
As I read the passages dealing with the Lord’s Supper, fermented alcoholic grape juice is likely the Bibles own definition of fruit of the vine. The Westminster Standards use the word wine as does the PCA/OPC BCO, this indicates that the Westminster Assembly and the authors of the mentioned BCOs likely feel the best way for us to understand “fruit of the vine” is as “wine”. Bottom line, wine is what is commanded. Do I believe modern grape juice can be rightly considered what the bible (and other mentioned sources) state to be “fruit of the vine”?
No (I have stated why in this thread already). Do I think those who use grape juice are still partaking in the Lord’s Supper?
Yes, and I sure hope any hint of error does not invalidate our worship. Those using grape juice need sanctification in this area (assuming wine is available) as we all do on some level. All of our services likely have error, but we cannot and should not allow this to diminish our joy in Christ and the intercession of the Holy Spirit nor should that Joy be used as an excuse to be disobedient.
In rare circumstances (given by user
@OPC'n ) I will yield that a session has some authority to try and apply wisdom to the circumstance. This should be so rare that it could even look like
@Scott Bushey 's situation except in reverse (maybe minus the holy box).
Logan's or Tim's critique: (you fill in)
To be clear, I still think you first need to summarize your own position. I think you would agree with my personal opinion summary with at least 1 exception. You do not seem to see any error if there is a full substitution or a splitting addition in adding grape juice. In your opinion it would seem "fruit of the vine"
could also potentially permit what is known today as grape juice. Tim mentioned the concept of “practice” and “precept”. I CAN understand that; however, I believe wine was both practice and precept and I suspect you would disagree with me here. Admittedly, Logan, you have stated that you are not necessarily defending a certain position, this makes it difficult to critique your actual position.
I am not as thrilled about your dogmatic approach to such a strict understanding of the element.
Tim, I do not believe I am being any stricter, in my opinion, than the Westminster Standards or the BCO. I will gladly stand corrected.
At the end of the day this is the question we disagree on:
When one uses “grape juice” in the Lord’s Supper, is that specific detail erroneous in itself? I think my answer is “Yes”, and I think (unless corrected) that Logan, Tim, and Brandon would say “No”. You men believe (I think) that modern grape juice fits the definition of the commanded element of “fruit of the vine” in the Lord’s Supper.
If you have any assumptions about potential conclusions of my reasoning, then I ask you to give me specific clear questions (or scenarios).