Source on Wine in Bible Times

[one love]

yellow rose I qouted you but was kinda speaking in general as i posted earlier when I made mention of the cogop teachings. I admit i thought you were a cogop member, I am sorry for some reason I thought i read that , again sorry my mistake.
I am curious why nobody else has answered this, I am curios

No problem, I was just curious. I happen to be 5th generation in the cogop where I am still in the books so to speak, though I do not attend a cogop currently.

Oh ok. I am sorry again. Hope ya feel better

[Poimen]

All I know is that as sick as I am right now, I wish I had one of those hot toddies that were made for us when we were young with the croup.

Well now, medicinal purposes might be a bit different.

Of course you could just get some nyquil or dayquil, add some honey and lemon, and heat in the microwave.

So, let me get this straight....
you oppose drinking wine with a typical 11% alcohol content (table wine) but suggest Nyquil's 10% alcohol as a substitute??

Now we are down to splitting 1% alcohol content??

Well, thanks to Gerald, I concede that a tithe (10%) of alcohol is okay based on the OT.

I was really just poking a little fun at Shellie in that reply.

[Pastor Bill]

for all the "pro wine" people here do you use real wine during communion or grape juice? If not real wine why do you choose to go against your biblical belief. If Jesus used real (fermented) wine should you not also?

Wow, was there anyone here that was "pro wine"?

That's just plain wrong, since you can't confidently discuss the truth of the situation, you result to accusations and twisting the words of those you don't agree with. come on now, that's just sad.

HOLD ON!!!!!
that was not my intention at all. You are assuming yourself. "PRO wine" was implying that you are believing that they used real fermented wine, you are "pro wine" in that thinking. NOt that you want to drink i did not accuse anyone. SOrry for the confusion> I fully understand what you mean. I surely can "confidently discuss the truth" you are now being insulting. If someone does not feel you should use real fermented wine it does not mean they think you are a drunk.

So to clear This up, to the "pro wine theology regarding what they used in the last supper"

BTW gerald NOAH was drunk, as was Lot I agree one hundred percent it was not grape juice

OK, yes you were coming across as being pro drinking when you said pro wine, it's not that we're promoting anything, only stating that there is no biblical evidence stating that the wine used at the last supper was non-alcoholic. If you don't mind change that terminology a little and it will cause less confusion.

[Pastor Bill]

then you should use wine instead of grape juice.
Wine was used for ages it was not until 1784 when Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia warned that distilled liquor could injure health. Then the evangelism or the " Nineteenth-century American evangelicals" influenced by revivals and perfectionism that began movements for social reform, began to call not only for temperance but for total abstinence. Most all Protestant churches after 1840 required members to have total abstinence from alcohol and use grape juce for communion. Catholics did not follow this trend.
However I do feel the wine Jesus used was un-fermented and feel that this is the correct way for many reasons. I also wonder why, this is not an attack, so many here dont have an issue with the total absitence teaching of your organization. DO you feel it should be changed or it may have for all I know

I would be interested in knowing why you feel what Christ used was unfermented, and why you feel it should be done this way.

As for the denominational stance, yes we have in the old 29 strict teachings of total abstinance, but I am not sure how strictly this is preached today either.

Frankly I still feel it is good wisdom to avoid alcohol, for many cultural reasons and health reasons connected with the rampant excess pushed by society today, and the fact that many use it as a crutch rather than dealing with their personal issues, BUT I don't push it by trying to rewrite scripture or redefine what "wine" is biblically.

[Paully_44]

As for the denominational stance, yes we have in the old 29 strict teachings of total abstinance, but I am not sure how strictly this is preached today either.

Thankfully, i am in an organization that reviews and revises it teachings as they feel light is shed on their understanding. Just because it's part of the 29, doesnt neccessarily mean it is an abosolute truth, never to be questioned.


To those that say that drinking alcohol is a sin, is the act of drinking for pleasure constitue the sin, or does this carry over to abstaining from medicines that may contain alcohol as well?

[Pastor Bill]

Paully I agree with you, I am glad we no longer feel the old 29 are carved in stone by the hand of God.

Currently we have NOT officially revisited this issue, but with recent changes I feel the church has given more liberty for pastors and churches to seek out answers scripturally for ourselves.

The total abstinence thing for some did include medications (for that matter, we had some that were against medicine all around), but I don't think that fits biblically.

Personally I can't say drinking a glass of wine is a sin, but I also know the problems that run rampant in our society, and how easy it is to get pulled into that, I have a close personal friend, a pastor in another denomination, whose life was almost ruined by this, but God opened his eyes, he has taken some time off from the ministry and is really getting things back together. For him, total abstinence is probably going to be a definite, and that's one thing we need to be careful of, we do have personal convictions, God may require us personally to do or not do something in our relationship with Him to bring us where we need to be, or to avoid problems down the road. These are just as real as overall biblical commandments, but we must also be careful not to push these on others.

[RamboPreacher]

Paully I agree with you, I am glad we no longer feel the old 29 are carved in stone by the hand of God....

though some still do, those teachings are not even part of the membership covenant anymore (only salvation and the fruits thereof).

[Pastor Bill]

Actually they weren't part of the covenant anyway, but were treated as law, now they are not promoted, and I don't know that they are listed anywhere officially as the teachings of the church any longer (If they have there would have to have been some basic rewording of a few, and I haven't seen an updated list)

[RamboPreacher]

Actually they weren't part of the covenant anyway, but were treated as law, now they are not promoted, and I don't know that they are listed anywhere officially as the teachings of the church any longer (If they have there would have to have been some basic rewording of a few, and I haven't seen an updated list)

continuing off-topic for a bit...
I have not been part of the org that long, but in every case (previous to two GA's ago) - there was mention in one way or another for members to agree (promise/vow are words I have heard) that they will pay tithes, not smoke, abstain from all alcohol, etc...

it is now - “We have joined ourselves together in Christ as a fellowship of believers by covenanting to accept the Bible as the Word of God, promising to believe and practice its teachings rightly divided with the New Testament as our rule of faith and practice, government, and discipline , and agreeing to walk in the light to the best of our knowledge and ability.”

can't find an old one, but it was in a couple pamphlets I used to have - still looking...

[Pastor Bill]

There were those expectations, and those were "requirements for membership", but the covenant has always been that we are asked to "promise to accept the Bible as the Word of God, to believe and practice its teachings rightly divided with the New Testament as our rule of faith and practice, government, and discipline , and agreeing to walk in the light to the best of my knowledge and ability."

[one love]

As for the denominational stance, yes we have in the old 29 strict teachings of total abstinance, but I am not sure how strictly this is preached today either.

Thankfully, i am in an organization that reviews and revises it teachings as they feel light is shed on their understanding. Just because it's part of the 29, doesnt neccessarily mean it is an abosolute truth, never to be questioned.


To those that say that drinking alcohol is a sin, is the act of drinking for pleasure constitue the sin, or does this carry over to abstaining from medicines that may contain alcohol as well?

As am I that is why I was asking do you follow those teachings or do you want to see them changed. I was not implying that you are stuck in that teaching but rather curious how you felt about it.

Bill I can just save a lot of time since i again have a migraine, I believe just as the teaching is stated and the verses that go with it. Now whether it was diluted or not i dont know.sorry for the confusion

[Pastor Bill]

I don't have the wording directly in front of me, and I don't know "the 29" that well, since we've been moving away from that list for as long as I've been in the CoGoP.

I did a quick look on cogop.org, and found this paragraph that I really liked.

Instead of relying on codes of belief and rules of behavior to produce spiritual maturity, it is incumbent on the local church to create an environment that allows believers to constantly experience intimate loving relationships with God and His children. It is in such an environment that members become mature, believers become disciples, and Christians grow into Christlikeness.

I have pretty much stated my belief on this, I can't in all good conscious say that the Bible teaches total abstinence from alcohol, but I do feel it is a wise choice to avoid it in most cases, and if one choses not to, there are serious issues that need to be considered in regards to excess, control, and dependence.