Communion wine

[BreadAlone]

Oh just go to communion and don't worry about it.

sheeesh

lol I agree. I think we should be more focused on the power of God and less focused on what we have to do to "make it right.."

 

[Edial]

Oh just go to communion and don't worry about it.

sheeesh

 

[Edial]

Do we have to use grape wine then?

Now, this is an interesting question here.
You probably meant it in a different context, but I would say that since we were told to use a fruit of the vine, it should either be a grape or a grape wine.

Hmm. I always thought all wine was made from grape.

 

[BreadAlone]

Now, this is an interesting question here.
You probably meant it in a different context, but I would say that since we were told to use a fruit of the vine, it should either be a grape or a grape wine.

Hmm. I always thought all wine was made from grape.

Nope, that's the context I meant. I know someone who makes dandelion wine!

 

[DaRev]

Do we have to use grape wine then?

Yes.

 

[DaRev]

lol I agree. I think we should be more focused on the power of God and less focused on what we have to do to "make it right.."

But we do have to be concerned with those things that make it wrong.

 

[BreadAlone]

But we do have to be concerned with those things that make it wrong.

Indeed..but getting in a fight about the type of wine is a little too..legalistic for me. I think God's Word is powerful regardless of the type of wine we use..

 

[Lupinus]

wine was used, wine should be used.

Fruit of the vine, wine, same thing in the context used. It was not grape juice, hence, we should not use grape juice but grape wine.

 

[Edial]

Nope, that's the context I meant. I know someone who makes dandelion wine!

I learned something new.

I know they can make vodka from about anything ...

 

[BreadAlone]

wine was used, wine should be used.

Fruit of the vine, wine, same thing in the context used. It was not grape juice, hence, we should not use grape juice but grape wine.

What about people allergic to yeast, or alcholics?

 

[Lupinus]

Indeed..but getting in a fight about the type of wine is a little too..legalistic for me.

Legalistic would be saying we need to do it exactly how Christ did, with exactly the same products.

Not that we use the same elements Christ instituted with. I suppose using water and only water for baptism is legalistic too?

 

[BreadAlone]

Legalistic would be saying we need to do it exactly how Christ did, with exactly the same products.

Not that we use the same elements Christ instituted with. I suppose using water and only water for baptism is legalistic too?

No. But insisting that it MUST be grape wine because that's what Christ used is a little too legalistic for me.

I suppose that we should all be baptized in the Jordan River, as that's what Jesus did. Otherwise I'm not so sure the sacrament is present. (THAT would be legalistic. )

 

[Lupinus]

What about people allergic to yeast, or alcholics?

By the time it is fermented the yeast is dead. Alcoholics should be focusing on what they are receiving is blood of Christ, not a drink.

And in both cases, the amount for communion is so small it shouldn't matter. We are talking about a sip not a full glass of wine. I don't recall Christ passing around the cup and giving a provision for a substitute if someone doesn't like wine.

 

[Lupinus]

I suppose that we should all be baptized in the Jordan River, as that's what Jesus did.

Which would be legalistic. Christ said use water, we use water.

Christ used wine, we should use wine.

Sorry if doctrine shouldn't be made to what you think, but what it is and by what it should be.

 

[Edial]

wine was used, wine should be used.

Fruit of the vine, wine, same thing in the context used. It was not grape juice, hence, we should not use grape juice but grape wine.

I don't think we should box ourselves into a corner. Not necessary.

It should be noted that although they clearly had wine, Christ specifically called it a fruit of a vine.

Words are eternal, applications change.

In Heaven we will also drink a fruit of a vine - yet it will be a different application.
I don't know what we will drink, yet it will be a certain fruit of a vine that is found in Heaven.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[BreadAlone]

Which would be legalistic. Christ said use water, we use water.

Christ used wine, we should use wine.

And there in lies the difference! Christ said use water. He never said "take and drink grape wine."

Sorry if doctrine shouldn't be made to what you think, but what it is and by what it should be.

Sorry for trying to follow the scriptures without adding unnecessary regulations to them.

 

[Lupinus]

Meanings do change, but they should be looked at for the meaning when they were written. At that time, fruit of the vine very simply referred to wine. The cup after supper would have had wine. Looking at the scriptures we can clearly see that it was wine. As wine is what Christ used, we should also use wine without putting our human reason into it.

If we are given an element to use, told what should be used, that is what should be used. Red, white. Sweet, dry. Variety of grape? These are the things that make it legalistic when someone argues exactly what type should be used. Kind of like if someone believes only water from the Jordan would make for a valid baptism.

But Jesus says use water. He doesn't say water from the Jordan, he doesn't say spring, filtered, perfectly clear, etc. He just says water, so we use water.

Likewise, Jesus doesn't say specifics for the wine, but he most certainly says wine made from grapes. Just like we stick to water for baptism because it is the element we are instructed to use, we should stick to grape wine because it is the element we are told to use. Beyond that I would agree we get legalistic and overly so.

 

[DaRev]

What about people allergic to yeast, or alcholics?

There is no yeast. The bread is unleavened, no yeast is used.
As for alcoholics, they need not take the cup. I know a recovering alcoholic who has no problem taking the blood of Christ with wine.

No. But insisting that it MUST be grape wine because that's what Christ used is a little too legalistic for me.

But by whose authority do you propose to make that change? You need to remember, it's the LORD's Supper, not ours. If someone invited you to their house for dinner and they had roast beef, would you say to them, "I'd rather have fish"? Of course not. Neither are we to say. "I'd rather have plain juice or dandelion wine" when we are invited by Christ to HIS supper. Christ used unleavened bread and wine. Those are the elements in the institution of the Lord's Supper. That is what we are to use.

It should be noted that although they clearly had wine, Christ specifically called it a fruit of a vine.

And "fruit of the vine" was wine in first century Palestine, thus we use wine for the Sacrament.

 

[BreadAlone]

Meanings do change, but they should be looked at for the meaning when they were written. At that time, fruit of the vine very simply referred to wine. The cup after supper would have had wine. Looking at the scriptures we can clearly see that it was wine. As wine is what Christ used, we should also use wine without putting our human reason into it.

If we are given an element to use, told what should be used, that is what should be used. Red, white. Sweet, dry. Variety of grape? These are the things that make it legalistic when someone argues exactly what type should be used. Kind of like if someone believes only water from the Jordan would make for a valid baptism.

But Jesus says use water. He doesn't say water from the Jordan, he doesn't say spring, filtered, perfectly clear, etc. He just says water, so we use water.

Likewise, Jesus doesn't say specifics for the wine, but he most certainly says wine made from grapes. Just like we stick to water for baptism because it is the element we are instructed to use, we should stick to grape wine because it is the element we are told to use. Beyond that I would agree we get legalistic and overly so.

Please show me where he says wine made from grapes.

 

[BreadAlone]

There is no yeast. The bread is unleavened, no yeast is used.

In the wine.