Wine vs. Grape Juice

[Lion King]

A FEW churches only take that POV. But in addition, I think that you've mistaken the idea of the grace received through this (or any other) sacrament for being some kind of guarantee of salvation. It's not. It is not thought that the part in which we read "has eternal life" is some Quid Pro Quo.

The Roman Catholic church, EO, the Lutherans and many others hold this view. I've been here two years and have had numerous discussions regarding John 6 with members of these churches, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

[abysmul]

Very well. However, you and at least one other poster seemed to want to press the point that there is something wrong with our view. All those mistaken points being made about Communion conferring salvation and being 'out of luck' if one can't commune with bread and wine for some reason....

Anyway, have we now covered all that we should have?

Oh, but doesn't everyone view their way as the right way? Seriously, I have no doubt that someone could pick up on that. It wasn't my desire, I honestly do my best to not run around telling Christians they are worshiping God wrong very often There is no doubt that when a Christian (or group/church/whatever) practices something in a way that I completely don't understand and don't see scriptural support for, that I'll view it wrong as you say... I think most of us do that to varying degrees.

 

[Albion]

The Roman Catholic church, EO, the Lutherans and many others hold this view.

Nope. You're quite wrong about that.

I've been here two years and have had numerous discussions regarding John 6 with members of these churches, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

I'm sure you do, but little changes in words here or there can lead to misunderstandings, so I can appreciate how you made this mistake. By the way, I read the same threads you are speaking of.

But ask yourself...

Do you really think that any of those churches teaches that anyone, just by receiving Holy Communion once, is free and clear, no more worries, can go and do whatever he wants thereafter...with the complete assurance that, having received the bread and wine, he's going to heaven no matter what??

It really is ridiculous when we see spelled out exactly the view you have said is the position of those church bodies.

 

[Lion King]

Nope. You're you are dead wrong about that..

http://www.christianforums.com/t7603805/

I'm not. Got proof.

I'm sure you do, but little changes in words here or there can lead to misunderstandings, so I can appreciate how you made this mistake. By the way, I read the same threads you are speaking of

No. Pretty sure I understood perfectly well what they were saying.

 

[Lion King]

Do you really think that any of those churches teaches that anyone, just by receiving Holy Communion once, is free and clear, no more worries, can go and do whatever he wants thereafter...with the complete assurance that, having received the bread and wine, he's going to heaven no matter what??

It really is ridiculous when we see spelled out exactly the view you have said is the position of those church bodies.

Who said that?

I said the RCC, EO, Lutherans teach that John 6:53-55 is referring to the LORD's supper. You, on the other hand, are bringing something up I never said.

 

[seashale76]

Just to let you know, that's a rather offensive comment. Protestants are not that wide-open even on things we consider symbolic.



That is a fair comment, and I alluded to it a number of posts ago. From the Protestant point of view of Catholic communion doctrine, the Protestant doctrinal derivation of immersion baptism has the same foundational validity as (from the Protestant point of view, remember) the Catholic doctrine of the Euchrist.

From a Protestant point of view, we're living in a glass house in that particular respect.

The Orthodox also do immersion baptism- but that's outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Albion]

Oh, but doesn't everyone view their way as the right way? Seriously, I have no doubt that someone could pick up on that. It wasn't my desire, I honestly do my best to not run around telling Christians they are worshiping God wrong very often There is no doubt that when a Christian (or group/church/whatever) practices something in a way that I completely don't understand and don't see scriptural support for, that I'll view it wrong as you say... I think most of us do that to varying degrees.

Well, I'm not flabbergasted by this. After all, probably a majority of people who come here intend to "disprove" what the other fellow believes.

BUT you told me that your only intention was to find out what others believe ("I'm interested in how others view and understand the Lord's supper. I find it not only interesting but educational...."). That wasn't exactly the case.

 

[Standing Up]

Nope. You're quite wrong about that.


I'm sure you do, but little changes in words here or there can lead to misunderstandings, so I can appreciate how you made this mistake. By the way, I read the same threads you are speaking of.

But ask yourself...

Do you really think that any of those churches teaches that anyone, just by receiving Holy Communion once, is free and clear, no more worries, can go and do whatever he wants thereafter...with the complete assurance that, having received the bread and wine, he's going to heaven no matter what??

It really is ridiculous when we see spelled out exactly the view you have said is the position of those church bodies.

One would have to die upon baptism or swallowing. That's the only point where they teach you are without sin.

 

[Albion]

Who said that?

I said the RCC, EO, Lutherans teach that John 6:53-55 is referring to the LORD's supper. You, on the other hand, are bringing something up I never said.

Well, you're attempting to alter the record now. Why not just admit that you could have made a mistake?

I wrote:

But in addition, I think that you've mistaken the idea of the grace received through this (or any other) sacrament for being some kind of guarantee of salvation. It's not. It is not thought that the part in which we read "has eternal life" is some Quid Pro Quo.

To which you replied:

The Roman Catholic church, EO, the Lutherans and many others hold this view.

But those churches DO NOT hold "this view," i.e. that receiving Communion is a guarantee of salvation, a Quid Pro Quo. They do not, and you have not shown that they do because that would be impossible to do.

Let's end it here. There is nothing more that needs to be said.

 

[Standing Up]

So, grape juice will be wine, if left alone? IOW, there is natural ferment on the grape.

 

[RDKirk]

So, grape juice will be wine, if left alone? IOW, there is natural ferment on the grape.

There is yeast on/in the grape that will begin the fermenation process on its own. But it has to be sealed away from oxygen as well or it will spoil or turn to vinegar (depending on how well and how soon your get it sealed). That's speaking of unpasteurized grape juice, btw. Pasteurized grape juice, once exposed to air, will develop botulism if then resealed.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Roman Catholic church, EO, the Lutherans and many others hold this view. I've been here two years and have had numerous discussions regarding John 6 with members of these churches, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

I think that what you wrote in the above reply is evidence that you do not know what you're talking about as far as Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran beliefs go.

 

[MoreCoffee]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7603805/

I'm not. Got proof....

What post number were you pointing to? I opened that page and saw #140 but it does not say anything even remotely related to your claims.

 

[Lion King]

Well, you're attempting to alter the record now. Why not just admit that you could have made a mistake?

I wrote:



To which you replied:



But those churches DO NOT hold "this view," i.e. that receiving Communion is a guarantee of salvation, a Quid Pro Quo. They do not, and you have not shown that they do because that would be impossible to do.

Let's end it here. There is nothing more that needs to be said.

First, I don't even know what quid pro quo mean.

Second, the "view" I was referring to was what I said earlier in one of my first post:

Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." John 6:53-55


Numerous churches today teach that the above passage is referring to the LORD's Supper. They claim that only those who partake in the LORD's Supper have life in them.

Makes sense why most of these churches also have a very strict communion.

 

[Lion King]

What post number were you pointing to? I opened that page and saw #140 but it does not say anything even remotely related to your claims.

post #6.

 

[MoreCoffee]

post #6.

That post says:

What did Jesus Christ mean by those words?

I think Paul explains fairly directly that this is in reference to the Real Presence in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.​

You see bread with your eyes. But you discern the body. This is the essence of a sacramental sign.

Nothing in it says anybody is saved by taking communion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Albion

If it's that "popular" you should be able to point some of those folks out to us, because I don't know anyone who thinks that salvation is guaranteed by the reception of Holy Communion.


OK, if you can't name individuals, name the churches that you imagine are teaching such an idea.
​

Originally Posted by Lion King

Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." John 6:53-55


Numerous churches today teach that the above passage is referring to the LORD's Supper. They claim that only those who partake in the LORD's Supper have life in them.
​

Originally Posted by Albion

A FEW churches only take that POV. But in addition, I think that you've mistaken the idea of the grace received through this (or any other) sacrament for being some kind of guarantee of salvation. It's not. It is not thought that the part in which we read "has eternal life" is some Quid Pro Quo.
​

Originally Posted by Lion King

The Roman Catholic church, EO, the Lutherans and many others hold this view. I've been here two years and have had numerous discussions regarding John 6 with members of these churches, so I think I know what I'm talking about.
​

I think that what you wrote in the above reply is evidence that you do not know what you're talking about as far as Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran beliefs go.

Good point
What about Anglicans?


.



.

 

[Tangible]

Who said that?

I said the RCC, EO, Lutherans teach that John 6:53-55 is referring to the LORD's supper. You, on the other hand, are bringing something up I never said.

Actually, the Lutheran view of John 6 is that it is about faith in Christ primarily, and only an oblique reference to actual Holy Communion.

 

[SwordFall]

You do understand that grape juice is of the fruit of the vine right?

Wine (fermented grape juice) = fruit of the vine
Unfermented grape juice = fruit of the vine.

Now, where is your evidence that the Scriptures says we are only to use wine at the LORD's Supper?

Actually grapes. Grapes are the fruit of the vine.

And you taking that to an extreme literal is not proof, that's just plain stupid.

You are wrong, just deal with it.

 

[Lion King]

Actually grapes. Grapes are the fruit of the vine.

Do you drink grapes?

And you taking that to an extreme literal is not proof, that's just plain stupid.

You are wrong, just deal with it.

*tells me I'm wrong, but provides no proof*

I'm still waiting for the proof that wine is the only drink to be used at the LORD's supper...