Communion wine

[DaRev]

Because I believe that the Scriptures don't mandate we must. I think we're getting too caught up in human regulations and not enough in the Word and Promises of God.

Well, again, three people here have clearly showed you that God in His word does indeed command it. You don't want to believe it. Perhaps you should practice what you preach and start relying on the Word of God instead of your own opinion.

 

[WildStrawberry]

I think the thing here is, BA, the "I DON'T CARE" comment.

When it is the Scripture telling you it is so, CARING should be something you make sure to do.

Kae

 

[BreadAlone]

Well, again, three people here have clearly showed you that God in His word does indeed command it. You don't want to believe it. Perhaps you should practice what you preach and start relying on the Word of God instead of your own opinion.

Again, I haven't seen anything that shows me this command. I've also explained why I have that opinion. Believe me, I don't think I'm trying to put up my own opinion over God's Word.

Frankly, this isn't really even that big of a deal..

 

[RadMan]

I highly respect the opinions of the early church theologians. However, even they were wrong sometimes.

How about the WELS, LCMS, TAALC, ELS and even the ELCA and hundreds of early chruch theologians. You think you know more than them? You're pitting yourself up against some really heavy hitters.

It must be wonderfull to think that you are only right and absolutely nobody else it.

 

[BreadAlone]

I think the thing here is, BA, the "I DON'T CARE" comment.

When it is the Scripture telling you it is so, CARING should be something you make sure to do.

Kae

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Yes, I know, three people have "shown" me..but all I see is a passing remark Christ makes in regards to wine. I don't see him explicitly demanding that it be grape wine or else he's not going to be in the Sacrament.

 

[BreadAlone]

How about the WELS, LCMS, TAALC, ELS and even the ELCA and hundreds of early chruch theologians. You think you know more than them? You're pitting yourself up against some really heavy hitters.

It must be wonderfull to think that you are only right and absolutely nobody else it.

I never said that, and I don't know if they're wrong about this. Until someone shows me some pretty convincing evidence here, I don't see the command in the Bible. I see the words "fruit of the vine," but I also see those words used in what I believe is out of context.

 

[RadMan]

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Yes, I know, three people have "shown" me..but all I see is a passing remark Christ makes in regards to wine. I don't see him explicitly demanding that it be grape wine or else he's not going to be in the Sacrament.

Jesus never made any passing remarks that you can pass off as incidental. Now you're getting into some dangerous ground.

 

[DaRev]

I never said that, and I don't know if they're wrong about this. Until someone shows me some pretty convincing evidence here, I don't see the command in the Bible. I see the words "fruit of the vine," but I also see those words used in what I believe is out of context.

Because you are only reading what you want to read and are ignoring the rest. Remember the grammar lesson with the word "this"? You apparently ignored all of that. That is where the command is. It's as clear as crystal. Can't get any clearer than that.

 

[WildStrawberry]

How is talking about not drinking of the FRUIT OF THE VINE directly after PARTAKING the fruit of the vine....out of context?

Honestly?

I'm amazed by this. I'm going to quote from the Princess Bride and say "you keep saying this. I do not think it means what you think it means"

Kae

 

[BreadAlone]

It's late folks. I'm going to bed now. We're just going in endless circles anyways.

I'll sleep on this and will ask some questions to people in RL tomorrow. I'll be back tomorrow evening.

A blessed evening to all.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Rad, I posted earlier what the WELS believes on "fruit of the vine". It can be interpreted to be juice or wine. Since the practice at the time was to drink wine (mixed with water) the WELS believes it is best to use grape wine. HOWEVER. The WELS stops short of saying that Jesus commanded that it must be wine in order for the sacrament to be valid - that's because he didn't. He simply said "Take and Eat" and Take and Drink".

I ask again: since it was the practice of the times to mix water with wine, are churches who are not mixing their wine with water doing it wrong as well?

You can't say Jesus commanded something simply because it was the practice during those times, while completely ignoring another practice like the mixing.

This is what happens when we add to the scriptures.

And for the record, Rev, I wasn't being sarcastic at all in my post. I'm sorry you felt you had to read too much into it.

Yes you have. You have refused to believe it was wine "fruit of the vine"

You say you are WELS yet you don't even believe what they believe. How can you profess even being a confessional Lutheran if you can't even get the basics.

You're sounding more like ELCA everyday.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm reposting this for clarification. WELS does not believe that fruit of the vine refers strictly to wine. Fruit of the vine simply refers to grapes. Since we know that during those times they were fermenting grapes and not drinking grape juice, it's fairly safe to say that it was grape wine they were drinking. HOWEVER. Fruit of the vine does not expressly mean wine. The command was to take and drink from the fruit of the vine. This does not equal only wine.

Stop beating on Bread Alone you guys. He's got the right of things. His point is that the Lord's Supper isn't about what wine we use, or what bread we use, but about the power of the words of the Holy Spirit. It's not the wine or bread that gives us communion, it's the body and blood of Christ. I have no doubt that God can and does choose to work through leavened bread and grape juice as much as He works through unleavened bread and grape wine.

From the WELS Q&A:

With the material elements in the Lord's Supper it is helpful to distinguish between what God's Word commands and what Jesus and his disciples did. When Jesus said, "Do this" he indicated that we should use bread and "fruit of the vine." Scripture never uses the word "wine" but simply calls the contents of the cup "fruit of the vine." The issue is not the alcoholic content of the cup. In fact, in Jesus' time the wine was usually mixed with water. It is true that from the historical context we know that Jesus and his disciples used unleavened bread and grape wine (probably mixed with water as was the custom). That is why we usually use unleavened bread (wafers) and grape wine today.

 

[BabyLutheran]

From http://jesus-messiah.com/html/wine.html

The partaking of the Lord's Supper is an important part of the faith of the New Testament Church. However, there are questions concerning what was in the cup. Was the symbol Jesus used for his blood wine or grape juice?
Whatever Jesus used as the symbol was identical with that which the Jews in that age used in observance of the Passover. In observance of the Passover, the Jews were commanded to put away all leaven out of their houses (Exodus 12:15). It has been said that fermented grape juice could not be used at Passover because it contains leaven and leaven is forbidden. Because no leaven was to be used is the very cause wine SHOULD be used.
Grape juice is full of leaven and is what causes fermentation. Fermentation is the process by which all leaven is purged or cleansed out of the grape juice. That which causes fermentation in wine is the yeast cells on the natural grapes and is comparable or equal to leaven, and in fermented grape juice is foreign to the nature of wine. Fermentation is but the latent energy of the juice nature to throw this leaven off, where it settles to the bottom of the vessel as the dregs so as to leave the wine pure and clear, fitted to drink as a symbol of the Saviour's pure blood.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't use wine. In fact, I've seen many posts that say that grape wine is preferred.

The argument comes from whether or not Jesus COMMANDED us to use grape wine. We add to Jesus' words when we say he commanded us to use grape wine, because Jesus commanded us to take and drink. We can look at what he didn't say as much as we can look at what he did say.

It's the same thing with baptism. The bible says all who believe and are baptized will be saved. It then goes on to say that those who do not believe are condemned. Notice what is missing. It doesn't say those who do not believed and are not baptized are condemned. For this reason, Lutherans claim that baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary.

I hold the same to be true for communion wine. It is good and preferable that we use grape wine. But not using grape wine doesn't invalidate the sacrament.

It's not about the wine, it's about the blood of Christ. It's not about the bread, it's about the body of Christ.

From http://jesus-messiah.com/html/wine.html

The partaking of the Lord's Supper is an important part of the faith of the New Testament Church. However, there are questions concerning what was in the cup. Was the symbol Jesus used for his blood wine or grape juice?
Whatever Jesus used as the symbol was identical with that which the Jews in that age used in observance of the Passover. In observance of the Passover, the Jews were commanded to put away all leaven out of their houses (Exodus 12:15). It has been said that fermented grape juice could not be used at Passover because it contains leaven and leaven is forbidden. Because no leaven was to be used is the very cause wine SHOULD be used.
Grape juice is full of leaven and is what causes fermentation. Fermentation is the process by which all leaven is purged or cleansed out of the grape juice. That which causes fermentation in wine is the yeast cells on the natural grapes and is comparable or equal to leaven, and in fermented grape juice is foreign to the nature of wine. Fermentation is but the latent energy of the juice nature to throw this leaven off, where it settles to the bottom of the vessel as the dregs so as to leave the wine pure and clear, fitted to drink as a symbol of the Saviour's pure blood.

 

[BabyLutheran]

Hmm... I take it to be Jesus saying to drink what's in the cup, and what's in the cup is wine. It is one of the least confusing things in the Bible IMO.

That being said, I do not claim what you are saying is wrong. In my typical fashion, I am easily persuaded by arguments on both sides...lol

 

[RadMan]

From http://jesus-messiah.com/html/wine.html

The partaking of the Lord's Supper is an important part of the faith of the New Testament Church. However, there are questions concerning what was in the cup. Was the symbol Jesus used for his blood wine or grape juice?
Whatever Jesus used as the symbol was identical with that which the Jews in that age used in observance of the Passover. In observance of the Passover, the Jews were commanded to put away all leaven out of their houses (Exodus 12:15). It has been said that fermented grape juice could not be used at Passover because it contains leaven and leaven is forbidden. Because no leaven was to be used is the very cause wine SHOULD be used.
Grape juice is full of leaven and is what causes fermentation. Fermentation is the process by which all leaven is purged or cleansed out of the grape juice. That which causes fermentation in wine is the yeast cells on the natural grapes and is comparable or equal to leaven, and in fermented grape juice is foreign to the nature of wine. Fermentation is but the latent energy of the juice nature to throw this leaven off, where it settles to the bottom of the vessel as the dregs so as to leave the wine pure and clear, fitted to drink as a symbol of the Saviour's pure blood.

Yea I can't imagine that the 1st-2nd century Christians would be so unobservent of the Last Supper that they would use anything they felt like. They didn't, as Martyr points out with the use of wine and water. There were probably people still living that were there with the apostles and it would be ridiculous to assume that the apostles wouldn't observe communion exactly the way that Jesus did it. The observence being passed down wouldn't have changed at all in 100 years.

Reverence for the Messiah would dictate that all observaces would be done exactly as He observed them. It would be unthinkable that someone would deliberately change it.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

So does your church add water to the wine?

Yea I can't imagine that the 1st-2nd century Christians would be so unobservent of the Last Supper that they would use anything they felt like. They didn't, as Martyr points out with the use of wine and water. There were probably people still living that were there with the apostles and it would be ridiculous to assume that the apostles wouldn't observe communion exactly the way that Jesus did it. The observence being passed down wouldn't have changed at all in 100 years.

Reverence for the Messiah would dictate that all observaces would be done exactly as He observed them. It would be unthinkable that someone would deliberately change it.

 

[BabyLutheran]

nit picker...lol!

Anyway, back to the O/P, still haven't heard from my pastor as to which type of wine we use, not that it matters on this thread any more.

One thing I love about us Lutherans, we love to argue. Makes life interesting.

 

[cerette]

This is a very interesting thread!

 

[BabyLutheran]

I could start a Lutheran congregation where we use plastic cups, fill them with grape juice, and use leavened crackers for each congregant to dip on his or her own. This would all be served by women.

It would still be valid communion in my opinion, just not the way I would prefer it!

j/k