Communion wine

[DaRev]

I don't think anyone is doubting that we should use wine in communion. I know I'm not.

My whole point is that the command was to eat bread and drink fruit of the vine. Now, we know what the practices were, so it is best that we use the practices that were in place. I just don't think using a wine that isn't made from grapes (gosh, really, how many are there? I don't know of any church that is using dandelion wine.) or having grape juice negates the sacrament. I do appreciate that you have stipulated that you are not claiming that they are not present, only that you do not feel comfortable in saying they are present. I realize there's a fine line there, but I understand what you mean.

I think it is important that we stick as closely to God's word when we use the sacraments. We just have to be very careful when we start saying that such and such was COMMANDED when only this was commanded. Part of the reason we as Lutherans use sprinkling in baptism is to negate those that believe that one MUST be submersed to be fully baptized. We say the power lies in the word and the water, not the method of baptism. But many people believe in full immersion because it was most likely how Jesus was baptized.

We know what the text says and that's all we can go by. For me, I prefer to err on the side of caution, that way there can be no question. Too many questions arise when we vary from what we indeed know from the Scripture.

 

[WildStrawberry]

I was just asking for scriptural reference is all because I hadn't heard about water being added before to the wine.

From the research I've been doing, water was added to what was called "new wine" or wine that had been boiled into syrup and poured into new wineskins. This was often so sweet that if you didn't have a sweet tooth (or a spoon) you wouldn't be able to drink it. Thus, it was watered down.

Other times, wine was watered when drunkenness was not wanted. However, from the readings I'm doing on the Passover, the wine in the 4 cups is to be Pure Wine.

So. Was the wine at the Last Supper watered? I don't know since it could be but shouldn't have been according to the Jewish Passover laws I'm reading.

Kae

 

[Lupinus]

Sorry, theres been a lot since last night so I'm gonna trust it was in the Rev's good hands and just jump on in lol.

PW-
I think the point is that for the time, fruit of the vine used at the passover would have meant wine. I say tomato, you say tomato.....ok however it would be spelled but you know the saying lol. They were tow things that looking at the scripture and supporting scriptures (regarding passover, etc) that Jesus used wine as the carrier of his blood to us in communion.

It is for this reason wine, and only wine, should be used for communion because the two are different once it ferments.

Just to change it up a bit suppose instead of bread, Jesus had chosen a piece of lamb. We know from scripture about the passover meal that the lamb should be roasted and well done. So should Jesus have needed to say roasted and well done lamb? No, simply saying lamb would have been enough of a description because the rest was a well understood given. Not saying we should use lamb of course lol, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

 

[BreadAlone]

I don't think anyone is doubting that we should use wine in communion. I know I'm not.

My whole point is that the command was to eat bread and drink fruit of the vine. Now, we know what the practices were, so it is best that we use the practices that were in place. I just don't think using a wine that isn't made from grapes (gosh, really, how many are there? I don't know of any church that is using dandelion wine.) or having grape juice negates the sacrament. I do appreciate that you have stipulated that you are not claiming that they are not present, only that you do not feel comfortable in saying they are present. I realize there's a fine line there, but I understand what you mean.

I think it is important that we stick as closely to God's word when we use the sacraments. We just have to be very careful when we start saying that such and such was COMMANDED when only this was commanded. Part of the reason we as Lutherans use sprinkling in baptism is to negate those that believe that one MUST be submersed to be fully baptized. We say the power lies in the word and the water, not the method of baptism. But many people believe in full immersion because it was most likely how Jesus was baptized.

QFT. This is EXACTLY how I feel about the topic. I'm sorry if I wasn't coming across as such, but it was late and I was tired. PW says it so much better than I was.

So there you have it.

 

[RadMan]

QFT. This is EXACTLY how I feel about the topic. I'm sorry if I wasn't coming across as such, but it was late and I was tired. PW says it so much better than I was.

So there you have it.

Well for a 16 yr old you've put up a good argument even though it is somewhat ascan.

 

[ThePilgrim]

From the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations document "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper":

We also need to keep in mind that the Confessions state that the Church is found where "the Gospel is preached in it's puirty and the Sacraments are administered according to Christ's command." Christ's command included unleavened bread and grape wine. The use of anything other than that could very well be outside of Christ's command.​

​

DaRev, are you claiming that Christ's command includes using unleavened bread? Why then was leavened bread used by the entire Church until the late 800s?

And out of curiosity, what do you think of the historic Christian practice (cf St. Justin Martyr) of mixing warm water in with the blood after the calling down of the Holy Spirit?

Grace and peace,
John

 

[Lupinus]

Pilgram-

Common practice doesn't make right. For many hundreds of years the church followed one man after another.

 

[ThePilgrim]

Pilgram-

Common practice doesn't make right. For many hundreds of years the church followed one man after another.

I'm not arguing that you *have* to use leavened bread (although I could, but won't do that here). What's I'm wondering is this. If you say that the use of unleavened bread is mandatory and that it is essential to the integrity of the Sacrament, aren't you saying that no Christians had the Sacrament until about AD 900, and then only sporadically from place to place?

Grace and peace,
John

 

[DaRev]

I think I've said it numerous times in this thread, but I will repeat for your sake.

I am not convinced that using any element apart from what we know Christ used in the institution of the Sacrament convey's the body and blood of Christ. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

 

[Lupinus]

I don't know that it invalidates it. But, I would say that it is not Christ used, so why chance it?

 

[ThePilgrim]

I think I've said it numerous times in this thread, but I will repeat for your sake.

I am not convinced that using any element apart from what we know Christ used in the institution of the Sacrament convey's the body and blood of Christ. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

I'm asking out of honest curiosity, so I hope this will be taken in the right spirit...

If it's vitally important that unleavened bread be used, why was the practice of using unleavened bread only introduced in the 900s? Wouldn't something that important be something that would have been done from the beginning, or at least something that was done in some places?

I'm asking because I've honestly never heard a Lutheran pastor say that unleavened bread is essential. I know a number of strongly Confessional pastors who are adamant about the use of grape wine (and not grape juice) but who regard the type of bread as adiaphora.

I was surprised to read that from you.

Grace and peace,
John

 

[DaRev]

I'm asking out of honest curiosity, so I hope this will be taken in the right spirit...

If it's vitally important that unleavened bread be used, why was the practice of using unleavened bread only introduced in the 900s? Wouldn't something that important be something that would have been done from the beginning, or at least something that was done in some places?

I'm asking because I've honestly never heard a Lutheran pastor say that unleavened bread is essential. I know a number of strongly Confessional pastors who are adamant about the use of grape wine (and not grape juice) but who regard the type of bread as adiaphora.

I was surprised to read that from you.

Grace and peace,
John

While I've never heard of this, it could very well be that the specific Greek word for unleavened bread is not used in the verba, but rather the generic word "artos". It doesn't make sense that the use of leavened bread would be adiaphora while the use of wine over juice is more earnestly taught. The Greek word "oinon" does not appear in the verba either. Yet we do know that Christ used both grape wine and unleavened bread in the institution of the Sacrament. I guess I need to do a bit more research.

 

[ThePilgrim]

While I've never heard of this, it could very well be that the specific Greek word for unleavened bread is not used in the verba, but rather the generic word "artos". It doesn't make sense that the use of leavened bread would be adiaphora while the use of wine over juice is more earnestly taught. The Greek word "oinon" does not appear in the verba either. Yet we do know that Christ used both grape wine and unleavened bread in the institution of the Sacrament. I guess I need to do a bit more research.

Yes, the word used is artos.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps it has to do with the differing chronologies between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, which has the Last Supper *not* being a Passover meal? Might it be that those pastors feel that since the text isn't clear, either are allowable?

And for you as a Confessional Lutheran, from your perspective, how seriously does the use of leavened bread call into question the reality of the Eucharist? Do you think that it is likely that the Church didn't have the Eucharist for 900 years, until the West began to introduce the practice, or do you think that it's likely that they did, but that unleavened bread would have been preferable?


Also, here's a different interesting question... I absolutely agree about the necessity of using fermented wine, but what about this case? I know of a priest during the Communist persecutions in Russia who had a difficult case. Many of his flock were being arrested and martyred and he himself was inconstant danger. There was a wine shortage in the area and the Communist authorities made sure that no Churches were able to get any of what was available. In order still to serve the Liturgy, the priest would go off into the field and pick berries and make wine from berries, and use that, all the while crying and asking God's mercy, saying that he knew that we were commanded to use grape wine, but asking that God would accept what was offered.

What do you think? I'm in two minds about it, but overall, in that specific case, I have no doubt that God in His mercy made an exception.

Just random thoughts...

Grace and peace,
John

 

[DaRev]

Yes, the word used is artos.

It's an interesting question. Perhaps it has to do with the differing chronologies between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, which has the Last Supper *not* being a Passover meal? Might it be that those pastors feel that since the text isn't clear, either are allowable?

And for you as a Confessional Lutheran, from your perspective, how seriously does the use of leavened bread call into question the reality of the Eucharist? Do you think that it is likely that the Church didn't have the Eucharist for 900 years, until the West began to introduce the practice, or do you think that it's likely that they did, but that unleavened bread would have been preferable?


Also, here's a different interesting question... I absolutely agree about the necessity of using fermented wine, but what about this case? I know of a priest during the Communist persecutions in Russia who had a difficult case. Many of his flock were being arrested and martyred and he himself was inconstant danger. There was a wine shortage in the area and the Communist authorities made sure that no Churches were able to get any of what was available. In order still to serve the Liturgy, the priest would go off into the field and pick berries and make wine from berries, and use that, all the while crying and asking God's mercy, saying that he knew that we were commanded to use grape wine, but asking that God would accept what was offered.

What do you think? I'm in two minds about it, but overall, in that specific case, I have no doubt that God in His mercy made an exception.

Just random thoughts...

Grace and peace,
John

All I can say at this point is that we do indeed know from the context of the Scriptures what Jesus used in the institution of His supper as He commanded. But be it far from me or anyone else to dictate what God could or would do by His own grace and mercy.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

All I can say at this point is that we do indeed know from the context of the Scriptures what Jesus used in the institution of His supper as He commanded. But be it far from me or anyone else to dictate what God could or would do by His own grace and mercy.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I like you more and more everyday!

 

[DaRev]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I like you more and more everyday!

Awwwww.... shucky darns

 

[BreadAlone]

All I can say at this point is that we do indeed know from the context of the Scriptures what Jesus used in the institution of His supper as He commanded. But be it far from me or anyone else to dictate what God could or would do by His own grace and mercy.

Now why couldn't you have said this 20 pages ago?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Now why couldn't you have said this 20 pages ago?

I think he did...he just used much bigger words and longer sentences! Those pastors, you know how windy they can be!!

 

[ThePilgrim]

All I can say at this point is that we do indeed know from the context of the Scriptures what Jesus used in the institution of His supper as He commanded. But be it far from me or anyone else to dictate what God could or would do by His own grace and mercy.

So what you're saying is that it's possible that God, in His mercy, was present in the Eucharist for the first 900 years of Christianity, but that we can't be certain, because (to put it in Lutheran terms) by using leavened bread, those Christians did not have Christ's promise that He would be present?

ie We don't know, but we do know that they lacked the promise?

Grace and peace,
John

 

[DaRev]

So what you're saying is that it's possible that God, in His mercy, was present in the Eucharist for the first 900 years of Christianity, but that we can't be certain, because (to put it in Lutheran terms) by using leavened bread, those Christians did not have Christ's promise that He would be present?

ie We don't know, but we do know that they lacked the promise?

Grace and peace,
John

All I can say at this point is that we do indeed know from the context of the Scriptures what Jesus used in the institution of His supper as He commanded. But be it far from me or anyone else to dictate what God could or would do by His own grace and mercy.