Wine in the Lord's Supper

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cymro

Puritan Board Junior
Did not Pergamum have a question on this recently? Whilst I would agree with the quotations
and maintain its the true position, yet Pergamum finds himself in a situation where wine is not
available. So there must be circumstances where necessity is the mother of invention, or the
ordinance is denied to the churches in that area.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
If wine isn't available, then wine isn't available. Sometimes, I suppose, that can't be helped. If one prefers grape juice because American culture takes its roots from progressivism on the 19th century and we are just holier than God, then it becomes a problem.

While one should always quote Scary Gary with caution, this is apropos:

“Grape juice at the communion table symbolizes the historical impotence of Christ’s blood, Christ’s gospel, Christ’s church, and Christ’s expanding kingdom. Grape juice stays ‘bottled up’, confined to the historical skins of Palestine.”
~Gary North
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Professor
Hello Travis – I would be interested in what you have to say about the modern innovation of omitting the bolded words, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" in Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper per Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24, so that (in almost all modern versions) it reads, "This is my body, which is for you", based on its omission in the critical Greek text. And this is how it is administered in many Reformed churches, as in my own PCA congregation.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
I'm just curious if those who believe communion must include wine also believe the bread must be unleavened. It would seem that one would follow the other.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
Hello Travis – I would be interested in what you have to say about the modern innovation of omitting the bolded words, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" in Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper per Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24, so that (in almost all modern versions) it reads, "This is my body, which is for you", based on its omission in the critical Greek text. And this is how it is administered in many Reformed churches, as in my own PCA congregation.

This is one of those occasions where I am especially thankful that I don't use a CT translation. Actually, 11:29 is even worse and is rendered virtually nonsensical in the CT translations;

NKJV- "For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."

ESV- "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. "
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I'm just curious if those who believe communion must include wine also believe the bread must be unleavened. It would seem that one would follow the other.

I'm fine with unleavened bread, though since the Supper typifies among other things feasting on Yahwehs mountain, bread makes more sense. Both kinds were used in early church praxis. Welchs wasn't used until Americanism. That's the key difference
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
Can I just state the obvious and say that practice does not necessarily equate to conviction? Arguments from silence can be misleading.

For 1800 years the church used wine without any debate arising. Here's one possible explanation of many: What were the alternatives to "fruit of the vine" in the day before refrigeration?

Is a certain percentage of alcoholic content required or else the symbolism is invalid? I agree that circumventing it simply because you doubt God's wisdom is sinful, but is that really the case here? I'd be careful before saying our brethren who drink unfermented "fruit of the vine" are in sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top