Wine for Communion

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Rev. Joshua, Sep 16, 2001.

  1. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    We got on the temperance discussion on another thread, and it reminded me of one of my favorite Buechner quotes (which I use anytime someone asks why we offer wine as an option during the Eucharist).

    From Frederick Buechner's Wishful Thinking:

    Unfermented grape juice is a bland and pleasant drink, especially on a warm afternoon mixed half-and-half with ginger ale. It is a ghastly symbol of the life blood of Jesus Christ, especially when served in antiseptic, thimble-sized glasses.

    Wine is booze, which means it is dangerous and drunkmaking. It makes the timid brave and the reserved amorous. It loosens the tongue and breaks the ice especially when served in a loving up. It kills germs. As symbols go, it is a rather splendid one.

    [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]
     
  2. Eladar

    Eladar
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe that Jesus meant the intoxicating properties to be used. To say that is a herecy. Intoxication is immoral. Sexual immorality is a sin. Such things are signs of the sinful nature, or the flesh.

    In other words, I couldn't disagree more!

    But I do agree that Jesus used an alcoholic wine. It wasn't to get drunk on though.
     
  3. Eladar

    Eladar
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just so there are no misunderstanding, I believe this too, to be a disputable matter.

    In any case, we are not to get drunk on wine. That is not disputable.
     
  4. Eladar

    Eladar
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    "the reserved amorous" I don't see who someone married would be reserved in the department of love making. I do see where a single person would be reserved. To say that Jesus was using wine as a symbol because it makes people more likely to "make love" to me is a herecy.
     
  5. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tuor,

    Amorous means "willing to show love," and not necessarily sexual love.

    As to whether the quote applies to single or married people, it applies to both. Wine can affect people who should be amorous with each other but are timid about it (which describes many married couples I've known). It can also affect those who should not. That's part of what makes it dangerous.

    Joshua
     
  6. Eladar

    Eladar
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sorry for going overboard.

    What God gives us can be used for both good and bad. I believe that Jesus chose wine for his symbol. The fact that new wines need new wine skins proves to me that when Jesus spoke of wine, He was speaking of the fermented variety.

    Exactly why he chose it, I don't know. All I do know is that alcohol is abused by some for non-biblical reasons. To link it to those reasons in any way shape or form in my eyes is wrong. That is why I don't think the quote you gave is so great.

    Thanks for your patient response,

    Nils
     
  7. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines: We got on the temperance discussion on another thread, and it reminded me of one of my favorite Buechner quotes (which I use anytime someone asks why we offer wine as an option during the Eucharist).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am curious as to why you refer to communion as "the Eucharist". Please tell me me why.

    :confused:
     
  8. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's one of the traditional terms for the Lord's Supper. Our congregation is a liturgical one, so in the Order of Service it is referred to as the "Service of the Eucharist."

    Do you have a specific objection to the term, or are you just unfamiliar with it?
     
  9. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
    It's one of the traditional terms for the Lord's Supper. Our congregation is a liturgical one .... Do you have a specific objection to the term ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Sounds Roman Catholic to me. Are you a Roman Catholic? If not, then what is your denominational affiliation? It is obviously not Baptist.

    [ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
     
  10. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Born Baptist
    Raised Baptist
    Baptised Baptist
    Graduated from a Baptist Seminary
    Ordained a Baptist minister
    Pastored a Baptist Church
    Currently serving a Baptist Church in various capacities

    (you can read more in the Baptist Board Member forum)

    If you've read any of Buddy Shurden's work on baptist history, he identifies two streams in baptist life in America: the Sandy Creek Tradition and the Charleston tradition. The Charleston tradition usually incorporated a more liturgical worship style and my adult memberships have all been in Charleston tradition churches.

    Joshua

    [ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]
     
  11. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pioneer said, on "Eucharist":

    Sounds Roman Catholic to me.

    a) No more than "communion" - as in "first communion," which is one of the most important Roman rites.

    b) "Eucharist" is also the term used by other denominations, particularly liturgical traditions such as Anglicanism.

    c) It's also the term used by the early Church; it's simply Greek for "thanksgiving."

    Are you a Roman Catholic? If not, then what is your denominational affiliation? It is obviously not Baptist.

    Why do you say that? Just because you don't like the use of a traditional term instead of a more contemporary one? And who says a Baptist congregation can't be liturgical, anyway?
     
  12. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    #1 - In the Bible, the communion service is referred to as "the Lord's supper" or "the Lord's table" but never as the "Eucharist".

    #2 - The term "Eucharist" is almost always associated with Roman Catholic churches, Anglican churches, Episcopalian churches, ect.

    #3 - The term "Eucharist" is commonly applied to the Roman Catholic mass.

    #4 - Churches that have the "Eucharist" almost always refer to it as a sacrament (meaning it has saving power).

    #5 - True NT Baptist churches have never referred to the Lord's supper as the "Eucharist".

    Bro. Steve Smith
     
  13. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whatever you say Steve. Whatever you say.

    Joshua
     
  14. rhoneycutt

    rhoneycutt
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2001
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#1 - In the Bible, the communion service is referred to as "the Lord's supper" or "the Lord's table" but never as the "Eucharist".
    #2 - The term "Eucharist" is almost always associated with Roman Catholic churches, Anglican churches, Episcopalian churches, ect.

    #3 - The term "Eucharist" is commonly applied to the Roman Catholic mass.

    #4 - Churches that have the "Eucharist" almost always refer to it as a sacrament (meaning it has saving power).

    #5 - True NT Baptist churches have never referred to the Lord's supper as the "Eucharist".

    Bro. Steve Smith
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    ROFLOL
     
  15. Sir Ed

    Sir Ed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2001
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah and the Bible is always written in English too. [​IMG]
     
  16. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    8
    ROFLOL. Cheers, everyone...
     
  17. Brother Adam

    Brother Adam
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Messages:
    4,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I don't believe that Jesus meant the intoxicating properties to be used."

    Someone better tell Jesus... :rolleyes:

    As far as your 5 points steve...I have to agree with the rest.

    Until Next Post, Adam
     
  18. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    It should be pointed out that "true New Testament" churches would never have the unbiblical word "invitation" either. Not to mention all those unbiblical instruments (did you ever hear of a piano in ancient Israel?). Then of course there's the Bible, which true NT churches would have had only pieces of. And they did always have a fellowhship meal, and there's also...
     
  19. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pioneer said:

    #1 - In the Bible, the communion service is referred to as "the Lord's supper" or "the Lord's table" but never as the "Eucharist".

    Then why did you call it "communion"? By your own admission that is not the Biblical language either.

    #2 - The term "Eucharist" is almost always associated with Roman Catholic churches, Anglican churches, Episcopalian churches, ect.

    Then why did you accuse the Rev. of being Roman Cathlic instead of Anglican or Episcopalian?

    #3 - The term "Eucharist" is commonly applied to the Roman Catholic mass.

    And, by your own admission, the same ceremony in Anglican/Episcopalian churches. Again, why did you single out the Rev. as "Catholic" when you yourself admit that the word "eucharist" has a broader scope than just the Roman system?

    #4 - Churches that have the "Eucharist" almost always refer to it as a sacrament (meaning it has saving power).

    "Almost always" means "sometimes not." I guess you're going to give Rev. Joseph the benefit of the doubt and assume he is in the latter party?

    #5 - True NT Baptist churches have never referred to the Lord's supper as the "Eucharist".

    Who says?
     
  20. dad_350

    dad_350
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    When my wife and I were first married, I attended her church, which was liturgical in worship. It can be very beautiful and majestic. However, I found it to become just a routine. I never heard the need to get saved. If you ask that to one of the members, they would most of the time say, "saved from what?" Thats why we left. I also find that its better to not be so set in a format in the worship that you can't allow for the Holy Spirit to move. This church was not baptist. Perhaps I would have stayed if the gospel would have been preached. I have found that I also get a blessing from the informal worship style where the Holy Spirit can move, if so allowed. Even in a non-formal worship, we can quench the Spirit.
     

Share This Page

Loading...