Wine or Grape Juice in the Communion Cup

Just to show that yes they had and preserved Grape Juice look at Isaiah 65:8
Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all

Notice the term new wine is found in the cluster, when you first squeeze the juice from the cluster it hasn't sat and ferminted, fermintation takes time as it comes from decay. The word used for winf Strong's Number: 08492 #wryt

Original Word Word Origin
#wryt from (03423) in the sense of expulsion
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Tiyrowsh tee-roshe'
Parts of Speech TWOT
Noun Masculine 2505
Definition
wine, fresh or new wine, must, freshly pressed wine

Translated Words
KJV (38) - wine, 38;
NAS (38) - fresh wine, 1; grapes, 1; new wine, 33; wine, 3;

Isaiah refers to freshly squeezed wine this could not be ferminted it had to be the juice. Now would it fermint over time with the proper conditions you bet. But which did they use at passover the new wine

This same word is used in Numbers 18: 12 All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the wheat, the firstfruits of them which they shall offer unto the LORD, them have I given thee.
The best of the wine was the new wine freshly squeezed juice from the cluster. Again not allowing it to fermint was used in their feast.

 

Zenas,

There is a difference here. The reason that Baptists believe in immersion is not simply because Baptizo literally mean "to immerse", but also because it fulfills the picture given to us in Romans 6. In other words, the reason most are rejecting sprinkling is because sprinkling cannot display this picture. Therefore, the method also contains an importnant part of the reason for baptism.

I do not see that this is the case in the Lord's table. Where does Paul say that wine alone can picture the sacrificial blood of Christ? Where is the picture or symbolism altered by grape juice?

 

This is exactly why 1 John 1:9 is not to be used as salvific in nature. It is not written to be born again, again. That is erroneous thought to say the very least.

All sins, past and present, and future were nailed to the Cross. Read Ephesians. These verses are not nonsensical other than that you can't see the context, and do not understand that what is at stake here is fellowship, not salvation.

Let's put your theory to work here: Each and every time I sin, no matter how great or little, I am disowned, not a child any longer, no more His son, transfered back from light to darkness, and need to be born-again all over. This would need to happen on a daily basis at the very least. This is utter false teaching. There is nothing in Scriptures to support this other than a form of apostasy and a complete misunderstanding of the work of Christ and trust in ones own self. There is no one within Scripture who was saved more than one time. Anywhere.

Also, I did absolutely nothing to be saved, God did all the work in me. So I reject your "I did something" nonsense. He did it. All of it. But I clearly see your error, as your salvation is works based. And no, not "everyone would be saved" if your theory were correct.

An understanding of the work of Christ, and a deep study of Soteriolgy would benefit you greatly. But neither I, nor any person can make you to believe in it to the extent your soul needs to.

OK. I am going to get a little accusatory here too, since you have done so to many believers in your above statement. OSAS is not a doctrinal error. Your theory is definitely not truth. It's serious error due to a lack of confidence in the work of Christ upon the Cross and other underlying factors, including a misunderstanding of the word saved in itself.

Your statement that OSAS makes no difference to a believer is a total misnomer. It is all the world to true believers. It makes all the difference in the world to them. And this truth is what separates them from a paranoia inflicted doctrine you teach of salvation by works and not utter dependence upon the finished work of Christ.

No one I know of believes after salvation they can commit sin without consequence. That's utter nonsense, and the Spirit Himself would bear witness within them of this error. You have lot's of fears Zena. And they are unfounded.

I fear more of those, and biblically so, such as yourself, who feel they are saving themselves have much more to worry about than those who believe John 10:28 and in the secured work of Christ.

You're full of theories, not theological truth friend. It is glaringly obvious you are trusting upon yourself, and your intellect and logic for salvation. That's where real worry should be placed. As I've said, types of communion wine should be way down the list of concerns for you.

- Blessings

 

Shhhh. Baptists are afraid of wine.

If I'm not mistaken at the SBC Convention meeting last year a resolution was passed giving Baptist permission to speak to one another at the ABC store.

 

Im PB.....we even wash feet! Personally I'd ditch the wine & use brandy. That properly represents the blood of Christ!

 

Also, I did absolutely nothing to be saved, God did all the work in me. So I reject your "I did something" nonsense. He did it. All of it. But I clearly see your error, as your salvation is works based. And no, not "everyone would be saved" if your theory were correct.

YES :godisgood::laugh:

 

Yup. And let me clarify, "not everyone would be saved" under his theory, as a matter of fact they could never be saved, as it merely gives them a chance to save themselves, if they keep doing and doing.

This my friend is placing someone under a curse. I am, by the mercies and grace of the Living God under grace.

- Blessings

 

1 John 1:9 is a fellowship verse, when we sin and are out of God's will as believers we confess and God as it says forgives us our sins and cleanses us from unrighteousness, the term unrighteousness refers to unknown sins by us, we can commit sins unknown to us as sin and these lead to sin. God cleanses us or restores fellowship between us and the Holy Spirit. For when we sin we are no longer controlled by the Holy Spirit (filled by the Holy Spirit) and are controlled by sin, confession from us restores the filling (control) by the Holy Spirit. So we need to practice confession every time we sin so we are walking under the influence and control of the Holy Spirit. This is seen in the Parable of the Lost the Prodigle son came to his senses and confessed his sin, before he even arrived Home he had been forgiven but he had admitted to his sin and turned back. The father had already forgiven him but on his coming to his senses and coming home the fellowship between him and his father was restored. That is how 1 John 1:9 works.
We better have sin confessed out before we partake of the elements of the Lord's Table, Paul gave strict wrnings about that in 1 Corinthians.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

We do as well, right after the Lord's supper.

 

It's a fine point and thanks for opening the thread.

We provide both communion wine or grape juice in our trays. The grape juice is on the outer rings and marked, while the communion wine is on the inside rings and marked.

Since we don't believe in transubstantiation it doesn't really mean any different between the two. Most people take that grape juice. We provide both for a host of reasons. (No child is allowed to handle a tray by themselves)

Jesus used wine. Yes, let me say it again, Jesus used wine. And we want to be authentic to Scripture's commands and examples.

Thanks again! :thumbs:

 

So from the original Greek you can prove it was ferminted.
The Hebrew word for the wine ofthe feast or for offering to God is below.
Notice "wine, fresh or new wine, must, freshly pressed wine" it is borne out as freshly squeezed from the cluster that means it didn't have time to fermint.

In another post I gave the interlinear translation of what was used with the Greek, Jesus used the Product of the Grapevine the greek states and could be unferminted or ferminted, but coupled with the Hebrew new wine it would mean straight from the cluster and therefore be unferminted wine.


The word used for wine Strong's Number: 08492 #wryt

Original Word Word Origin
#wryt from (03423) in the sense of expulsion
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Tiyrowsh tee-roshe'
Parts of Speech TWOT
Noun Masculine 2505
Definition
wine, fresh or new wine, must, freshly pressed wine

Translated Words
KJV (38) - wine, 38;
NAS (38) - fresh wine, 1; grapes, 1; new wine, 33; wine, 3;

 

I believe that Welch simply pasteurized the grape juice, a process far different than preservation.

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html

In the above link you will find a lot of information of how the "ancients" were able to preserve many types of juices, grains, and other food products for long periods of times. Perhaps we could learn from them.

 

Does it really matter? Are our choices exactly the same of first century?

 

Exactly. We're in a different "age" now, plus it would be illegal to give anyone under 21 wine for communion, so generally its just a much simpler decision to go with Grape Juice. Plus, its not really about the substance, its about what it represents. Juice can and does represent Jesus' blood just as well as wine does.

 

Amen! Amen! Amen!

 

Obviously, this is not true. Otherwise, huge numbers of priests and ministers in churches throughout the U.S. would be arrested every Sunday.

There is an exception in alcohol laws for religious ceremonies. That has always been true, even during Prohibition.

 

It is quite telling that all this clamor for purported "authenticity" appears limited to assuring alcohol content.

Where's the "concern" for the use of NT-era earthen jars and animal skins, ancient pressing methods, lack of sterilization, etc.?

 

So...while we're being picky....just how much alcohol needs to be in the juice to make it holy?

How about we put a drop of fermented wine into a bottle of Welch's? Would that be enough? :tonofbricks:

 

Fermentation does not remove "leaven". Fermentation occurs due to the yeast, and the yeast dies in the process. It is intergral to the whole process. Sure, one can try to remove most of the spent yeast particles after the wine has been steeping in it for weeks or more, but that hardly makes it "unleavened".

That's like saying yeast bread really is unleavened, because, after all, the yeast is dead after baking.