Communion

Do you have to use wine when taking communion?

I had a discussion about this with some of my friends a little while back but we never quite came to a conclusive agreement so I thought i'd post it hear and see what some of you think. 

Jesus used wine when he took the last supper and told us to do it in remembrance of him. So it obviously seems like that is what we should use too, and I agree. 

         But what if there is no grapes? This problem was discussed when early American settlers were beginning to run out of wine. They came to the conclusion that muscadines and similar fruits would be exeptible since it was still "the fruit of the vine".

         But what if you dont even have that? What if you are in Siberia or some other place where hardly anything grows? Or in some oppressive country where you dont have access to get any? 

         Should you use some other kind of juice? Or would it be better just to not take it? But we cant just not take the lord's supper as he commanded, or is that exactly what we should do? would that be worse then taking it incorrectly? Though he says "as often" does that mean that if we only take it once in our life that we aren't obligated to again if we cant get the right materials? But even if that is true then we still dont have an answer for what to do if someone hasn't even taken it that one time.

This is a short summary of some of the questions that were raised in our conversation on this issue. 

The most important thing is God who works through the elements for our nourishment. I don't take a strong stance either way on this issue. Grape juice etc. is less preferable but not invalid.

i believe that anything, so long as it is understood to be the symbolism of Jesus' blood, can be used for communion. example: i know someone who, no matter what type of wine, cannot have it, as it throws her into a sever allergic reaction. she is a christian. now, does this mean that, simply because her body cannot imbibe wine she should be refused the sacrament that was given to be used by all christians? in the words of Paul, "Absolutely not!" as shown (i believe) in Corinthians, it is not the act of taking the sacrament that God cares about, but the heart posture. therefore i believe that water or other liquids taken in place of wine makes no difference to God and the sacrament. i believe the same thing regarding bread in communion.

i agree. that is the position that i held.

But I'm sure y'all would agree that wine is preferable, as it was what Jesus actually used and instituted.

Absolutely. Something else should only be used when you aren't able to use wine. I dont agree with the practice that most churches now use grape juice instead.

i actually agree with it, for the reasons i stated above. there is actually a fairly large percent of the population who either can't or doesn't drink wine, so using grape juice doens't leave them out. i personally don't believe that there is a "preferred" liquid. again, God doens't look at the object used but the heart in question (to paraphrase the scene where God talks to samuel about david). therefore, the preference of wine is only the preference of man, not of God.

I can see what you are saying, and I'm not trying to be legalistic. But I still think that we should use what he used if possible, though like we agreed, if you cant then you can use something else.

You also said "cant or doesn't" and I dont think that that is valid. If someone chooses to take the lord's supper with something else simply because they don't drink wine for whatever reason they have concocted. I think that is there error. If someone just doesn't go to church, we wouldn't excuse that for any reason.( once again though, not if they truly can't go to church )

i guess my point is that churches should hand out what the greatest portion of their congregation can take. i understand the important symbolism of the wine, which is why i think that most churches use grape juice, since it is an alternative of the same substance that is prepared in a different way. i'm not going to argue against using wine or juice, i just don't want people to feel like they are obligated to take either if they can't have it.

I think the underlying question of what is communion is more fundamental and has a lot of ramifications related to the original question.

Well, I think that it is a physical token of remembrance, and not some means by which spiritual grace may be acquired. And i definitely dont think that it transforms into the actual flesh and blood of Christ

Why do you believe these things?

Well he says "do this in remembrance of me" and (as far as i know) he never says anything about it doing something spiritual for us, so someone saying that it does just seems like adding something that jesus never said. Also, if it did Impart grace or any other spiritual help (besides obedience) then that would be man doing something to be more like Jesus, and man can do no such thing

agreed. the Spirit is imparted to us at salvation, and that is all that is the gift God gave to us to use for Spiritual help.

Note that only one gospel (Luke) uses the language of remembrance. Paul copies this language in 1 Corinthians, but it’s not too hard to guess why he quoted Luke of all people. On the other hand, Paul says that communion is participation in the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16), which cannot merely refer to the Church (because nowhere else is the language of Christ’s blood applied to the Church).

Think about it this way: the sacraments are physical manifestations that are deeply connected to inward realities. Baptism is the sacrament of justification (cleansing), while communion/the Eucharist is the sacrament of sanctification (ongoing nourishment by the Spirit). The sacraments, then, are not works of man or of the law, but they are works of God. This is why it is appropriate to say “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), which would be dangerous language if baptism is a work of man.

But isn’t there room for the Spirit to work through something like communion? And don’t we receive ongoing support from the Holy Spirit? Then why isn’t their room for God to institute a physical thing to look to in order to provide assurance of the Spirit’s work?

When Paul says that communion is participation in the body(the bread) and blood(the wine) of Christ, it is participation in the remembrance of his death and sacrifice. If we took part in the actual blood and body of Christ every time we took the Lords supper, then he would have to be continually dieing.

The sacraments are representations of spiritual things. Baptism represents the washing away of sins, but it does not wash away sins. The communion represents the flesh and blood that he gave for us, but it is not the flesh and blood that he gave for us. And i would say that in a sense works of man. You said “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), which would be dangerous language if baptism is a work of man." But I disagree. God tells us to give to the church and that is an act of man, God tells us not to murder someone and that is an act of man when they follow that law. (Though of course, at some degree everything is an act of God. And we still have the Holy Spirit to help us) so I see baptism and communion as the same. There doesn't have to be a spiritual impartment of some kind when we choose to give to the church or when we choose not to murder someone, the same goes for baptism and communion.

yes, of course He can work through communion. my point was that communion isn't in and of itself imparting grace and spiritual gifts, like what it seemed you said.

The first paragraph is problematic. Paul's language seems to pretty clearly reinforce that the bread is Jesus's body in some sense. I can't get away from the conclusion that you're merely making the passage say something it doesn't. And why would Jesus have to continually die?

To clarify, I believe in John Calvin's view of spiritual presence. This is what Presbyterians and many Baptists have always believed. Jesus nourishes us with His spiritual body and blood (which doesn't make it any less real) through the physical bread and wine.

Does God have to use these physical sacraments to impart grace? Obviously no. But He chooses to in order to make our salvation more visible to ourselves and to others. Because the sacraments are physical manifestations, it is wrong to totally separate the signs (baptism and communion) from what they signify (justification and sanctification). This is why we can say that baptism is salvific without professing that baptism in and of itself does something. This is why we can say that we really receive Jesus's body and blood in communion, even though we receive it spiritually.

You said “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), which would be dangerous language if baptism is a work of man." But I disagree. God tells us to give to the church and that is an act of man, God tells us not to murder someone and that is an act of man when they follow that law. (Though of course, at some degree everything is an act of God. And we still have the Holy Spirit to help us) so I see baptism and communion as the same. There doesn't have to be a spiritual impartment of some kind when we choose to give to the church or when we choose not to murder someone, the same goes for baptism and communion. - Hmm... is "repent and give to the church for the remission of sins" dangerous language? Obviously yes. I also need to show why baptism and communion are unique. I don't think this is hard to do. I've already mentioned Paul's language of participation in Christ's body and blood. Meanwhile, passages like 1 Peter 3:21, Colossians 2:11-12, and Acts 2:38 all suggest the operation of baptism in some way.

"The first paragraph is problematic. Paul's language seems to pretty clearly reinforce that the bread is Jesus's body in some sense. I can't get away from the conclusion that you're merely making the passage say something it doesn't." I find this passage to be an example and metaphorical. After all, if you go over to the very next verse, Paul says that we are one bread and one body.

"And why would Jesus have to continually die?" If the bread and wine transform into his actual flesh and blood. Then it is now more then just a token of remembrance of his death. We are now re-sacrificing him everytime we partake of his flesh.

"To clarify, I believe in John Calvin's view of spiritual presence. This is what Presbyterians and many Baptists have always believed. Jesus nourishes us with His spiritual body and blood (which doesn't make it any less real) through the physical bread and wine." If communion imparts spiritual nourishment. Then why not take it everyday? Or multiple times a day? After all we need all the spiritual help we can get.

As for "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” I would argue that repenting isn't salvific either. But it is a natural response once God has saved you, as should be baptism. Sinners repent of there wrong all the time, but that doesn't make them saved, sinners can be baptized as much as they want, but that doesn't save them either. Only after God has saved someone does true repentance or baptism happen.

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

(Colossians 2:11–13) this passage also seems very metaphorical. "With the circumcision made without hands. "Circumcision of Christ" and " risen with him through the faith of the operation of God " sound like representations to me.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh[physical babtism], but the answer of a good conscience toward God[spiritual baptism],) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: "

(1 Peter 3:21) this also appears to be saying that spiritual baptism savedls, and that physical baptism is a sign of the spiritual baptism.