The real communion would be between Us and Jesus at His table based upon us having been saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit, not what the actual elements would be!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Communion: does it matter if ......
- Thread starter Mikey
- Start date
I accept the 1689 Confession, but only the Bible is inspired and fully accurate!
37818
Well-Known Member
Yes. But this is relative. There is fresh and not so fresh. Grape juice was not pasteurized as we do grape juice today. The freshest juice if put into old wine skins would cause the lose of both the juice and the skins do to the contiuned fermentation of the juice. Matthew 9:17. Noting that Jesus called it the "drink of the fruit of the vine" not referring to it as "wine" making this distinction.
In the Mishnah wine that must be mixed with three parts water in order to keep from being intoxicated is called "fruit of the vine" in the very prayer in the third aspect of the Passover when the Supper was constituted by Christ.
20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord`s supper:
21 for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 1 Cor 11
...if some were getting drunk from the 'wine', it had to be alcoholic.
That was before Communion though, correct?
Boy they sure must have wondered what God was talking about when He mentioned fresh grapes and raisins, grape juice, wine, vinegar, etc. in the instructions about the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:3)
because
because
unprofitable
Active Member
At the marriage we see, John 2:3,"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said unto him, they have no wine."We know it is wine she is speaking of because the govenor of the feast witnesses to the bridegroom in vs 10"...Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now." This is particularly true when speaking of wine and not of grape juice. I know by past personal experience and medical proof that after a few drinks the taste buds become anesthetized and cannot tell the difference but this wine was so superior that even those who had already drunk well could distinguish between the two. This wine represented that new wine that must be put into new bottles. This was the wine of the new covenant. He truly has saved the best for last.
In verse 4, "Jesus saith unto her, Woman what have i to do with thee; mine hour is not yet come." He was not only talking of the hour of his crucifixion but also before that, the institution of the Lord's supper as an ordinance of the new covenant.. Christ says in Mt 26:28, "For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant) which is shed for many for the remission of sins." This is the wine and the cup (vs 27) that Christ was speaking of when he addressed Mary. It was proof to HIS people, that along with the unleaven bread of His body, that he could indeed, as it says in Ps 78:19, "...set a table in the wildness."
In verse 4, "Jesus saith unto her, Woman what have i to do with thee; mine hour is not yet come." He was not only talking of the hour of his crucifixion but also before that, the institution of the Lord's supper as an ordinance of the new covenant.. Christ says in Mt 26:28, "For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant) which is shed for many for the remission of sins." This is the wine and the cup (vs 27) that Christ was speaking of when he addressed Mary. It was proof to HIS people, that along with the unleaven bread of His body, that he could indeed, as it says in Ps 78:19, "...set a table in the wildness."
unprofitable
Active Member
Christ says to his disciples making up the new testament church in John 14:15, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." He is speaking of his words, sayings, and ordinances of the new covenant. The new covenant is given to the church and the church has been given the power and authority to execute such in judging righteous judgment (Gen 18:19) as the sons of God. I ask, why would Christ give his people a commandment/ordinance (as part of the charge- Ez 1:2) and then not expect them to observe it or not keep the proper elements as they are given? Christ says in John 14:21 "He that hath my commandments (ordinances, sayings, of the covenant) and KEEPETH/observeth them, he it is that loveth me, and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him (Eph 5:25, ...even as Christ so loved THE CHURCH and gave himself for it) and manifest (reveal, make known) myself to him." Eph 3:10..."that" it might be known by (revealed to, made manifest to) THE CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God." Does it matter or not?
37818
Well-Known Member
1 John 3:23 explains the commands in question, ". . . And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment. . . ."
Jesus did not say, "this my blood" but "this is my blood," respenting His blood. Metaphor. Compare usage, 1 John 1:5, "God is light," and 1 John 4:8, "God is love."
37818
Well-Known Member
representing was misspelled.
unprofitable
Active Member
We see Saul commit two sins in the name of thought and intent. 1) He did not wait on Samuel to offer the sacrifice but stepped into the order of the priesthood and did it himself.(good intentions) (I Sam 13:8-10) 2) He had been told to utterly destroy Amalek and all that pertained unto him, yet Saul justified himself and blamed the people for bringing back the cattle to sacrifice unto the Lord (good intentions). (I Sam 15:3-23) In HIS thoughts and intents he sinned. This is a warning to us to beware in following/justifying our own thoughts and intents in thinking we are serving the Lord when in fact it will be rebellion if not according to the scriptures. I have heard of a church that "spiritualized away" the need to meet and each member went their own way thus destroying a body of Christ. (good intentions) We would say that the church that used coke and potato chips for communion erred. They, like Saul, did not wait on the Lord and offered a sacrifice contrary to the scriptures. We are told to wait on the Lord and believe He WILL provide.
How can coke or gator aid even remotely represent the blood of Christ or potato chips or cake his sinless body? Christ has given us an example by which we are to bring Him and his work into remembrance. The old testament sacrifices, though types shadows, were representative of Christ and His kingdom. They would never offer a swine's blood or a camel's body upon the altar because they could not represent the perfect sacrifice of Christ and his work to bring in his kingdom even if they thought they could spiritualize them to mean so. What freedom do you think we have to use coke or potato chips? Israel as a covenant nation thought they were a light to the nations, and that they did the will of the Lord, but the prophets told them they were blind, in darkness, and perverted THE NAME of the Lord. History shows us that the thoughts and intents of the catholics have caused them to slaughter the Baptists thinking they did the will of the Lord. It is by the same thoughts and intentions that some so-called Baptists have women standing in their pulpits. Try the spirits (thoughts and intentions) whether they be of God. (I Jn 4:1)
We in now wise believe in the trans-substantiation of the catholics. However, we do believe that Christ came to bring in His kingdom and that, by His perfect sacrifice, death, burial, and resurrection. A kingdom has commandments (covenant) whereby order is kept, and so also does the kingdom of God. The Baptist believe there are two ordinances. The definition of ordinance is an authoritative rule or law, a decree or command. Should they be named something else so the definition will allow them to be optional? A covenant, especially in the sense of a marriage covenant, outlines what each party will do. The ordinances are part of the covenant and cannot be changed nor deleted. In Jer 11:6, Jeremiah by the spirit of Christ in him says, "Hear ye the words of this covenant and do them." We are told to not be hears only but doers Again I ask, why would Christ give his people a command (ordinance, words of the covenant), tell them to keep them then not expect them to keep them. This is hypocracy. Why give them in the first place if they are not necessary. They are not optional even as the commission/charge/command in Mt 28:20 is not optional. The ordinances are not for salvation but are part of the work of the sons of God, already made alive by the spirit of Christ, thereby are enabled to walk in them/observe them/keep them.. (Eze 36:26-30, Eph 2:6-10) James 1:22 says, "But be ye doers of the word (covenant), and not just hearers, deceiving yourselves." Are keeping the ordinances, which are part of the covenant, included in being a doer?" Absolutely, or you are going to have to throw away all the statutes, precepts and judgments. It is not a pick or choose by the option of men. Is not loving the Lord being obedient to Him and His word/covenant/ordinances and in doing so we are called faithful servants. The ordinances can only kept by his people as a body of Christ. There is no scriptural authority for an individual keep the ordinances, to baptize himself or take the Lord's supper, apart from the church, the body of Christ. Is the command to love the brethren not accomplished in part in the gathering together of the body to observe the baptism and the Lord's supper (part of keeping covenant) so his people may be faithful, obedient and rejoice in what Christ has done for them? Deuteronomy 7:9 says, "Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He is God, the faithful God, which keepeth mercy with them that love him AND keep his commandments (covenant) to a thousand generations." We see Christ repeat this in John 14:15,21. Only the body of Christ can keep covenant with the Lord to a thousand (never ending, eternal) generations. The thousand generations shows the eternal perpetuity of the body of Christ, the kingdom of God Christ tells Israel in Isa. 28:15-18 that they had made a covenant with death. What covenant are you keeping and how?
The word name means a definite conspicuous position indicating power, authority, honor and character. He is the savior of the body and the head of the church, this is part of his name in showing his power and authority, thus, THE NAME of Christ. We are not just believing that there was a historical man named and is name was Jesus, but because of his name (Isa 9:6 for example) we see the hope of salvation for His people. This is why his name is greater than any other and that in His name only can men be saved. He is king of king and lord of lord and this shows in the name on which we believe ALONG WITH the brethren and therefore loving them. In believing in Him and on THE NAME, we then also believe on the work of his hands and the will of the Father. Do you believe Christ and his oath when said in Mt 16:18..upon this rock I WILL build my church (as a calling out and gathering together as prophesied) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? Is this not part on believing on the name? Is this not accomplished by his definite conspicuous position (the son of God, king of kings, lord of lords) indicating power, authority, honor and character. You cannot separate the name from the meaning because they are the same. In believing in His name we therefore believe that He is that prophet foretold by Moses to which he gave command, "...unto Him shall ye hearken (hear AND do the word of His covenant)." To believe on also means to have confidence or faith in. Does not believing on His name (revealed in/by the covenant by which he reveals himself (the name) TO THE CHURCH) Eph 3:10) also require believing the words of the covenant and doing them? This is loving the Lord and the brethren inside the covenant.
How can coke or gator aid even remotely represent the blood of Christ or potato chips or cake his sinless body? Christ has given us an example by which we are to bring Him and his work into remembrance. The old testament sacrifices, though types shadows, were representative of Christ and His kingdom. They would never offer a swine's blood or a camel's body upon the altar because they could not represent the perfect sacrifice of Christ and his work to bring in his kingdom even if they thought they could spiritualize them to mean so. What freedom do you think we have to use coke or potato chips? Israel as a covenant nation thought they were a light to the nations, and that they did the will of the Lord, but the prophets told them they were blind, in darkness, and perverted THE NAME of the Lord. History shows us that the thoughts and intents of the catholics have caused them to slaughter the Baptists thinking they did the will of the Lord. It is by the same thoughts and intentions that some so-called Baptists have women standing in their pulpits. Try the spirits (thoughts and intentions) whether they be of God. (I Jn 4:1)
We in now wise believe in the trans-substantiation of the catholics. However, we do believe that Christ came to bring in His kingdom and that, by His perfect sacrifice, death, burial, and resurrection. A kingdom has commandments (covenant) whereby order is kept, and so also does the kingdom of God. The Baptist believe there are two ordinances. The definition of ordinance is an authoritative rule or law, a decree or command. Should they be named something else so the definition will allow them to be optional? A covenant, especially in the sense of a marriage covenant, outlines what each party will do. The ordinances are part of the covenant and cannot be changed nor deleted. In Jer 11:6, Jeremiah by the spirit of Christ in him says, "Hear ye the words of this covenant and do them." We are told to not be hears only but doers Again I ask, why would Christ give his people a command (ordinance, words of the covenant), tell them to keep them then not expect them to keep them. This is hypocracy. Why give them in the first place if they are not necessary. They are not optional even as the commission/charge/command in Mt 28:20 is not optional. The ordinances are not for salvation but are part of the work of the sons of God, already made alive by the spirit of Christ, thereby are enabled to walk in them/observe them/keep them.. (Eze 36:26-30, Eph 2:6-10) James 1:22 says, "But be ye doers of the word (covenant), and not just hearers, deceiving yourselves." Are keeping the ordinances, which are part of the covenant, included in being a doer?" Absolutely, or you are going to have to throw away all the statutes, precepts and judgments. It is not a pick or choose by the option of men. Is not loving the Lord being obedient to Him and His word/covenant/ordinances and in doing so we are called faithful servants. The ordinances can only kept by his people as a body of Christ. There is no scriptural authority for an individual keep the ordinances, to baptize himself or take the Lord's supper, apart from the church, the body of Christ. Is the command to love the brethren not accomplished in part in the gathering together of the body to observe the baptism and the Lord's supper (part of keeping covenant) so his people may be faithful, obedient and rejoice in what Christ has done for them? Deuteronomy 7:9 says, "Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He is God, the faithful God, which keepeth mercy with them that love him AND keep his commandments (covenant) to a thousand generations." We see Christ repeat this in John 14:15,21. Only the body of Christ can keep covenant with the Lord to a thousand (never ending, eternal) generations. The thousand generations shows the eternal perpetuity of the body of Christ, the kingdom of God Christ tells Israel in Isa. 28:15-18 that they had made a covenant with death. What covenant are you keeping and how?
The word name means a definite conspicuous position indicating power, authority, honor and character. He is the savior of the body and the head of the church, this is part of his name in showing his power and authority, thus, THE NAME of Christ. We are not just believing that there was a historical man named and is name was Jesus, but because of his name (Isa 9:6 for example) we see the hope of salvation for His people. This is why his name is greater than any other and that in His name only can men be saved. He is king of king and lord of lord and this shows in the name on which we believe ALONG WITH the brethren and therefore loving them. In believing in Him and on THE NAME, we then also believe on the work of his hands and the will of the Father. Do you believe Christ and his oath when said in Mt 16:18..upon this rock I WILL build my church (as a calling out and gathering together as prophesied) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? Is this not part on believing on the name? Is this not accomplished by his definite conspicuous position (the son of God, king of kings, lord of lords) indicating power, authority, honor and character. You cannot separate the name from the meaning because they are the same. In believing in His name we therefore believe that He is that prophet foretold by Moses to which he gave command, "...unto Him shall ye hearken (hear AND do the word of His covenant)." To believe on also means to have confidence or faith in. Does not believing on His name (revealed in/by the covenant by which he reveals himself (the name) TO THE CHURCH) Eph 3:10) also require believing the words of the covenant and doing them? This is loving the Lord and the brethren inside the covenant.
unprofitable
Active Member
37818, I believe you read more into what I was saying than i did. I in not wise presented that I was speaking that the blood of Christ is more than representative. Please expound.
Forever Settled
Active Member
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Did Jesus say the cup was HIS blood being shed for a sacrifice for sins .
Then.......the wine is either symbolic of Christs blood (as I believe ) or it is the real blood as some groups believe .
The Symbol should represent the reality as Close and accurately as possible.
. For the groups who think it is the actual blood......BOTH sides have a problem IF they use Alcoholic wine.
Exodus 34:25
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
Alcoholic wine has been LEAVENED........which is a Direct Violation of this verse.
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Did Jesus say the cup was HIS blood being shed for a sacrifice for sins .
Then.......the wine is either symbolic of Christs blood (as I believe ) or it is the real blood as some groups believe .
The Symbol should represent the reality as Close and accurately as possible.
. For the groups who think it is the actual blood......BOTH sides have a problem IF they use Alcoholic wine.
Exodus 34:25
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
Alcoholic wine has been LEAVENED........which is a Direct Violation of this verse.
unprofitable
Active Member
Forever Settled, please consider the following points.
As I have said, we do not believe in trans-substantiation and that the wine represents his blood in the observance of the Lord's supper.
A brief review of microbiology will show you that live wild yeast is present on the skins of the grapes and is transferred to the juice when they are crushed. This means that grape juice, in its initial stage/form, indeed is leavened.
In contrast, the yeast cells are killed in the process of fermentation and the end result is wine which is yeast/leaven free.
Your last statement is correct. Alcoholic wine HAS BEEN leavened but NOT so after the fermentation process is completed. Alcoholic wine now has no yeast/leaven. Your protest proves my point.
The process of salvation cannot be represented by grape juice because of the still present yeast cells/leaven representing sin.
The process of fermentation that turns grape juice into wine brings forth the alcohol that kills the yeast/leaven making it yeast/leaven free, a type of being made free from sin.
Wine was also used as a drink offering in the sacrifices offered unto the Lord. It was given also to the priests as part of the offering. The drink offering represented Christ and therefore its relevance in the wine offering of the Lord,s supper.
Christ was telling his disciples, the new priesthood of the church, that in also being their sacrifice for sins, he would now also be/represent their drink offering that they would receive as their portion/inheritance given to the priesthood by the law.
Some have said that the recovering alcoholics are glad that grape juice is served. We believe that if the recovering alcoholic's faith is weak, it would be better for him to abstain than the ordinance to be changed. It shows that the weak brother's eyes are not clearly focused on the object of the ordinance. He could also ask the congregation to pray for him that he might rightly observed the ordinance and be of one mind and purpose with the body that there might be unity. In our observance, we only take a sip from the cup and certainly an amount impossible to make one drunken.
As I have said, we do not believe in trans-substantiation and that the wine represents his blood in the observance of the Lord's supper.
A brief review of microbiology will show you that live wild yeast is present on the skins of the grapes and is transferred to the juice when they are crushed. This means that grape juice, in its initial stage/form, indeed is leavened.
In contrast, the yeast cells are killed in the process of fermentation and the end result is wine which is yeast/leaven free.
Your last statement is correct. Alcoholic wine HAS BEEN leavened but NOT so after the fermentation process is completed. Alcoholic wine now has no yeast/leaven. Your protest proves my point.
The process of salvation cannot be represented by grape juice because of the still present yeast cells/leaven representing sin.
The process of fermentation that turns grape juice into wine brings forth the alcohol that kills the yeast/leaven making it yeast/leaven free, a type of being made free from sin.
Wine was also used as a drink offering in the sacrifices offered unto the Lord. It was given also to the priests as part of the offering. The drink offering represented Christ and therefore its relevance in the wine offering of the Lord,s supper.
Christ was telling his disciples, the new priesthood of the church, that in also being their sacrifice for sins, he would now also be/represent their drink offering that they would receive as their portion/inheritance given to the priesthood by the law.
Some have said that the recovering alcoholics are glad that grape juice is served. We believe that if the recovering alcoholic's faith is weak, it would be better for him to abstain than the ordinance to be changed. It shows that the weak brother's eyes are not clearly focused on the object of the ordinance. He could also ask the congregation to pray for him that he might rightly observed the ordinance and be of one mind and purpose with the body that there might be unity. In our observance, we only take a sip from the cup and certainly an amount impossible to make one drunken.
Forever Settled
Active Member
So you are going to offer leaven You have mixed in ?
Leaven is a picture of sin in scripture....by adding leaven You are adding a symbol of sin to the symbolic representation of Christ’s blood sacfrice in direct violation of :
Exodus 34:25
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
unprofitable
Active Member
It is apparent you have not done even the basic research on the web of the topic fermentation of wine. Grape juice will naturally ferment on its own and turn into alcohol without the need to add yeast/leaven. It is already present on the skin of the grape while still on the vine. The question now is how do get the leaven out of the grape juice. That is achieved by the process of fermentation whereby the formation of alcohol kills the yeast cells and the resulting wine is leaven/yeast FREE. How then is the blood of the sacrifice offered with leaven is there is no yeast/leaven in the offering? Let me repeat, wine is LEAVEN FREE. Please prove to me that it is not.
Jerome,
As far as the bread, the unleavened bread has never had leaven added to it in the first place. That is why it is called unleaven bread. The baked product of unleaven bread is a flat bread that has never been puffed up. This is the intent of the scripture and cannot be applied to a baked honey bun that some may think is an acceptable sacrifice unto the Lord. If you think my explaination is contrived then I ask you, do you think the Lord will accept your honey bun? Cain certainly thought his offering would be.
Jerome,
As far as the bread, the unleavened bread has never had leaven added to it in the first place. That is why it is called unleaven bread. The baked product of unleaven bread is a flat bread that has never been puffed up. This is the intent of the scripture and cannot be applied to a baked honey bun that some may think is an acceptable sacrifice unto the Lord. If you think my explaination is contrived then I ask you, do you think the Lord will accept your honey bun? Cain certainly thought his offering would be.