# No communion at all, or with yams and water?



## Pergamum (Sep 10, 2011)

In Irian Jaya, many interior tribes celebrate communion using yams and water when bread and juice are not available (only some coastal bodies use wine due to large-scale drunkenness problems in Melanesian culture).


Is it better to not take communion or to take it with elements that are inexact?

How far from the elements of unleavened bread and red wine can we stray?


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 11, 2011)

If there is absolutely no choice, and no supplies or contact with the outside world that allows for delivery of bread and wine (or, fruit of the vine), then yam and water is acceptable. However, consider all the things which are being taken away from them if they are ENCOURAGED not to follow the communion tradition that has been passed down since the original supper of the Lord.
1. opportunity to imitate our Lord and his disciples
2. opportunity to make the connection with the Old Testament passover
3. opportunity to fully understand Jesus' teaching of being the 'manna that fell from heaven.' ; the bread of life.
4. opportunity to participate in 2000 years of unbroken Christian tradition
5. opportunity to be helped and supplied by the outside Christian world in practical ways - missionaries bring bibles, technology, knowledge, and teaching; why not bring a supply of bread and grape juice?
6. opportunity to be the Israel of God in a tangible way.

I think missionaries go too far when they hyper contextualize and encourage adherents NOT to use bread and grape, but replace it with something more indigenous to their culture. I heard of young emergent groups that have used Snickers bars and Coke as elements - but I hope it's not true. Jesus may be _thought of as_ the "yam of life", if it helps them understand better, but that is not what he said he was.


----------



## kodos (Sep 11, 2011)

I'd say that if you do not have bread and wine, you should abstain from the Lord's Supper - and trust in His Providence to supply what is required if He so wishes your congregation to partake. I am not an officer of the Church however.

I'm a Presbyterian, but I did have a question about the sacrament of Baptism for those of the Baptist persuasion. In case you didn't have a large body of water nearby, would you then abstain from baptizing someone if you consider baptism to be by immersion? I'd think so.

And so, until you have the proper elements, I'd also abstain from communion.

May you Brothers have a Blessed Lord's Day!


----------



## elnwood (Sep 11, 2011)

kodos said:


> I'm a Presbyterian, but I did have a question about the sacrament of Baptism for those of the Baptist persuasion. In case you didn't have a large body of water nearby, would you then abstain from baptizing someone if you consider baptism to be by immersion? I'd think so.



As a Baptist, yes, I would abstain from baptizing someone without a large body of water. LBC: "Immersion is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."

Yet, I would also be okay with communion without unleavened bread and fruit of the vine in certain circumstances. The reason for this is that baptism is to be administered once, and communion is to be administered regularly. One can wait to be baptized, but if communion is to be administered on a regular basis, I think we should give leeway on that.

The emphasis in communion is remembrance, not what the elements themselves do. Otherwise, our practice would be that of the Roman Catholics, who believe that the elements themselves have power, such that Catholics in isolated places of the world aren't able to take communion until a priest comes every several months to administer it.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 11, 2011)

Is it worse to DESIRE to use unleavened bread and wine but not have them and go ahead anyway using local substitutes tribal situation), or to use grape juice out of cultural considerations when plenty of red wine is available (a common baptist practice)? Or to use regular white bread because someone either burned or forgot to make the unleavened bread (a prebsyterian situation I encountered).

when using local substitutes, what constitutes an acceptable substitute? White wine instead of red, red grape juice instead of red wine, koll aid if neither is available in a tribe (a common practice here), the local form of bread like indian pratha or sago in New Guinea, a potato if no bread is available?

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

If the Lord's Supper is a means of grace, then we shouldn't cancel or delay it unless there were very good reasons, right?


----------



## SRoper (Sep 11, 2011)

Ordinary bread and wine are required (I don't think you can make the argument from Scripture that unleavened bread and red wine are specified--the latter especially seems like a stretch). We don't have any warrant from Scripture to substitute our own elements. To do so really seems like offering strange fire.

It's interesting that we are very concerned to ship bibles to those who need them, but we are not terribly concerned to make sure they have what they need to celebrate the Lord's Supper. The preaching of the word comes first, but the sacraments are also vitally important. Making sure each person has his or her own bible, while commendable, should be secondary.

Maybe it's appropriate to send winemakers as part of a missionary team?


----------



## kodos (Sep 11, 2011)

elnwood said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Presbyterian, but I did have a question about the sacrament of Baptism for those of the Baptist persuasion. In case you didn't have a large body of water nearby, would you then abstain from baptizing someone if you consider baptism to be by immersion? I'd think so.
> ...



Disregarding the difference in the memorial view that most Baptists adhere to, and the sacramental union view that most Presbyterians (WCF Ch. 27) adhere to (not going to touch upon that here), what difference is there in baptism and communion, as far as the elements are concerned?

Remember, Roman Catholics believe that Baptism regenerates. I know that you probably didn't mean it this way, but your argument about the elements not doing anything in the case of communion, could therefore be applied to Baptism. _The element doesn't do anything..._

So why is it important that Baptism be administered properly, yet Communion can be irregular? Please do not read any sort of hostile tone into this question, I am merely trying to draw out the distinctions that are being made


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 11, 2011)

Actually, Reformed Baptists do not view the supper as memorial in the Zwinglian/Anabaptist sense. We confess a fully Reformed view: LCBF 30.7 "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

I would not absolutely require unleavened bread and wine to be used as substances. The main thing for me is for the connection to be made in their minds with passover. Some form of wheat product, and some sort of grape product. But again, if the materials are not available, I would think the Lord wants us to commune with him through some means rather than not at all.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 11, 2011)

We shouldn't make the Lord's supper out of anything at hand when providentially hindered by lack of the prescribed elements any more than we should insist on preaching (the primary means of grace) by anyone other than a man ordained to the ministry simply because one is not available.


----------



## TimV (Sep 11, 2011)

Wine and bread are available everywhere. You just put them in with the tuna and spam and flour.

The reason it's not used isn't because they're not available, the reasons are like P mentioned, e.g. missionaries to certain groups wanting alcohol restricted because of the social problems from the abuse of it. Because of things like a lack of certain enzymes and lack of parental discipline growing up, missionaries to those areas often don't even drink themselves, even though they think back in the US it's fine.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 11, 2011)

SRoper said:


> Ordinary bread and wine are required (I don't think you can make the argument from Scripture that unleavened bread and red wine are specified--the latter especially seems like a stretch). We don't have any warrant from Scripture to substitute our own elements. To do so really seems like offering strange fire.



Where in the Bible does it specify "wine" for the Lord's Supper? My Bible always says "the cup" or "fruit of the vine," not wine.


----------



## TimV (Sep 11, 2011)

Don, that's another example of the huge differences between baptists and Reformed people. Any sort of continuity like we Reformed assume points to wine without question, since wine was used at Passover. Any thorough scholarship using all available sources ends up the same. "The cup" in a Passover context can only mean wine. But if you start from Matthew rather from Genesis, problems come up in interpretation.

I don't mean to be snobbish, but questioning things like what was in "the cup" means ignoring 5000 years of history.


----------



## Jack K (Sep 11, 2011)

There's a difference between unavailable and inconvenient. We certainly shouldn't substitute because the proper elements are merely inconvenient to obtain. The question is only in play if serious effort has been made to obtain the proper elements and they truly aren't available and won't be for an extended time. This is a rare situation applicable only in the world's remotest corners, and even then not all the time.

The next step in these rare situations would be to use what ingredients _are_ at hand to make what is most appropriate. Do you only have yams? Well then, is there anything resembling bread that can be made from yams? Some kind of yam cakes? The Scripture doesn't mandate any particular grains or raw food for communion bread. It just says "bread." (BTW, I would contend it's unlikely the church in Acts typically used unleavened bread, but that's another topic.) And is there any fruit available that can be made into a wine of some sort? I suppose _maybe_ one could make Kool-Aid, but I suspect that's a case of not trying very hard to do better.

An interesting feature of the communion elements is that both must be manufactured out of raw foods. They take work and time to make and prepare. Plain yams and water simply don't fit that pattern.

We in the "civilized" world have gotten used to simply picking up communion elements at the grocery store. It's easy to forget that the Lord's table is set with prepared foods, signifying a true feast. Surely even very primitive societies today can prepare some equivalent of bread and wine out of whatever limited food choices they have. I realize life there is already hard, but this is worth it.


----------



## kodos (Sep 11, 2011)

Thank you for the clarification, Dennis re: Reformed Baptists and Communion! I'll have to file away that reference to the LBCF 

But as for the second half of your statement (_"I would think the Lord wants us to commune with him through some means rather than not at all"_) - I think that goes against the RPW. I would rather say, that if God wants me to have communion He will provide the means to do it appropriately:

Elder to administer the sacrament
Bread, and Wine
Congregation to commune with

If not, in faith I will abstain from any irregular form of the sacrament. Else, we try to go beyond what God has commanded us to do, do we not? We also risk turning the sacrament into an idol of sorts. 

Better to administer it appropriately and trust in God's providence, I think.



steadfast7 said:


> Actually, Reformed Baptists do not view the supper as memorial in the Zwinglian/Anabaptist sense. We confess a fully Reformed view: LCBF 30.7 "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."
> 
> I would not absolutely require unleavened bread and wine to be used as substances. The main thing for me is for the connection to be made in their minds with passover. Some form of wheat product, and some sort of grape product. But again, if the materials are not available, I would think the Lord wants us to commune with him through some means rather than not at all.


----------



## TimV (Sep 11, 2011)

> We in the "civilized" world have gotten used to simply picking up communion elements at the grocery store. It's easy to forget that the Lord's table is set with prepared foods, signifying a true feast.



Interesting and valuable point.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 11, 2011)

SRoper said:


> It's interesting that we are very concerned to ship bibles to those who need them, but we are not terribly concerned to make sure they have what they need to celebrate the Lord's Supper. The preaching of the word comes first, but the sacraments are also vitally important. Making sure each person has his or her own bible, while commendable, should be secondary.



I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premises.

It might be helpful for setting this situation into a wider context to compare John Knox's letter of counsel from July 7th, 1556.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 11, 2011)

TimV said:


> Don, that's another example of the huge differences between baptists and Reformed people. Any sort of continuity like we Reformed assume points to wine without question, since wine was used at Passover. Any thorough scholarship using all available sources ends up the same. "The cup" in a Passover context can only mean wine. But if you start from Matthew rather from Genesis, problems come up in interpretation.
> 
> I don't mean to be snobbish, but questioning things like what was in "the cup" means ignoring 5000 years of history.



Tim, to say that Baptists start from Matthew and not Genesis is very derogatory, and I do take offense at it.

I don't question that it was wine in "the cup," but it stands to reason that the Biblical writers were aware of, and used, the word oinos for wine, and yet Matthew, Mark, AND Luke all say "fruit of the vine" instead of "wine." so why insist that our practice be as narrow as was practiced at that last supper rather than focusing on the instructions as spoken by our Lord?

Would you insist on unleavened bread, since we know that the bread they used was unleavened? Would that the wine be red, since the wine they used was red? Would you insist that each person drink from their own chalice, and not from a clear plastic cup, or from a communal cup? Should it be done with a meal, since the Last Supper was actually a supper? And so on and so forth.

I think the focus should be on obeying the Lord's instructions rather than trying to replicate the Lord's Supper as much as possible.


----------



## TimV (Sep 11, 2011)

I don't follow you Don. Do you or don't you accept that The Cup and Fruit of the Vine are talking about wine?

And yes, unleavened bread would be the best, because that's what was used at the Last Supper. I can't think of anywhere that specifies what the cup is made of.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 11, 2011)

TimV said:


> I don't follow you Don. Do you or don't you accept that The Cup and Fruit of the Vine are talking about wine?



It's talking about a drink made from the fruit of a vine. In this particular case, it's talking about a drink made from grapes that is fermented, i.e. wine. However, Jesus uses a term that is intentionally broad, such that it makes clear that the amount of fermentation is non-essential to the ordinance.



TimV said:


> And yes, unleavened bread would be the best, because that's what was used at the Last Supper. I can't think of anywhere that specifies what the cup is made of.



"Best," but not essential? That's what I'm saying.

We don't know what the cup is made out of, but we can say with certainty that they weren't tiny clear plastic cups. As you said, it doesn't say anywhere what the cup is made of. Because Jesus does not specify the type of cup, it is non-essential.

Because Jesus specifies "fruit of the vine" and not "wine," and "bread," not "unleavened bread," it is not essential that the drink be wine or the bread be unleavened.

Does that make sense?


----------



## TimV (Sep 11, 2011)

> It's talking about a drink made from the fruit of a vine. In this particular case, it's talking about a drink made from grapes that is fermented, i.e. wine. However, Jesus uses a term that is intentionally broad, such that it makes clear that the amount of fermentation is non-essential to the ordinance.



I doubt that any Reformed thinker in history would agree with you. Intentionally broad? Could it have mean poison berries?

Everyone for 2000 years has accepted He meant wine. What new/secret understanding do you have that goes against all that tradition? What do you as a young man have going for you that you can see through things that the best minds of the church couldn't see?


----------



## elnwood (Sep 11, 2011)

Tim, I will answer after you reply to my previous question: if Jesus meant wine, and only wine, why did Matthew, Mark and Luke all record him saying "fruit of the vine"? Why do none of the books of the Bible say "wine" for communion, yet use the word "wine" frequently in other contexts?


----------



## TimV (Sep 11, 2011)

> Tim, I will answer after you reply to my previous question: if Jesus meant wine, and only wine, why did Matthew, Mark and Luke all record him saying "fruit of the vine"? Why do none of the books of the Bible say "wine" for communion, yet use the word "wine" frequently in other contexts?



I thought I answered you. To anyone except *some* baptists fruit of the vine means wine. Like fat of the olive means olive oil. Or knowing a woman means sex. Or hard labor means having a baby in a difficult pregnancy. Or anything else.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 11, 2011)

TimV said:


> > It's talking about a drink made from the fruit of a vine. In this particular case, it's talking about a drink made from grapes that is fermented, i.e. wine. However, Jesus uses a term that is intentionally broad, such that it makes clear that the amount of fermentation is non-essential to the ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that any Reformed thinker in history would agree with you.



Any Reformed thinker in history? Really?

On your denomination's own Q&A page, it says that "fruit of the vine" could be understood as either grape juice or fermented wine. It certainly is the practice of the OPC to allow grape juice to be served.



> In Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25, our Lord refers to the sacramental cup as "the fruit of the vine." That could be understood as allowing the use of either (fresh) grape juice or fermented wine, but, to my knowledge, the matter has never come before any General Assembly. Apparently the choice is left to sessional decision.


Q and A


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 11, 2011)

I have been to churches in the US that served white bread as communion, too....

Should we refuse to partake as if this were something utterly contrary to the RPW? I am having a hard time conjuring up moral repulsion at that.

Also, what kind of wine must it be? What kind of wine did Jesus use? Is white wine rather than red wine thus a violation of the RPW?

Also, they met together on the first day for the breaking of bread; this seems to indicate weekly communion. Why get mad at a differing "fruit of the vine" when the means of grace are neglected anyway be being relegated to 4 times a year. If this is a means of grace to strengthen us, why the meager dispensal of the means?


----------



## elnwood (Sep 11, 2011)

> In regard to the external form of the ordinance, whether or not believers are to take into their hands and divide among themselves, or each is to eat what is given to him: whether they are to return the cup to the deacon or hand it to their neighbour; whether the bread is to be leavened or unleavened, and the wine to be red or white, is of no consequence. These things are indifferent, and left free to the Church, though it is certain that it was the custom of the ancient Church for all to receive into their hand.


_John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.17.43._


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 11, 2011)

Did John calvin speak about sago or yams any? According to this quote, he seems to agree in principle anyhow that there can be some variation in the elements.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 11, 2011)

Hate to make a complicated issue even more complicated, but what about the mode of partaking the elements? What's the RPW regulation on this? Is in-tincture ok? Must it be bread, followed by wine separately? Can you bread your own piece of bread? The Eastern Orthodox use leavened bread, broken into pieces and mixed into the wine, and then spoonfed to the communicants, at least in some churches.


----------



## Edward (Sep 11, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Is in-tincture ok?


No.


----------



## Jack K (Sep 11, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Also, what kind of wine must it be? What kind of wine did Jesus use?



The Bible doesn't specify what kind of wine Jesus used, which is a big indication that it doesn't matter. The Bible doesn't specify the type of bread he used, either. We know it must have been unleavened bread due to Passover. But the first record of the church in Acts celebrating the Supper (Acts 2:42, 46) came at the time of Pentecost when leavened bread was required, so we can equally assume that bread must have been leavened. It doesn't matter. If it did matter, we would have instructions on the issue rather than examples we have to guess about.

We should resist trying to re-create the particular situation Jesus was in at the institution of the Supper. There's no need to recline, meet upstairs, have gravy on the table... or to serve unleavened bread with whatever grape-variety wine we suspect Jesus would have had. Paul gives fairly detailed instructions on the Supper in 1 Cor. 11, and he could have specified a type of bread and wine had it mattered. But all he says is "bread" and "cup," very similar to what the gospels report. It seems that's specific enough.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 11, 2011)

Not really. Nowhere in that quotation does John Calvin open up the elements to anything outside of bread and wine.


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 11, 2011)

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the *bread and wine*; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to their outward senses. (WCF 29.7; emphasis added)​


----------



## MW (Sep 11, 2011)

Before contextualising this question, it should be observed that there is a theology of "bread and wine" as well as a theology of "washing with water" in the Scriptures, and this suggests that the appointment of these specific elements was not indifferent but purposeful. For example, "bread" is connected to the manna of God's providing, which is taken up by Christ as expressive of the nourishment He Himself is ordained and sealed by God to provide to the souls of believers. The elements themselves bare theological as well as sacramental "significance," and that significance is lost by altering them. If the "significance" is lost it is doubtful whether they can serve as "signs" to our senses.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 11, 2011)

If bread is connected with manna in the wilderness, then this broadens the definition of what "bread" can encompass does it not?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 11, 2011)

You mean like to include yams from heaven? No, the clear prescription is bread and wine; not food and drink. 



Pergamum said:


> If bread is connected with manna in the wilderness, then this broadens the definition of what "bread" can encompass does it not?


----------



## MW (Sep 11, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> If bread is connected with manna in the wilderness, then this broadens the definition of what "bread" can encompass does it not?



I don't want to offend, but the difficulty with these kinds of questions comes from the fact that they don't emerge out of a study of Scripture or theology. They are not an "enquiring of the Lord." The prayer of the convert is not to be found -- "What wilt thou have me to do?" Man and his culture is assumed to be some kind of an authority before which the investigation must bow in subservience. God's word and ordinances are brought into the picture as if they must be made to fit with the dictates and tastes of men. It is impossible to handle such questions with the kind of reverence which is required of us as we undertake to consider "the things of God."


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 12, 2011)

Rev. Winzer, do you support the use of wine in the Lord's Supper?



Also, these sorts of questions emerge as new cultures are engaged with the Gospel. The only way to avoid these sorts of situations is not to engage other cultures with the Gospel.


----------



## MW (Sep 12, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Rev. Winzer, do you support the use of wine in the Lord's Supper?
> 
> Also, these sorts of questions emerge as new cultures are engaged with the Gospel. The only way to avoid these sorts of situations is not to engage other cultures with the Gospel.


 
Yes.

We should engage new cultures with the gospel but we should not engage the gospel with new cultures. The gospel dictates terms and demands the obedience of faith; it does not enter into diplomatic relations in order to negotiate a peace settlement.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 12, 2011)

Agreed.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 12, 2011)

Why is intincture wrong?


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 12, 2011)

Intincture is wrong because the biblical record specifically tells us that the giving and taking of the bread and wine were two separate activities:

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 

Jesus took the bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to the disciples - 'take eat'...in the same manner (not at the same time) he also took the cup, blessed it and gave it to his disciples.

I think a lot of the discussion about what sort of wine and bread it was is unnecessary. There are many things in Scripture that we are not sure about but which we assume were in keeping with the custom and practice of the period, and therefore using the historical and archaeological information we learn we impute these details to the biblical record e.g. the Christian armour we more or less interpret in light of a Greek or Roman soldier, not a kevlar clad modern soldier, or a 17th centre roundhead. On that basis we should assume that the fruit of the vine was wine, discussion as to whether this was alcoholic or not or how much alcohol was in it are pointless, as we cannot be sure of the alcoholic content of the wine never mind the fruit of the vine, even assuming it is different. 

Historical information would suggest that wine was generally watered down on all occasions but still had an alcoholic content, would have been used on all occasions and so it seems clear that the wine of this kind was used in the Last Supper. 

I must disagree with Calvin, I think it is of great importance that the wine is red wine and not white, indeed I would far rather use red grape juice than white wine, as the main thing is the symbolic proclamation of Christ's blood. Last time I looked blood is red not transparent.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 12, 2011)

But the mode of delivering the elements amongst the Reformed strays from the biblical record as well no? We are led to assume Jesus broke into two halves the bread but everone drank from a single cup. This is not practiced except among Anglicans. I find it a little arbritrary for intincture to be deemed wrong but individual cups for the wine to be ok.


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 12, 2011)

I agree there should be a discussion as to how the elements are delivered but that is a far cry from combining what are clearly two elements into one. Intinction in my opinion fails completely to symbolise what the Lord's Supper is meant to symbolise the Lord's Supper is about proclaiming the Lord's death i.e the shedding of his blood from his broken body, intinction in my opinion symbolises the opposite; the uniting of blood to a body.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 13, 2011)

But doesn't the use of individual cups for each person also stray from the Lord's design for the supper? Throughout the NT, the cup is referred to in the singular: This is THE cup of the New Covenant; is not THE cup that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ, etc. So, it seems we have two modes of delivery that stray significantly enough to cause a theological disconnect in the mind. On what basis do we judge one more egregious than the other?


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 13, 2011)

Dennis, who is assuming that? All I'm saying is that intinction clearly and to my mind obviousy destroys the main symbolism of the supper, using separate cups does not. Using separate cups may destroy the symbolism of unity, of one blood for one people, but it is still symbolising shed blood, and I think there is a huge difference. Also it was _you_ who asked about intinction, when I gave you an answer you didn't like, you widened the field to include the cup issue. Two different issues.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 13, 2011)

JP Wallace said:


> Dennis, who is assuming that? All I'm saying is that intinction clearly and to my mind obviousy destroys the main symbolism of the supper, using separate cups does not. Using separate cups may destroy the symbolism of unity, of one blood for one people, but it is still symbolising shed blood, and I think there is a huge difference. Also it was _you_ who asked about intinction, when I gave you an answer you didn't like, you widened the field to include the cup issue. Two different issues.


 My intention is not to use the multiple cup issue as a smoke screen. I'm actually quite convinced that intinction is not ideal, even though I've only known this particular method in the churches where I've been member. I'm just trying to get a handle on the basis (whether rational or biblical) for determining the distance that a particular method drifts from the ideal. What's the hermeneutical key for making a judgment on this?


----------



## TimV (Sep 13, 2011)

I wonder if the bread was barley, at least fairly often. From John 6 and the timing of Passover with the barley harvest and the waive sheaf holiday it seems barley what what people were eating mostly, although I can see wealthier people buying stored wheat from the previous year. Certainly wheat hadn't been harvested by Passover.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 13, 2011)

Barley would fit the Typology with Boaz since the story of Ruth and Boaz takes place during the Barley harvest.


----------



## TimV (Sep 13, 2011)

Yes, I was thinking about typology too, but I missed that one, thanks.


----------



## SRoper (Sep 14, 2011)

py3ak said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that we are very concerned to ship bibles to those who need them, but we are not terribly concerned to make sure they have what they need to celebrate the Lord's Supper. The preaching of the word comes first, but the sacraments are also vitally important. Making sure each person has his or her own bible, while commendable, should be secondary.
> ...



Knox appears to be comparing daily meditation on the word to the ordinary use of bread and wine, not its use in the sacrament. My use of the word "secondary" should be seen as no stronger than the word "especially" in WLC 155 (and 154). "The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation."

My point was that when we hear that some congregation does not have bibles, we immediately try to rectify the situation, but when we hear that some other congregation doesn't have the prescribed elements to celebrate the Lord's Supper, we make excuses for why they don't really need them.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 14, 2011)

I have no objection to donated funds going to pay for bread and wine; but your quote from the Catechism doesn't quite line up: there it is especially the "preaching" of the word. The parallel would be if we were choosing between sending Bibles and training preachers.


----------



## bshpmark (Sep 16, 2011)

My thoughts from a Refromed Anglican perspective: 

1. Bread and wine should be used. This is what our Lord used and this is what was used by the early church. I do not believe we are free to deviate. The church has also taught that it is permissible to receive our Lord in only one kind since both represent him (again, from an Anglican point of view, not to stir up anything). Therefore if one receives only the bread, he receives full communion or if he or she receives only wine, he or she receives full communion.

2. Since we use one cup, we believe it is permissible to intinct if for a concern for health reasons one does not wish to drink from the same cup as others.

But my main point to add to the overall discussion is that when people begin to use whatever they have at hand and call it okay, we verge on blasphemy in my view and we treat as common that which is sacred. One of the questions I also think we must always ask is, "What do the Early Church Fathers say on the matter?" Not enough churches and Christians today know the teachings of the Fathers of the Church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 17, 2011)

bshpmark said:


> One of the questions I also think we must always ask is, "What do the Early Church Fathers say on the matter?" Not enough churches and Christians today know the teachings of the Fathers of the Church.



And then we need to weigh them against the scriptures. Deviations from the truth started right away. Even St. Peter will testify to his problem concerning deviation. We have a more sure word as Peter noted.


----------



## bshpmark (Sep 17, 2011)

Yes, I agree that some variations started early and continued, hence the need for the Councils such as at Nicea, Chalcedon, etc. Here is a quote from St. Vincent of Lerins from what we call the Vincentian Canon (AD 434). This is paragraph 4 of the canon. Also when the word "Catholic" is used St. Vincent has already defined that in paragraph 3 of the canon as simply meaning "universal" and not Roman. I think he hits the nail on the head as to how we should react when we see groups of Christians taking deviations and doing their own thing and taking the "use whatever works" approach to things, especially to worship. Let me just say that I wholeheartedly agree that all things must be tested against Holy Scripture, the only true standard of our faith.

"What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation."

+Mark


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 17, 2011)

Oh, don't take it that I am anti-history or anything of the sort. Unless we study it we can't understand who we are. That even goes to a personal level when we consider our very short time here. If we don't understand our history how can we repeat what is good? If we don't get to know it we are destined to repeat the poor and negligent deceptions of the past also whether they be ours or those of the Fathers. As Luther and others have noticed even councils have erred. So they must also be weighed in the balance and in light of scripture. I fully believe in the Historical-Grammatical also. We can't understand what is being said without it. Context is very important also.


----------

