# Appropriatness of Intinction, Regarding the Lord's Supper



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 17, 2009)

I wanted to give this its own thread and not take up space in the PCA GA thread. 

What say you? Is Intinction supportable by Scripture?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 17, 2009)

I was introduced to it in the late 80's and just compared it to Judas dipping sop. But that might have been a bit overboard. I don't find it to be scriptural in that the cup and the bread seem to be separate when they were taken and that different things were to be thought about when partaking. This is my body... broken for you.... Likewise the cup... after the supper. 



> (Luk 22:19) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
> 
> (Luk 22:20) Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 17, 2009)

Mark 14:23 ... there is one cup used and not many individual cups

Matthew 26:27 ... the "all" is not "all of it (the cup)" but, modifies the understood you in the imperative (e.g., in the southern vernacular - "y'all drink it")


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 17, 2009)

The dinosaurs went intinct, right?


----------



## raekwon (Jun 17, 2009)

Picking nits that aren't even there.

Is there bread? Is there wine? Are they consumed? Are the words of institution there? Then you've got the Lord's Supper. (Perhaps an over-simplification, but that's pretty much where I am on this.)


----------



## Edward (Jun 18, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> What say you? Is Intinction supportable by Scripture?



I would say 'no'. How exactly was it done? Was the Sacrament administered in a manner contrary to the WCF?


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

Edward said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > What say you? Is Intinction supportable by Scripture?
> ...



What do you see the WCF saying as to the mode of delivering the wine and bread?


----------



## Webservant (Jun 18, 2009)

If the "blood' is still in the "body", to me that brings on a completely different connotation. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but it seems to me this fits those sects who believe that the body of Christ is physically present in the elements. your mileage may vary.


----------



## ww (Jun 18, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I wanted to give this its own thread and not take up space in the PCA GA thread.
> 
> What say you? Is Intinction supportable by Scripture?



Well since Christ distributed the elements separately and they were consumed separately when instituting the Lord's Supper I think it fails to align properly with the example He set.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

whitway said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I wanted to give this its own thread and not take up space in the PCA GA thread.
> ...



And what impact does the fact that Jesus used a single cup to distribute the wine portion of the elements, say about how we should distribute the elements?


----------



## Edward (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



That's why I'm asking the question as to how it was done in this circumstance. I want to have a clear understanding of what occurred before I condemn it. I don't want to make rash assumptions that we all have the same understanding of 'intinction'. 

The WCF itself is quite clear on how the elements are to be received by the communicants.


----------



## ww (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



I'm all for it actually however in a crowd of 500 a "single" cup would be a challenge but I support several common cups.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

whitway said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > whitway said:
> ...



I don't blame you. All I'm trying to do with my questions is to remind those who immediately reject intinction as improper that they best look carefully at their own practices. If one says, well Jesus didn't use intinction, then one better be ready to answer the question, "how did Jesus actually do it?" It was a single cup for all those partaking. I don't see a tray with small individual cups being used either. I'm not advocating intinction as the way we should celebrate the Lord's Supper, but I do want those who reject intinction as something less than proper, to look carefully at the justification for how they celebrate the Lord's Supper.


----------



## ww (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > Whitefield said:
> ...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > Whitefield said:
> ...




My rejection of intinction as anti-Biblical and anti-Confessional stems directly from the fact that Christ and Paul both are very clear in the fact we are to discern both the body and the blood separately and also take the elements separately. 

I have always seen intinction done for two reasons. 1) Pragmatics. 2) "Mystical Relation" (in other words it heightens the "experience" by using a common cup and common bread).


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > whitway said:
> ...



Fair enough, and that is a personal decision of yours. I wonder, though, do you also reject multiple individual cups as anti-Biblical and anti-Confessional because Jesus and Paul are very clear that the wine is to be distributed singularly?

(1) Matt. 26:27 the "of it" (the cup) is singular 
(2) Mark 14:23 clearly only one cup is used
(3) 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 uses singular "cup"
(4) WCF XXIX.3 uses singular "cup"

If you do then I congratulate you on you consistency.

You may not be interested in this, but the body and blood are discerned separately in intinction. When the communicant breaks off a piece of bread there is a statement made concerning the body, and when the communicant dips the bread into the cup, there is a statement concerning the blood. The rub seems to be that the two elements are joined about 2 feet above the stomach.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Whitefield said:
> ...



What you present is a false dilemma, an either-or fallacy. Sure we use a common cup, which is then poured into individual receptacles. Our bread likewise comes from a common loaf, which is then torn into individual pieces.

But that hardly is the point in question given that Paul in 1 Cor 11:23-25 posits two distinct and time separate actions:



> "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." *In the same way, after supper* he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. "


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



Where do we find the authority for or example of separating the wine into separate cups before distribution? Bread is a collective noun so singularity or plurality in receiving is difficult to deduce from Scripture, but the singularity of the cup at reception is quite clear.


----------



## ADKing (Jun 18, 2009)

It is not just taking and eating bread that are a part of the sacramental acts, but also breaking the bread. "This is my body broken for you". This breaking of the bread was a feature of the reformed reformation (contra the Lutherans) that made them distinct.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

And in intinction the bread is broken off from a single loaf, accompanied with words signifying the body broken for you.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> And in intinction the bread is broken off from a single loaf, accompanied with words signifying the body broken for you.



and with such words spoken, in some PCA congregations I've been in, by women. But that's a different


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> And in intinction the bread is broken off from a single loaf, accompanied with words signifying the body broken for you.



You keep stating this. How does this defend intinction?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 18, 2009)

Can someone explain why intinction is being done in Reformed churches at all? Why do it; it is not a circumstance like wheat bread versus white (maybe in some medical case where one has problem swallowing?). Why do it?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 18, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Can someone explain why intinction is being done in Reformed churches at all? Why do it; it is not a circumstance like wheat bread versus white (maybe in some medical case where one has problem swallowing?). Why do it?



Good question. I have only ever heard the following kind of arguments - 1) it's quicker 2) it's a way to have a common cup without spreading germs 

Of course I think both of these are poor reasons, and both are incorrect. It's no faster, if you want people to come forward for the supper, to have them dip the bread, than it is to go forward and drink from the common cup. It's also no less a health risk, either, and both of those risks are trumped by the risk of shaking anyone's hand, or, may it never be, shaking a hand or giving a hug.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Can someone explain why intinction is being done in Reformed churches at all? Why do it; it is not a circumstance like wheat bread versus white (maybe in some medical case where one has problem swallowing?). Why do it?



One of the reasons some use it is to return to partaking from one cup.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone explain why intinction is being done in Reformed churches at all? Why do it; it is not a circumstance like wheat bread versus white (maybe in some medical case where one has problem swallowing?). Why do it?
> ...



But that is not a valid reason to do intinction. You can do that and still eat the bread separately.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 18, 2009)

Some people also do it because sipping wine causes an immediate gag reflex, often with messy results.

OT (sort of): Does the reasoning involved in denying the validity of intinction also apply to the type of bread used? Leavened vs. Unleavened.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



It's a valid reason to them.


----------



## Sven (Jun 18, 2009)

The Reformed have always recognized that the Lord's Supper is more than just bread and wine. There is also a ceremonial aspect to it. There are several ceremonial things that go on: there is the blessing, the breaking, the distributing, and the eating of the bread, and there is the pouring, the blessing, the distributing, and the drinking of the cup of wine. These ceremonial parts are not to be lightly passed over. They are an important part of the Lord's Supper. What reason would we have to alterate these in even the slightest degree. Surely the reason can't be a good one. I see no need for intinction.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 18, 2009)

Well, if intinction is an added ceremony, case closed. You get far more germs handling the bread then you would from a common cup I'm told, though I would have a gag reflex drinking from the same cup as someone.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Whitefield said:
> ...



Denying the OT is "valid" to Marcions, does not make it right.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Jun 18, 2009)

Years ago, when I was in an evangelical Episcopal Church (yes, Virginia, there once were evangelical Episcopalians), I noticed intinction done, not as a general practice for distributing to everyone, but as a occasional thing done by an individual having a cold and trying not to pass it on by drinking from the common cup.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

Sven said:


> The Reformed have always recognized that the Lord's Supper is more than just bread and wine. There is also a ceremonial aspect to it. There are several ceremonial things that go on: there is the blessing, the breaking, the distributing, and the eating of the bread, and there is the pouring, the blessing, the distributing, and the drinking of the cup of wine. These ceremonial parts are not to be lightly passed over. They are an important part of the Lord's Supper. What reason would we have to alterate these in even the slightest degree. Surely the reason can't be a good one. I see no need for intinction.



It might be interesting to find out when the tray with the little glass/plastic cups appeared on the scene. And whether there was a debate about changing to that. One generation's innovations can quickly become the next generation's traditions. Have the Reformed always used individual cups for the communicant, or was there a time partaking from a single cup came to be partaking from individual cups.


----------



## ADKing (Jun 18, 2009)

This interesting quote from Turretin shows why the Romanists used intiction: 

"Still for the sake of sacrifice, the priest selects from the whole number one host which he breaks into three parts: the first he puts into the cup, by which, they say, is signified the body of Christ after the resurrection; the second he eats dry and signifies the body of Christ which walked on earth; the third is left on the altar until the end of the Mass, which designates the body of Christ in the sepulcher." (volume 3 p.442) 

Recongizing that our brothers in reformed churches are not taking over wholesale the theology of the Mass, it still seems silly to borrow this particular element which stems from such a false and contrived symbolism. 

Just as someone mentioned above: just as breaking the bread is necessary, so is drinking from the cup--which drinking is not done when the bread is used as a sop. 

Coincidently (and this is not an argument really, just an ironic observation) it is admitted that the disciples received both bread and the cup at the institution. Who was the only one to have bread with Christ as a sop...? Hmm...


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



So all reasons are invalid, because Marcion's reason for rejecting the OT was invalid??????

-----Added 6/18/2009 at 09:50:36 EST-----



ADKing said:


> This interesting quote from Turretin shows why the Romanists used intiction:
> 
> "Still for the sake of sacrifice, the priest selects from the whole number one host which he breaks into three parts: the first he puts into the cup, by which, they say, is signified the body of Christ after the resurrection; the second he eats dry and signifies the body of Christ which walked on earth; the third is left on the altar until the end of the Mass, which designates the body of Christ in the sepulcher." (volume 3 p.442)
> 
> ...



Turretin was not describing the intinction we are talking about, because the bread was not removed from the cup and consumed by the communicants. The wine was refused to the laity, it isn't in the intinction we are discussing.


----------



## Prufrock (Jun 18, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



Lance, all Ben was saying is that the statement "We want to return to a single cup" in no way necessarily leads to "Therefore, intinction." That in itself is not a valid jump, as if the only choices were multiple cups or intinction.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Whitefield said:
> ...



Of course not. My point being just because someone believes what they are doing is "valid" does not necessarily make it so.


----------



## Prufrock (Jun 18, 2009)

Here is Witsius on the matter:



> XXV. Next follow the _actions of the disciples,_ and consequently of the other guests. After these, according to Christ's appointment, are three: first, _to receive_ both the bread and the cup; but separately: for so Christ distributed them: in this manner he commanded his people to take them: thus the body of Christ, as broken for us; his blood as poured out of his body, are more distinctly represented: and in fine, as a complete entertainment requires both meat and drink, so this most complete spiritual repast, which we have in Christ, is thus most excellently represented. And therefore we cannot so well approve of that custom which prevailed in Cyprian's time, to give a pieve of bread dipt in wine, to infants and the sick.



I do not think it a valid reason to _absolutely _refrain from partaking of the supper, however, if such a practice cannot be remedied. I think the directions of Turretin with respect to the breaking of the bread could apply here as well. He taught that (regarding those who distribute pre-broken wafers):


> Nor yet do they [the orthodox] wish to contend so rigidly about it that no fellowship can be retained with those who omit it. They think this want of a thing no unimportant should be left unnoticed, nor tolerated if it can be corrected. Thus tey are to be rebuked who hold this opinion, although they are not to be absolutely condemned.


----------



## Sven (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> > The Reformed have always recognized that the Lord's Supper is more than just bread and wine. There is also a ceremonial aspect to it. There are several ceremonial things that go on: there is the blessing, the breaking, the distributing, and the eating of the bread, and there is the pouring, the blessing, the distributing, and the drinking of the cup of wine. These ceremonial parts are not to be lightly passed over. They are an important part of the Lord's Supper. What reason would we have to alterate these in even the slightest degree. Surely the reason can't be a good one. I see no need for intinction.
> ...




Pastor Marshall,

It is interesting that in the Directory for Public Worship seems to suggest that while they called for a common loaf and a common cup, they used several of them, presumably because of the size of the congregations. What I find very intriguing is that they came forward and sat at a table. The DPW states, "After this exhortation, warning, and invitation, the table being before decently covered, and so conveniently placed, that the communicants may orderly _sit about it, or at it_." What I have found in the DPW and in other Reformed liturgies is that there is a strict adherence to the customs set forth in the Scriptures, but they provided enough latitude to be able to accommodate to the several circumstances of the congregations. Intinction, BTW, is never practiced by the Reformed.


----------



## reformedminister (Jun 18, 2009)

We observe communion by intinction at our church. I think it is a great alternative to the "common cup" without compromising Biblical principles. There is still one cup, and one loaf. In a large church you would probably need more than one of each, or use the individual cups and wafers.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 18, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> We observe communion by intinction at our church. I think it is a great alternative to the "common cup" without compromising Biblical principles. There is still one cup, and one loaf. In a large church you would probably need more than one of each, or use the individual cups and wafers.



But that is the thing. Christ and Paul are both clear that we are to take each element individually and separately.


----------



## reformedminister (Jun 18, 2009)

Sometimes I am amazed at the things we split hairs over. If we are going to get that technical about it then we should not observe communion in the manner that we do, but recline at tables and have the Lord's Supper connected to a meal.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 18, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> Sometimes I am amazed at the things we split hairs over. If we are going to get that technical about it then we should not observe communion in the manner that we do, but recline at tables and have the Lord's Supper connected to a meal.



This is not hairsplitting. We are talking about properly taking the Lord's Supper and the place that both Jesus and Paul give to both the body and the blood. They are not the same thing and should each be given their own place in the celebration of communion.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 18, 2009)

Do Paul's words of institution make any sense at all in the context of Communion by intinction?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 18, 2009)

On a slightly different note, it seems to me that if one can reject separate presentation of bread and wine by doing the supper via intinction, then one can equally well present doughnuts and grape soda as substitutes.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 18, 2009)

"Well, at least it ain't 7-Up and twinkies!"

If you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all. Sadly, that's about the only good thing I could think of to say about it.


----------



## reformedminister (Jun 18, 2009)

Joshua said:


> reformedminister said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I am amazed at the things we split hairs over. If we are going to get that technical about it then we should not observe communion in the manner that we do, but recline at tables and have the Lord's Supper connected to a meal.
> ...


  I guess the line has to drawn somewhere, just surprised to see that intinction is questioned.


----------



## reformedminister (Jun 18, 2009)

I can understand your reasoning.


----------



## galactic reformer (Jun 18, 2009)

Is every _descriptive_ passage to be taken as _prescription_? The elements mix...somewhere, no matter how one does it. 

One thing nobody has mentioned is the possibility of communicable diseases. This usually comes up in a discussion concerning the seperate cups...sanitary purposes. However, if stronger wine is used along with a silver cup, the possibility is significantly lowered. Also, there is very little evidence and few claims of this occuring.

I've had a friend who practices paedocommunion also add that for smaller children, it is simply the most simplistic...and like baptism, he is more concerned with the thing signified than the mode. 

For me, I like the sweet tradition of reflection as one partakes of the elements seperately. It also seems as though the passages seem to indicate this method. I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying it was a _prescriptive_ method, but the seperation of the elements is certainly presented in the passages.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 18, 2009)

galactic reformer said:


> Is every _descriptive_ passage to be taken as _prescription_? The elements mix...somewhere, no matter how one does it.



"Do this. . . ." seems pretty prescriptive, no?


----------



## Sven (Jun 18, 2009)

Those here who have no problem with intinction seem to suggest that the only necessary thing about the Lord's Supper is that bread and wine are present, but I would ask, Aren't the actions that Jesus did in the Last Supper prescriptive for the Church as well? Does anybody really have the authority to say about certain acts in the Lord's Supper that they are not really necessary, and that they can change at will whatever they feel like? It's simple: Christ took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and distributed it. The disciples took the bread and ate it. Then Christ took the cup, blessed it, and distributed it. The disciples took the cup, and drank from it. Why on earth do we need to change that order? Are we not Reformed on this Puritan board? Didn't the Puritans and the Reformers teach that the Word of God is our guide, not pragmatism? This is not a dead horse; this is not splitting hairs.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 18, 2009)

Sven said:


> Those here who have no problem with intinction seem to suggest that the only necessary thing about the Lord's Supper is that bread and wine are present, but I would ask, Aren't the actions that Jesus did in the Last Supper prescriptive for the Church as well? Does anybody really have the authority to say about certain acts in the Lord's Supper that they are not really necessary, and that they can change at will whatever they feel like? It's simple: Christ took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and distributed it. The disciples took the bread and ate it. Then Christ took the cup, blessed it, and distributed it. The disciples took the cup, and drank from it. Why on earth do we need to change that order? Are we not Reformed on this Puritan board? Didn't the Puritans and the Reformers teach that the Word of God is our guide, not pragmatism? This is not a dead horse; this is not splitting hairs.



Hopefully, this will be my last posting on this subject. 

What I have read in this discussion is -

"We must follow the actions of Jesus as to the separation of the elements." Fine, point taken. But when the question is then asked, "Was the action of Jesus to hand to the disciples thimbles full of wine or a single cup from which they all were to partake?" The response has been, "That doesn't really matter. We can pour it out into as many separate containers as we want, as long as it comes from one common cup." But that is *not* the action that Jesus performed; He handed them a single cup from which each was to drink (not pour and then drink). Consistency to the proposition that we must follow the actions of Jesus in the administration of the Lord's Supper brings multiple cups into question.


----------



## sastark (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Hopefully, this will be my last posting on this subject.
> 
> What I have read in this discussion is -
> 
> "We must follow the actions of Jesus as to the separation of the elements." Fine, point taken. But when the question is then asked, "Was the action of Jesus to hand to the disciples thimbles full of wine or a single cup from which they all were to partake?" The response has been, "That doesn't really matter. We can pour it out into as many separate containers as we want, as long as it comes from one common cup." But that is *not* the action that Jesus performed; He handed them a single cup from which each was to drink (not pour and then drink). Consistency to the proposition that we must follow the actions of Jesus in the administration of the Lord's Supper brings multiple cups into question.



I think this is correct. One loaf. One cup. Something of the unity of believers with Christ is lost when we use individual wafers and shot glasses at the Lord's Table.

My current church does not use one cup, but many small cups. I wish it weren't so. I'm not going to abstain from the sacrament because of this, but I wish we were more consistent with the example set by Christ and the Apostles, in this regard.

We do use one piece of bread which is broken into many smaller pieces.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 18, 2009)

Something that I have seen is that most of the denominations that do intincture as a method of distribution use the term priests for their Pastors. The Pastor does the dipping and distributing of the elements. He usually is the one who places the combined elements in the mouths of individuals. There seems to be some implication implied when this method is used by most who use it. I am thinking mostly of the RCC and Episcopalian. Does anyone else see what I am?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 18, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Something that I have seen is that most of the denominations that do intincture as a method of distribution use the term priests for their Pastors. The Pastor does the dipping and distributing of the elements. He usually is the one who places the combined elements in the mouths of individuals. There seems to be some implication implied when this method is used by most who use it. I am thinking mostly of the RCC and Episcopalian. Does anyone else see what I am?



It seems very strange to me. In my pagan days I was a substitute church organist. I worked in all kinds of churches, Roman Catholic, mainstream Presbyterian, Episcopal, and others. I had never heard of it until I ran into some Eastern Orthodox folks. I think somehow it has become sort of a fad, at least in the US, perhaps with the advent of the internet and the growing appeal of the Eastern church.

Not really on the topic at hand: I was searching for "intinction" and "new" to see if it was something new among the protestant churches and I came across this Catholic website. I'm not saying anyone here is advocating this, but I was blown away at the silly and mindless justifications for the practice, both for and against. Talk about missing the point of the RP!

Communion by


----------



## Idelette (Jun 18, 2009)

You know, my Pastor often speaks of the Lord's Supper as being a visual sermon and communion with the Lord. Since I grew up Eastern Orthodox, and having partaken in intinction in the past...."the sermon and communion" that I now have is much more different! The elements now have a significant meaning for me when the bread and the wine are given separately. Christ gave both His body and His blood...and both symbolize different things....His sacrifice and His lifeblood given for me! There is a reason that Christ distributed the elements separately....and there is no need to change what has clearly been prescribed in Scripture. What greater value or lesson or symbolism can be given when the bread is dipped in the wine? It only serves to take away and diminish the sacrifice that Christ gave to us in the shedding of His blood! And as someone who came out of EO, the blood of Christ means a great deal to me...its not just a splitting over hairs, but its the very substance of my faith everytime I partake in the Lord's Supper today!


----------



## lynnie (Jun 18, 2009)

I have never understood how anybody can read 1 Corinthians 11 and not regard the Lords supper as coming together for an entire meal. The problems were such that some even got drunk and some went hungry while others had their meal.

I don't even know when it stopped being a meal and began to be a bite of bread and a mouthful of wine/juice. Anybody know? Did any of the Reformers ever call for a meal according to 1 Cor 11? When did the early church stop having a meal as the Lord's supper? How can people quibble over how to do it when they are not even doing the obvious thing and having a full meal? I have never understood it. ( But then again I believe in headcoverings from 1 Cor 11, so maybe some folks think the meal was just for back then too?)


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 18, 2009)

lynnie said:


> I have never understood how anybody can read 1 Corinthians 11 and not regard the Lords supper as coming together for an entire meal. The problems were such that some even got drunk and some went hungry while others had their meal.
> 
> I don't even know when it stopped being a meal and began to be a bite of bread and a mouthful of wine/juice. Anybody know? Did any of the Reformers ever call for a meal according to 1 Cor 11? When did the early church stop having a meal as the Lord's supper? How can people quibble over how to do it when they are not even doing the obvious thing and having a full meal? I have never understood it. ( But then again I believe in headcoverings from 1 Cor 11, so maybe some folks think the meal was just for back then too?)



You could be a little more fair, Lynnie, in your criticism. There are other reasons for arguing that the Lord's Supper does not need to involve a full meal than your implication of people thinking "it was just for back then". (at any rate, there are also valid arguments that do not involve such thinking, to the effect that headcoverings aren't necessary) So please, dont imply that arguments that differ from yours are based on a liberal approach to questions of culture.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm not trying to be critical, I am asking what the reasons are and what the church history is. Why don't we have a meal? ( yeah, it would be complicated I realize). But isn't that the ideal? I have no doubt that the Reformed community has good reasons, I just don't know what they are. Is it just the pain in the neck aspect of eating a meal at church? Setting up tables and a mess on the rugs and so forth?

I was once in a discussion with a UPC oneness pastor many years ago who did a meal and wondered why trinitarians did not do a meal, and at the time I said I was sure it had nothing to do with trinitarianism.....but to this day I wish I had been able to answer. Here was a doctrinal fruitcake asking me why we did not obey the pattern in scripture for an important sacrament. I still wonder and I'd love to know why we don't do a meal.


----------



## RTaron (Jun 18, 2009)

> I think somehow it has become sort of a fad, at least in the US, perhaps with the advent of the internet and the growing appeal of the Eastern church.



I agree with you Vic, that intinction is spreading through independent minded church communions as the cool way to take the Lord's Supper. Mark Driscoll, being among the very cool ones, promotes this practice.


----------



## Edward (Jun 18, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



"IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone;[7] as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people,[8]

[8] MAR 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.1CO 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."


----------



## SRoper (Jun 19, 2009)

lynnie said:


> I'm not trying to be critical, I am asking what the reasons are and what the church history is. Why don't we have a meal? ( yeah, it would be complicated I realize). But isn't that the ideal? I have no doubt that the Reformed community has good reasons, I just don't know what they are. Is it just the pain in the neck aspect of eating a meal at church? Setting up tables and a mess on the rugs and so forth?



The Corintians may have been treating the Lord's Supper as a meal, but Paul tells them in verses 22 and 34 that they should be eating their meal at home beforehand.


----------



## he beholds (Jun 21, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> On a slightly different note, it seems to me that if one can reject separate presentation of bread and wine by doing the supper via intinction, then one can equally well present doughnuts and *grape soda as substitutes.*




Or grape juice!


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 21, 2009)

No more appropriate than pouring the wine over a loaf of bread before presenting it to the communicants.

The bread should be broken in front of the communicants' eyes. Pouring the wine into the chalice before the communicants' eyes may also be appropriately done, but I don't think it is obligatory, not having specific Scripture warrant.

This is the first part of what is a virtual sacrificial meal in symbols, involving no real physical blood and flesh of Christ.

(1) Christ's death is shown forth virtually and symbolically in the breaking of the bread and pouring of the wine.

If a soft loaf is chosen and prepared by slicing it perpendicularly about an inch down it is easy for the communicants to break off a reasonably sized morsel/mouthful themselves. I have seen the bread presented this way often here in Scotland, and prefer it to the pre-cut tiny squares that are sometimes presented to the communicants.

(2) There is a virtual and spiritual sacrificial meal in symbols, in which the communicants eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood symbolically and spiritually. In doing this they are expressing the fact that they rely by faith wholly upon Christ's death and what flowed from it for all their spiritual benefits in this life and the next.

The risen Christ is present by His Spirit (among other things as Great High Priest) at His Table to administer the spiritual benefits of His death to the priesthood of believers.


----------



## Edward (Jun 21, 2009)

he beholds said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > On a slightly different note, it seems to me that if one can reject separate presentation of bread and wine by doing the supper via intinction, then one can equally well present doughnuts and *grape soda as substitutes.*
> ...



This exchange reminds me of a story told by the campus minister when I was in college. Prior to that call, he had been an assistant at FPC in Atlanta. He told of a sermon he preached on communion, giving as an example of where a casual approach could lead, suggesting that they just put grape jelly on crackers, and dispense them from vending machines at the church. 

He indicated that most folks missed the point he was trying to make.


----------



## he beholds (Jun 21, 2009)

Edward said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > toddpedlar said:
> ...



hahaha...I didn't miss the point--I was just sayin!


----------

