# Holy Water



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

Where does your church get your baptismal water from?

the kitchen sink?
the outside spicket?
the bathroom toilet?
the drainage ditch?

Does 'church helper' Susie Q run to grab a glass of water before the baptismal service?

I realize the water is not efficacious in any way. And that folks in the early church were baptized wherever (rivers etc.). But man, this is the water the represents our holy washing and purification by the Spirit. Can we not make the sacramental elements a little more special??

I mean, I have to go in my church closet every day to see bottles of 'welches' grape juice pushed off in the corner by the cleaning supplies. [i:f2f1e68fd0]That[/i:f2f1e68fd0] really helps me to think of Christ's blood poured out. And the loaf of bread is sitting by the doughnuts on the kitchen counter.

I know it won't change anything in the elements, but why not have a seperate box for them in the sanctuary? The sacraments are meant to be testaments to us. It would help us add to the sanctity of the meal and the baptism. It really is special food right? is it not Christ's body and blood? is it not the water of our cleansing?

Paul


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 10, 2004)

That seems like a good point to me. As you said, even though we should not make a big deal out of it, or view it as correspondent to their efficacy [i:2f56148653]in any way[/i:2f56148653], we should nonetheless have significant &quot;reverence&quot; (I'm not sure if that's the right word or not) in dealing with the elements.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 10, 2004)

Perhaps it's the Puritan in me, but who cares where we get the water, so long as it's not deliberately mixed with oil (i.e. Rome) or anything else. It's the word preached with it that's important. The Ethiopian was baptized in the middle of a wilderness. Nothing special about that water. It is the spiritual baptism which must be emphasised as important.

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 10, 2004)

The entire point is that there is nothing special about the elements - water, bread, wine. It is all of the holy spirit.

Introducing thing some special inevitably leads to a false view of the sacrament.


----------



## Scott (Jun 10, 2004)

It seems like there would be good prudential reasons for doing something special with the elements. If done right, it could increase the sense of sacred and mystery that should surround the sacraments. 

To me this would be analogous to the efforts taken to instill a sense of seriousness around judicial proceedings. For example, judges wear robes. While these have no legal significance (a judge can pronounce a sentence or render judgment whether or not he is wearing a robe), they are designed to and do instill reverence for the proceedings. These are just prudential measures that do not make the judge magic, but do help people understand the magnitude of what is happening. A judge who comes out in jeans and a t-shirt will not instill the same reverence, even though he has identical legal power. We should have similar considerations for the seriousness of worship, whether through the preaching of the Word or the adminstration of the sacraments.

Another thing that tells you alot about a church's view of the sacraments is what is done with the uncomsumed elements of communion after the service. In some traditions (Anglicans, for example) the ministers consume all the uneasten elements. In our tradition, the consecrated elements tend to just be thrown in the trash. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I have not seen Reformed ministers do this in my experience.

Scott


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:abfd1a3dda][i:abfd1a3dda]Originally posted by Scott[/i:abfd1a3dda]
It seems like there would be good prudential reasons for doing something special with the elements. If done right, it could increase the sense of sacred and mystery that should surround the sacraments. 

To me this would be analogous to the efforts taken to instill a sense of seriousness around judicial proceedings. For example, judges wear robes. While these have no legal significance (a judge can pronounce a sentence or render judgment whether or not he is wearing a robe), they are designed to and do instill reverence for the proceedings. These are just prudential measures that do not make the judge magic, but do help people understand the magnitude of what is happening. A judge who comes out in jeans and a t-shirt will not instill the same reverence, even though he has identical legal power. We should have similar considerations for the seriousness of worship, whether through the preaching of the Word or the adminstration of the sacraments.

Another thing that tells you alot about a church's view of the sacraments is what is done with the uncomsumed elements of communion after the service. In some traditions (Anglicans, for example) the ministers consume all the uneasten elements. In our tradition, the consecrated elements tend to just be thrown in the trash. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I have not seen Reformed ministers do this in my experience.

Scott [/quote:abfd1a3dda]

There is a difference in how the elements are handled before the administration and after. To follow you analogy, the judge and his clothes are not treated &quot;specially&quot; outside of the preceedings, just during. To treat &quot;communion bread&quot; as different from ordinary bread is exactly what the Romans do (complete with a separate comparment in the church) and smacks of Popery and superstition.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:d37a86e7be]There is a difference in how the elements are handled before the administration and after. To follow you analogy, the judge and his clothes are not treated &quot;specially&quot; outside of the preceedings, just during. To treat &quot;communion bread&quot; as different from ordinary bread is exactly what the Romans do (complete with a separate comparment in the church) and smacks of Popery and superstition.[/quote:d37a86e7be]

When the bread and wine are bought, they are mishandled and treated like anything else. This is not what I am talking about (yet). Sacraments are meant to be special; when the people's eye is on them, why not treat them with sence of honor. Hold on now Fred, before you say anything, you do this too! I'm sure you don't go tell Susie Q to grab a styrofoam cup from the sink one minute before a child's baptism. There is a certain orderliness and solemnity about it, right? And during that time the water is probably placed in something nice. During your liturgical process, it is inevitable that the water or Eucharist meal gets high rank. 

I'm sure you lay out the bread and wine so it looks nice, and you don't just throw it on a table, right? It is inevitable. The sacraments are meant for us, why not dress them up a bit, which is what folks already do anyways?

Fred, I'm not a lawyer or anything (and I could be wrong), but isn't the judge's robe hung up after the court case? Don't they have a special rack for it in their office, even making it stand out among everything else? I don't think these natural human inclinations give a minister a right to throw the left over wine down the sink. It seems to me that that would damage his faith, just because it makes the sacraments elements seem worthless. How are they worthless? Do you not seriously think about the bread and wine in your hand when you are partaking?

Paul


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:c2c5e0471f][i:c2c5e0471f]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:c2c5e0471f]
Where does your church get your baptismal water from?

the kitchen sink?
the outside spicket?
the bathroom toilet?
the drainage ditch?

Paul [/quote:c2c5e0471f]

Lake, pool, ocean (that would have been nice) I know you are referring to folks who do not practice immersion. The folks with physical disabilities need special attention and usually are poured over many Baptist churches. I dont think there is anything special about that water. I just hope for the believers sake that it didnt come from tha wtar fountain in back of the sancuary cause, man is that stuff is cold. 

But I wondered about your question myself. If it is kept separate and special, or if folks use whatever is around. 

I think there is a danger of folks putting to much effort into keeping the water used separate, into growing into some form of idolatry. Next thing you know people will carry it like the Ark with wooden poles and having monks chanting while leading the precession and slamming bibles into their faces every 5 seconds or so (Monty Python reference):yes:


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:9f99fedf5b]I think there is a danger of folks putting to much effort into keeping the water used separate, into growing into some form of idolatry. Next thing you know people will carry it like the Ark with wooden poles and having monks chanting while leading the precession and slamming bibles into their faces every 5 seconds or so (Monty Python reference)[/quote:9f99fedf5b]

Lets not slide down the slope. 

Thats like saying ministers shouldn't wear special dress because they'll end up turning into Roman priests. Or that we shouldn't have a liturgy because it will turn into a Mass.


----------



## sundoulos (Jun 10, 2004)

The elements of the Lord's Table are only special at the Lord's Table. They are special for what they represent only when they actually are representing. I have seen the Anglican &quot;priest&quot; stuff the leftover bread in his mouth and could hardly refrain from laughing out loud. That certainly is no more sacred than dumping them in the trash. It was, in my opinion, a superstitious, magical rite.

A remonstrant once snatched the wafer out of a priest's hand and stepped on it, crushing it into the floor. He was tried for desecrating the body of Christ. Ooops!

Anyway, the same logic should then be applied to church buildings, many of which are sold and turned into offices, apartments, antique shops, or what have you.

As for Welches grape juice -- ah, that's another question. But pouring it down the sink is a waste. Someone should drink the leftovers. Put it back in the fridge and give it to the young kids in Sunday School next week for refreshment. And the left over bread, matzo, or whatever you use can feed the poor starving birds.


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:5e64f1a389][i:5e64f1a389]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:5e64f1a389]
Where does your church get your baptismal water from?

the kitchen sink?
the outside spicket?
the bathroom toilet?
the drainage ditch?

Does 'church helper' Susie Q run to grab a glass of water before the baptismal service?

I realize the water is not efficacious in any way. And that folks in the early church were baptized wherever (rivers etc.). But man, this is the water the represents our holy washing and purification by the Spirit. Can we not make the sacramental elements a little more special??

I mean, I have to go in my church closet every day to see bottles of 'welches' grape juice pushed off in the corner by the cleaning supplies. [i:5e64f1a389]That[/i:5e64f1a389] really helps me to think of Christ's blood poured out. And the loaf of bread is sitting by the doughnuts on the kitchen counter.

I know it won't change anything in the elements, but why not have a seperate box for them in the sanctuary? The sacraments are meant to be testaments to us. It would help us add to the sanctity of the meal and the baptism. It really is special food right? is it not Christ's body and blood? is it not the water of our cleansing?

Paul [/quote:5e64f1a389]

We get our water out of the water fountain in the foyer. And if we have a baptism and someone forgot to get water, someone runs out and gets it quick. 

What separates the elements from common use is the Word. It is the Word preached that the congregation should be concentrating on, not the elements. The elements should not be put in a position of reverence, for they are nothing without the Word.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:3911da7405][i:3911da7405]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:3911da7405]
I don't think these natural human inclinations give a minister a right to throw the left over wine down the sink. It seems to me that that would damage his faith, just because it makes the sacraments elements seem worthless. How are they worthless? Do you not seriously think about the bread and wine in your hand when you are partaking?[/quote:3911da7405]

Now I think you're getting too &quot;Romish&quot; with the issue; talking about &quot;damaging his faith&quot; by not showing special honor to the physical elements, and saying that the absense of doing so makes them seem worthless - that is placing the value in the wrong place. While I do think we should have a reverent spirit during the administration of the sacraments, it is not because of the physical elements themselves, and attaching the sacraments' worth and a person's faith to the physical aspect of the elements does, admittedly, seem like a subtle form of idolatry to me.

In Christ,


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

Well, I guess in the Reformed tradition when the minister of the Word walks in holding a Bible reverently, then he is being idolatrous. There is nothing in the mere pages but symbols! Same (or more) with the Lord's supper. 

I could not smash the bread under my foot in good conscience, just like I can't smash my Bible under my foot. I think this solves our little problem here. That is, unless you think treating your Bible with respect is idolatry.

Paul


----------



## Dan.... (Jun 10, 2004)

Paul,

I give my Bibles the same respect that I give any book that I own. I certainly wouldn't step on it or mangle the pages, as it is much harder to use in mangled condition. It is not the book that is valuable (nor the ink on the page), rather it is the inspired Word that is to be reverenced and obeyed. And yes, when the book gets old and worn that the pages are falling out, there is no reason to not throw it in the garbage and get another copy.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:a39d360115][i:a39d360115]Originally posted by Dan....[/i:a39d360115]
Paul,

I give my Bibles the same respect that I give any book that I own. I certainly wouldn't step on it or mangle the pages, as it is much harder to use in mangled condition. It is not the book that is valuable (nor the ink on the page), rather it is the inspired Word that is to be reverenced and obeyed. And yes, when the book gets old and worn that the pages are falling out, there is no reason to not throw it in the garbage and get another copy. [/quote:a39d360115]

Sure, just like stale bread or dirty water. But while you have it, you treat it with respect...


----------



## yeutter (Jun 13, 2004)

I am not concerned about the source of the water.
I am concerned that the elements used for Holy Communion be wine not grape juice and unleavened bread not ordinary leavened bread. In any case the elements should be set aside for their special use with a prayer of thanks giving.


----------



## Authorised (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:f61f3f92d0]
In our tradition, the consecrated elements tend to just be thrown in the trash.
[/quote:f61f3f92d0]


That's awful. 

I think these 'slippery slope' arguments against having reverence for the elements are baseless. There is no one on this board who even begins to think, nor will ever think, that the elements are really, actually, and substantially the body, blood, bones, marrow, and sinews of Christ.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 14, 2004)

Aaron, we all know and agree that no one is actually giving them [i:ef2bc70c1e]that much[/i:ef2bc70c1e] significance in their mind. Nonetheless, as Fred warned earlier in the thread, beginning to view the substance itself as having [i:ef2bc70c1e]any[/i:ef2bc70c1e] value begins to point in that very direction (the Roman view of the sacraments), and it then simply becomes a question of where we will happen to draw the line. After all, especially for the learned Christian, it is usually the most subtle forms of heresy that are most easily missed and overlooked, and thus infiltrate our minds and doctrines.

And again, even though no one is actually taking a Roman view on this, the [i:ef2bc70c1e]direction[/i:ef2bc70c1e] in which this thread points is dangerous, for as was said earlier in the thread &quot;The entire point is that there is nothing special about the elements - water, bread, wine. It is all of the holy spirit. Introducing thing some special inevitably leads to a false view of the sacrament.&quot; Notice that he didn't accuse people of having a totally false view of the sacrament yet, but pointed out how the mindset being expressed in this thread does logically [i:ef2bc70c1e]point[/i:ef2bc70c1e] (and in turn, potentially [i:ef2bc70c1e]lead[/i:ef2bc70c1e]) to such a mindset.

In Christ,


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 14, 2004)

*I am in full agreement ...*

... that undue concern about how we treat the &quot;sanctified&quot; elements (water, wine, bread) outside of their use in the worship service is knocking on the door of romish superstition. What, exactly ought to be done with the left-overs? The Bible doesn't tell us, so anything we decide is just our opinion. If you make a ritual out of anything, it will soon be a law of sorts. [i:8a76780c6f]Nothing,[/i:8a76780c6f] not a blessed thing [i:8a76780c6f]inheres[/i:8a76780c6f] in the elements. Take away the Supper rite, take away the Baptism rite, and all you have left is stuff of creation.

And disposal isn't enough for Rome either. They need pre-sacrament ritual as well, further detracting from the efficacy of the ministry of the Word and public worship. This objection strikes at the very first question on this thread, &quot;Where do we get the water?&quot; Does anyone see a pattern here? A sinless Jesus isn't enough for Rome, they need a sinless &quot;vessel&quot; for him also. Voila, Mary Immaculate. Don't tell me there isn't a slippery slope here! Idolatry should be attacked as a baby in the nest, or else soon you'll be smighting your thigh (Jer. 31:19).


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:9bf717fa26]If you make a ritual out of anything, it will soon be a law of sorts.[/quote:9bf717fa26]

If a church threw their bread and wine away every sunday, that would be a [i:9bf717fa26]ritual[/i:9bf717fa26]. And as you say, it will eventually be turned into a law, like most people seem to be advocating. It is a law to [i:9bf717fa26]not[/i:9bf717fa26] treat any of the elements like they are the body and blood of Christ, even though they are supposed to be.

There you have it: ritual and law. I think not having so high of a concern about &quot;being like Rome&quot; would be of great benefit to us. The Reformers were not obsesive over &quot;not being like Rome.&quot; They were trying to hold on to as much mediaeval theology as they could, and that in which they couldn't hold on to, they did ascribe it to Rome's mere invention. They sought to be biblical and simple. They NEVER said, &quot;well Rome does it, so we can't do it.&quot; Because [i:9bf717fa26]that[/i:9bf717fa26] is unbiblical. The argument means nothing and does not work. Just because Rome does something similar, does that mean that we are going to turn into her? If thats the case, then we need to stop baptizing infants. Uh oh, we all might transform into popes...

Paul


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:d6e1c4d50b][i:d6e1c4d50b]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:d6e1c4d50b]
If a church threw their bread and wine away every sunday, that would be a [i:d6e1c4d50b]ritual[/i:d6e1c4d50b]. And as you say, it will eventually be turned into a law, like most people seem to be advocating. It is a law to [i:d6e1c4d50b]not[/i:d6e1c4d50b] treat any of the elements like they are the body and blood of Christ, even though they are supposed to be.[/quote:d6e1c4d50b] Huh? You must be defining 'ritual' differently than I am. 'Ritual' in as I intended it in the context of my post meant 'performing an activity with religious intent.' How can the same act (throwing away) be the result of having already discounted something that [i:d6e1c4d50b]formerly[/i:d6e1c4d50b] had religious significance, and an act of investing it (or divesting or whatever) at the same time? 

And, not to put too fine a point on it, your statement that the we are &quot;supposed to&quot; think of the elements like they [i:d6e1c4d50b][b:d6e1c4d50b]are[/b:d6e1c4d50b][/i:d6e1c4d50b] the body and blood of Christ is off the chart, it's off this board; it's anti-reformational and anti-confessional. It's not even Lutheran. &quot;They are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ&quot; (WCF 29.5).

The rest of your post is opinion and straw man. If you think that our settled attitudes are just knee-jerk reactionism, you need to get out more. Do you really think you have pondered and understood the Reformers? You sound like you think the studied opinions of the Puritans and their children are moribund, anti-intellectual, and anti-biblical. Do you think that as an (almost) 18 years old fellow you have progressed beyond not merely your peers (all of us here) but also our learned Fathers? 

You are tunnelling, kid, going in one direction for a while, coming up with some with some ancient bauble and prancing around like its a treasure chest, hollering for everyone to come on down and get in your hole. You need breadth, and more of that than depth right now. You need maturity. And you're digging in some unstable ground. 

I said it before in another thread, and I'll say it again. You need a foundation, a framework, a place to stand, a reference point, or you are going to end up a long, long way from the Reformation.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 14, 2004)

What makes you think I am making all this up?

[quote:0820059bbd]our learned Fathers?[/quote:0820059bbd]

Do you think [i:0820059bbd]you[/i:0820059bbd] have progressed the &quot;learned Fathers&quot;? 

[quote:0820059bbd]opinions of the Puritans[/quote:0820059bbd]

They are just [i:0820059bbd]one[/i:0820059bbd] example of the fruits of the Reformation. They were wrong in [i:0820059bbd]alot[/i:0820059bbd] of areas, just like everybody else.

[quote:0820059bbd]The rest of your post is opinion and straw man.[/quote:0820059bbd]

Ditto.

Paul

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 14, 2004)

*Since this is the Puritan Board, after all*

... and not just a free-for-all, 

WCF. 29. 4 &quot;Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifiting the up or carrying them about for adoration, [b:afb388d640]and the reserving them for any pretended religious use;[/b:afb388d640] are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.&quot;

The writers of these lines are my teachers. I know I haven't progressed beyond them. You are ignoring them. Simple fact. You have other masters, or other sirens.

Not all opinions are created equal. If you think the Puritans were fundamentally flawed in crucial areas, why are you here? To learn? To contribute in their vein? Not from the looks of your posts. If you're looking for a forum to gather a following, this one is a poor choice.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:3e6c1d5ebd][i:3e6c1d5ebd]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:3e6c1d5ebd]
I am not concerned about the source of the water.
I am concerned that the elements used for Holy Communion be wine not grape juice and unleavened bread not ordinary leavened bread. In any case the elements should be set aside for their special use with a prayer of thanks giving. [/quote:3e6c1d5ebd]

All the linguistic evidence in 1 Corinthians points to leavened loaves being used. Insistence on unleaved bread is unbiblical and may be superstitious. I agree with you that wine is the proper element, although I think that the text ld be at least with [i:3e6c1d5ebd]some[/i:3e6c1d5ebd] plausibility include non-alcoholic grape juice.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:6e650442ac][i:6e650442ac]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:6e650442ac]
... and not just a free-for-all, 

WCF. 29. 4 &quot;Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifiting the up or carrying them about for adoration, [b:6e650442ac]and the reserving them for any pretended religious use;[/b:6e650442ac] are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.&quot;

The writers of these lines are my teachers. I know I haven't progressed beyond them. You are ignoring them. Simple fact. You have other masters, or other sirens.

Not all opinions are created equal. If you think the Puritans were fundamentally flawed in crucial areas, why are you here? To learn? To contribute in their vein? Not from the looks of your posts. If you're looking for a forum to gather a following, this one is a poor choice. [/quote:6e650442ac]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:a98940cb04][i:a98940cb04]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:a98940cb04]
[quote:a98940cb04]
In our tradition, the consecrated elements tend to just be thrown in the trash.
[/quote:a98940cb04]


That's awful. 

I think these 'slippery slope' arguments against having reverence for the elements are baseless. There is no one on this board who even begins to think, nor will ever think, that the elements are really, actually, and substantially the body, blood, bones, marrow, and sinews of Christ. [/quote:a98940cb04]

If that is the case, why can't they be thrown out?


----------



## Scott (Jun 14, 2004)

The sacraments have two parts, the outward element and the inward grace thereby signified. From the Larger Catechism:

[quote:d82bd1753b]
Q. 163. What are the parts of a sacrament?
A. The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ's own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified. 
[/quote:d82bd1753b]

So, even if the outward sign is not he big deal (as we should agree), perhaps the inward grace should be lead to a special treatment of the sacraments. Remember, if it is just bread or wine with no inward grace attached to it, then by definition it is not a sacrament. 

Think of it this way. A ten dollar bill has virtually no inherent value - just a tiny bit of paper and ink. Its value is that this little bit of paper represents something intangible, wealth. The elements of the sacraments are the same - virtually no inherent value, but their importance comes from the grace signified. Now, I imagine that all of us treat currency in a different way than we treat gum wrappers or similar tiny bits of paper. It is not the paper or ink that justifies the special treatment. Rather it is the intangible thing it represents. Anyway, just some thoughts.

Here is a question I have not read about, but seem relevant. At what point does the consecrated bread and wine cease to be a sacrament? It would seem a question relevant to how we dispose of the elements. I don't know. 

Scott

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:b56ee293ec][i:b56ee293ec]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:b56ee293ec]
They NEVER said, &quot;well Rome does it, so we can't do it.&quot; Because [i:b56ee293ec]that[/i:b56ee293ec] is unbiblical. The argument means nothing and does not work. Just because Rome does something similar, does that mean that we are going to turn into her? If thats the case, then we need to stop baptizing infants. Uh oh, we all might transform into popes...[/quote:b56ee293ec]

Paul, with regard to this part of your post, Bruce already beat me to the word...straw man. [i:b56ee293ec]Obviously[/i:b56ee293ec] none of us are saying that if Rome does anything, we can't. Using the example of paedobaptism as you did is equally straw-man to using the Trinity or deity of Christ. Simply put, no one here is saying that Rome is wrong on [i:b56ee293ec]every[/i:b56ee293ec] point of doctrine, and thus that we have to form our standards by the opposite of whatever she does! Stick to the topic, which is that we [i:b56ee293ec]are[/i:b56ee293ec] saying she has a radically false and warped view of this sacrament! Would you disagree with even that?

In Christ,


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:30d1c0efdb][i:30d1c0efdb]Originally posted by Scott[/i:30d1c0efdb]
Think of it this way. A ten dollar bill has virtually no inherent value - just a tiny bit of paper and ink. Its value is that this little bit of paper represents something intangible, wealth. The elements of the sacraments are the same - virtually no inherent value, but their importance comes from the grace signified. Now, I imagine that all of us treat currency in a different way than we treat gum wrappers or similar tiny bits of paper. It is not the paper or ink that justifies the special treatment. Rather it is the intangible thing it represents. Anyway, just some thoughts.[/quote:30d1c0efdb]

I like that analogy. Still, the currency only has any value while the government is assigning it value. Say that the government switched over to pounds or Euros. At that point, as soon as everyone turned in their cash dollars for the equivalent in pounds or Euros, they would become worthless. This follows the Lord's Supper analogously, as I explain below:

[quote:30d1c0efdb][i:30d1c0efdb]Originally posted by Scott[/i:30d1c0efdb]
Here is a question I have not read about, but seem relevant. At what point does the consecrated bread and wine cease to be a sacrament? It would seem a question relevant to how we dispose of the elements. I don't know. [/quote:30d1c0efdb]

I would say immediately after the elders are done administering its reception, signaling for its partaking, and then actually partaking of the elements. Once everyone has partaken, and the service progresses to another part, the elements are no longer sacramental in my opinion. Following the analogy of the cash dollars, this time would be analogous to the time at which everyone is finished trading in their dollars for other currency.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:ef05b664c6][i:ef05b664c6]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:ef05b664c6]
They are just [i:ef05b664c6]one[/i:ef05b664c6] example of the fruits of the Reformation. They were wrong in [i:ef05b664c6]alot[/i:ef05b664c6] of areas, just like everybody else.
[/quote:ef05b664c6]
So then are you saying the WCF or LBC are wrong on [i:ef05b664c6]a lot[/i:ef05b664c6] of areas? If so, do you still hold to them?


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:b8726f214d][i:b8726f214d]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:b8726f214d]


Lets not slide down the slope. 

Thats like saying ministers shouldn't wear special dress because they'll end up turning into Roman priests. Or that we shouldn't have a liturgy because it will turn into a Mass. [/quote:b8726f214d]

I understand.

But this brings up a good point.

What is the purpose or reason that some denominations have special dress. Why do some wear those big fancy gowns? Is it purely traditional? Does it serve any special purpose?

Just wondering.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:f617dda2f2][i:f617dda2f2]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:f617dda2f2]
I am not concerned about the source of the water.
I am concerned that the elements used for Holy Communion be wine not grape juice and unleavened bread not ordinary leavened bread. In any case the elements should be set aside for their special use with a prayer of thanks giving. [/quote:f617dda2f2]

Why must it be unleavened bread? Does it really matter scripturally?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:032b525788][i:032b525788]Originally posted by Scott[/i:032b525788]
It seems like there would be good prudential reasons for doing something special with the elements. If done right, it could increase the sense of sacred and mystery that should surround the sacraments. 
[/quote:032b525788]

Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that Calvin taught against in [i:032b525788]The Necessity of Reforming the Church [/i:032b525788]? At one point he wrote:

[quote:032b525788]
The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God.
[/quote:032b525788]

We should be wary of such actions and attitudes built on prudence.

The thing which makes the elements &quot;holy&quot; (set apart) is the preaching of the Word. Without the Word the bottles of Welchs are just a bottle of Welchs regardless of their intended use.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:f2a5fbbe08][i:f2a5fbbe08]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:f2a5fbbe08]
[quote:f2a5fbbe08]
In our tradition, the consecrated elements tend to just be thrown in the trash.
[/quote:f2a5fbbe08]


That's awful. 

[/quote:f2a5fbbe08]

I know. We used to take our bread home and make toast.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:053e2bcf1e]Paul, with regard to this part of your post, Bruce already beat me to the word...straw man. Obviously none of us are saying that if Rome does anything, we can't. Using the example of paedobaptism as you did is equally straw-man to using the Trinity or deity of Christ. Simply put, no one here is saying that Rome is wrong on every point of doctrine, and thus that we have to form our standards by the opposite of whatever she does! Stick to the topic, which is that we are saying she has a radically false and warped view of this sacrament! Would you disagree with even that?[/quote:053e2bcf1e]

It seemed like ya'll were arguing: Rome does it, therefore it should not be done. Or &quot;this is only Roman.&quot; I was just pointing out that that doesn't disqualify the practice. 

[quote:053e2bcf1e]I would say immediately after the elders are done administering its reception, signaling for its partaking, and then actually partaking of the elements. Once everyone has partaken, and the service progresses to another part, the elements are no longer sacramental in my opinion. Following the analogy of the cash dollars, this time would be analogous to the time at which everyone is finished trading in their dollars for other currency.[/quote:053e2bcf1e]

Why would it be wrong, if after the service is over, and people are fellowshipping, for someone to come up and start smashing the bread (if they knew the church didn't want it)? People attach something sentimental to the sacraments. That is what they are for. 

Paul

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## Scott (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:9eed172d5d]
I would say immediately after the elders are done administering its reception, signaling for its partaking, and then actually partaking of the elements. Once everyone has partaken, and the service progresses to another part, the elements are no longer sacramental in my opinion. Following the analogy of the cash dollars, this time would be analogous to the time at which everyone is finished trading in their dollars for other currency. 
[/quote:9eed172d5d]

That is probably how it is treated in practice in Protestant circles, even if people have not thought it out. This does reflect certain theological convictions. For example, the early church would send the elements by deacon to the sick or otherws who were not able to attend. This is from Justin Martyr, which was written around 150 AD:

[quote:9eed172d5d]
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. 
[/quote:9eed172d5d] 

I am not familiar with historical Reformed practice in this regard. None of the churches I have been affiliated with have done this.


----------



## yeutter (Jun 15, 2004)

I believe it should be unleavened bread and wine not grape juice to identify the Lord's Supper with Passover.

That was the historic position of the Western Church prior to the Reformation.

When and with whom did the custon of using leavened bread start in Protestant churches?


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 15, 2004)

*Weak Christian vs Strong*

Guys, please bear with me in this.

I believe Paul the apostle who was a strong Christian knew that there was nothing special about the wine or the water by themselves and it was all symbolic.

As humans we want to make them special - I want to - but the stronger a believer is, the less important elements are before or after the event and the more important of what the act represents. It does start to get religious fast otherwise.

Paul would have a clear conscience in not treating them special before or after.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 15, 2004)

I believe wine is a better representation (literal) as well as what the unleavened bread signifys. They make for the easiest arguement.


----------



## Scott (Jun 15, 2004)

[quote:da37c9f5d3]
I believe Paul the apostle who was a strong Christian knew that there was nothing special about the wine or the water by themselves and it was all symbolic. 
[/quote:da37c9f5d3]

It is definitely more than symbolic. 

You mention that you have to struggle to not make it more. I think this may be the work of the Holy Spirit in your life given you recognizition of what is really happening. 

I have the opposite problem. I have to struggle to recognize that it is more than symbolic. I think mine is a more common problem in a rationalistic, anti-supernatural culture. 

It is interesting how Christ says the bread and wine [b:da37c9f5d3]are[/b:da37c9f5d3] his body and blood. He also says they are &quot;real food and real drink,&quot; which to me seems to be a contrast to &quot;symbolic food and symbolic drink.&quot;

[quote:da37c9f5d3]
53Jesus said to them, &quot;I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 
[/quote:da37c9f5d3]

He could have said, &quot;these are [b:da37c9f5d3]symbolic[/b:da37c9f5d3] of my body and blood.&quot; Indeed, He lost many people precisely because He would not do this. See john 6:66. The disciples also exclaimed that Jesus' teaching on eating His body and blood was &quot;a hard teaching.&quot; John 6:60. To hold it was purely symbolic is an easy teaching in my opinion. It is neither challenging nor offensive. 

Scott


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 15, 2004)

Did the Israelites do anything special with the foreskin? :bs2: Then there's the matter of David eating the old shewbread.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 15, 2004)

The question of whether or not they are more than symbolic can really be answered with a &quot;yes&quot; or a &quot;no&quot; depending on what is meant by the question. They [i:113f74f61b]are[/i:113f74f61b] more than symbolic in the sense that they are means of grace, and Christ is truly spiritual present during the partaking of the sacrament.

They are [i:113f74f61b]not[/i:113f74f61b] more than symbolic in the sense that no power or spiritual grace rests in the elements [i:113f74f61b]themselves[/i:113f74f61b], nor is any grace part of the elements [i:113f74f61b]by intrinsic nature[/i:113f74f61b]. Rather, all of the power and grace which they confer, and their bringing of Christ's spiritual presence, rests solely in the work of the Holy Spirit, work that God has promised to attach to proper use of the sacraments.

So in summary, when the question is asked, &quot;Are the sacramental elements more than symbolic?&quot; Zwingli would reply with too extreme of a &quot;no,&quot; while Romans and Lutherans would reply with too extreme of a &quot;yes.&quot; The view I explained above is the view of Calvin and the Puritans.

In Christ,


----------



## Scott (Jun 16, 2004)

Blue:

I think you are right. I answered the question in the context of seeing that Bryan was a member of a Baptist church. Traditionally baptists see the Lord's Supper in a memorialistic fashion (ala Zwingli) and call it an &quot;ordinance&quot; as opposed to a &quot;sacrament.&quot;

Scott


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 16, 2004)

That's true. In fact, that Zwinglian perspective seems to be the mindset that the overwhelming majority of [i:35bdc623f6]all[/i:35bdc623f6] evangelical Christendom has now taken. I find that sort of interesting, since modern evangelicals allow so much mysticism into their thinking in other areas. Take the charismatics for example: They are probably the movement with the [i:35bdc623f6]most[/i:35bdc623f6] mystical emphasis on so many [i:35bdc623f6]subjective[/i:35bdc623f6] things (&quot;see God's face,&quot; &quot;I just know God is telling me this,&quot; &quot;feel the Spirit's presence&quot, yet they take the Zwinglian hyper-anti-spiritual mindset on the [i:35bdc623f6]objective[/i:35bdc623f6] things (such as the Supper).


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 16, 2004)

Communion is one of the bigger mysteries to me.

It's GOTTA be symbolic ( &quot;GOTTA&quot; meaning I can't see any other way right now.)

When Jesus said this IS my body - and I agree every word is important - it couldn't literally be his body because He was right in from of them. Our Lord MUST have been saying (I hope I'm right) &quot;Meditate on and grasp what I'm doing right now when I break this unleavened bread and you injest it to your innermost being for everlasting sustainence and drink this wine of the new covenant of my necessary blood between God and your very self.&quot; Lousy English but I hope you get the drift. Nothing magic about the elements for sure.

I have never heard that we we bringing Christ's presence into the meal and I may be misunderstanding what you mean by that, Scott, because He's at the right hand of our Father and can't come down (I don't think - just the Holy Spirit is in us and I guess among us now)

We had a lousy teaching on communion last Sunday and even the SS teacher apologized. It was over his head in understanding what Jesus was trying to convey to his disciples. The above is what I get out of what He was teaching at this point in my life.

I'm all ears but just say what you are convinced of and use small sentences.


----------



## Scott (Jun 16, 2004)

Bryan:

I don't think that the bread and wine turn into the physical body and blood of Christ. And part of my reasoning is exactly what you said, namely that Christ's physical body was separate from the bread. Further, when Paul talks about the Supper, he continues to refer to the elements as &quot;bread&quot; and &quot;wine.&quot; So, I think we can all reject Catholic transubstantiation. I would also reject Lutheran consubstantiation on similar grounds.

Still, Christ is present in the sacrament in a mystical way. When we eat the sacrament our soulds feed on the body and blood of Christ. He is really present and there in the sacrament. 

I would read over John 6 several times. Christ explains that His body and blood are to be eaten and that they are &quot;real food.&quot; I can't see how the text can be reasonably understood in a way that makes it exclusively symbolic. Further, he says that they bring life.

This is an excerpt from the Westminster Confession that I believe accurately summarizes the biblical teaching:

[quote:e944a5f7ab]
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. 
[/quote:e944a5f7ab]

Scott

[Edited on 6-16-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Jun 16, 2004)

Not saying that anyone on this thread or board is in this camp, but it is ironic that the groups that most stridently advocate an extensive literalism (&quot;literal when possible&quot, don't take John 6 and related passages literally. In fact they take the passage in the most symbolic and figurative sense possible. While they believe that the Jewish temple and sacrifices will be restored (in spite of Christ's once and for all sacrifice), they don't believe in the sacremental nature of the Lord's Supper.

Scott


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 16, 2004)

*I'll read John 6*

I will read John 6 - do a lot of &quot;God, I don't get it. Help me understand,&quot; and go from there. Thanks for the re-direction.


----------



## Scott (Jun 16, 2004)

BTW, I don't think it is something that is totally understandable. It is what the Bible terms a mystery. Many traditions call the sacraments the &quot;mysteries.&quot; It is one of those things we can know happens without understanding how. The way in which we feed on Christ's body and blood is a deep mystery.

We should be cautious to avoid the Roman error, though.


----------

