# Intinction?



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 9, 2010)

Was interested to see on the Aquila Report the Ohio Presbytery of the PCA was forming a committee to study intinction. I was kind of surprised to see that intinction was even an issue in the PCA. Looking forward to the committee's report.

Story from the Aquila Report


----------



## raekwon (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm a bit surprised that it's an issue as well. It'll be good to study, though.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 9, 2010)

Who is on the committee?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 9, 2010)

From the link: Ruling Elder Rae Whitlock, Grace Central Church, Columbus (Convener) Ruling Elder Sam Foster, Harvest Church, Medina Ruling Elder Tim Ling, Zion Reformed Church, Winesburg Teaching Elder Todd Naille, Granville Chapel, Granville Teaching Elder Jason Strong, Zion Reformed Church, Winesburg Teaching Elder Matt Timmons, Ashland


----------



## littlepeople (Nov 9, 2010)

For anyone familiar with study committees. Is the first question pretty standard? (When and how did the practice of intinction come into the PCA?) Depending on the outcome of questions 2-5, question 1 has the potential to carry an unspoken rebuke. Am I just reading too much into it? 

I ask because it seems (to me) the PCA sometimes sets up study committees in order to levy judgment in lieu of process. I'm probably off-base, and would welcome someone to correct my thinking.
For what it's worth I think intinction is unbiblical, but I have an allergy to study committees handling this sort of thing.


----------



## raekwon (Nov 9, 2010)

littlepeople said:


> For anyone familiar with study committees. Is the first question pretty standard? (When and how did the practice of intinction come into the PCA?) Depending on the outcome of questions 2-5, question 1 has the potential to carry an unspoken rebuke. Am I just reading too much into it?
> 
> I ask because it seems (to me) the PCA sometimes sets up study committees in order to levy judgment in lieu of process. I'm probably off-base, and would welcome someone to correct my thinking.



That's actually a valid point, and I'm thankful that you raised it. This is the first study committee that I've been on, so it'll be good for me (and us) to keep in mind.

Anyone else w/ PCA study committee experience (on any court level) that can chime in on those concerns?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 9, 2010)

Fascinating!!!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 6, 2012)

FYI. The report has been released.
The PCA Ohio Presbytery


Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Was interested to see on the Aquila Report the Ohio Presbytery of the PCA was forming a committee to study intinction. I was kind of surprised to see that intinction was even an issue in the PCA. Looking forward to the committee's report.
> 
> Story from the Aquila Report


----------



## raekwon (Feb 6, 2012)

FYI, the report was only received as information by the presbytery. It was before the presbytery for adoption as well, and that motion was defeated. It's now a non-issue.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 6, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> Fascinating!!!



 Isn't it one of those "fascinating" topics that's been done to death on the PB?


----------



## raekwon (Feb 6, 2012)

I agree with the words of your statement, brother Josh... but probably not with the spirit.  I'm out.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 6, 2012)

It is interesting, in the report at least, the reasons cited by those supporting the practice are almost entirely pragmatic, for convenience- no biblical basis given by its supporters.

No basis given, apparently in the PCA Book of Church Order, either.


----------



## Andres (Feb 6, 2012)

raekwon said:


> FYI, the report was only received as information by the presbytery. It was before the presbytery for adoption as well, and that motion was defeated. It's now a non-issue.



Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean that intinction is now banned in that Presbytery?


----------



## Chellemonkey (Feb 6, 2012)

Ok, I did not know what intinction meant but from the report by the committee am I correct that it is partaking of communion/Lord's Supper by dipping the bread into the wine/juice and then eating? From the brief skimming I did I take it as being unbiblical, correct? 
If you visited a church that practiced this would you refrain from participating? 
I am unable to read the report in its entirety but am I correct in assuming that there are verses and quotes from the book of church order or confession to prove the stance?


----------



## raekwon (Feb 6, 2012)

Andres said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > FYI, the report was only received as information by the presbytery. It was before the presbytery for adoption as well, and that motion was defeated. It's now a non-issue.
> ...



It means that it remains an acceptable and allowable practice in the presbytery.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 6, 2012)

If the practice is forced (ie the cup is refused but the bread dipped and given only), I would refrain. The practice is not biblical and our standards are really clear as the report discusses, and this has been discussed on other threads here if you search on the subject of intinction. 


Chellemonkey said:


> If you visited a church that practiced this would you refrain from participating?


----------



## raekwon (Feb 6, 2012)

If anyone's interested in the minority's answer to the committee's report, PM me and I can provide it to you in the next few days (or you can just wait for it to show up on _Aquila_). I won't link it here due to the PB's already-existing position that intinction is contra-confessional


----------



## sastark (Feb 6, 2012)

raekwon said:


> FYI, the report was only received as information by the presbytery. It was before the presbytery for adoption as well, and that motion was defeated. It's now a non-issue.



Respectfully, brother, it is still very much an issue; however, it seems the Presbytery has chosen to not deal with it, at this time.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 6, 2012)

*Josh*


> however, it should be a non-issue in that it's not even considerable in light of the Scripture, or the Westminster Standards.



I agree it should be a non-issue. Thankfully I haven't come accross it in the churches I attend here in Scotland.


----------



## raekwon (Feb 6, 2012)

sastark said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > FYI, the report was only received as information by the presbytery. It was before the presbytery for adoption as well, and that motion was defeated. It's now a non-issue.
> ...



Okay.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 21, 2012)

I would not expect there to be substantial division on this point within the denomination, and had not heard of or seen it practiced until recently.

The reason for the former is that biblical, reformed and presbyterian denominations hold a "high" view of the sacraments. They are central to public worship, and an ordinary way God builds the faith of his people, in a very real and tangible way.

While most of the Directory of Worship is not adopted as constitutional authority for the denomination, Chapters 56-58, relating to Baptism and the Lord's Supper have been. They are very intentionally, deliberately adopted as constitutional authority. Adopted to be followed carefully, and by oath, not only by church officers, but even by members through their vows.

Chapter 58, reflecting doctrine, very specifically and carefully lays out "Administration of the Lord's Supper."

For the life of me, I cannot conceive of an invention of "intinction" when the process implicitly lays out separate distribution and reflection upon each of the two elements.

That is, how anyone under vows could disregard the carefulness, and the decency and propriety that is safeguarded by the practice, and the doctrine explained with it.

If it takes a church court ruling, as to what our Book of Church Order requires of officers dispensing the elements, then that needs to be faced, and dealt with post haste. The Lord' Supper is not something we can ignore, be divided over, or tolerate confusion about.

It is too important toward the Honor and Glory of our Lord, and His worship, administered by those He has appointed among us!


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 21, 2012)

Ah, I forgot about this post. I wrote a response to Rae's report here in case anyone wanted to read: Response to the Dissent from Ohio Presbytery’s Intinction Report « Johannes Weslianus


----------



## Kevin (Feb 21, 2012)

Scott it should be pointed out that some (many?0 in the RPC-ES practiced intinction, both historically and at the time of the joining and receiving.

So what seems like such an open and shut case of confessionalism to you, did not appear to be so clear cut to either those brothers joining, or those doing the receiving. Nor does it seem as clear to those fathers and brothers in the several presbyteries the have the practice and do not consider it to be an exception to the standards.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 21, 2012)

Kevin, 

I invite you comment on the article I posted responding to Rae where I defend why intinction is out of accord with Scripture. I'd love to hear a sympathetic or pro-intinction side of things from Scripture.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 21, 2012)

Kevin said:


> So what seems like such an open and shut case of confessionalism to you,


I understand what you mean here, Kevin, but for those following, the case being made by the Book of Church Order, not the Confession (Westminster Standards) and what is so carefully defined by Chapter 58 by the Book of Church Order, "Administration of the Lord's Supper." 

Administration of the Lord's Supper is not something that was left to chance by the founding fathers of the PCA.




Kevin said:


> Nor does it seem as clear to those fathers and brothers in the several presbyteries the have the practice



Anecdotal evidence only, I have never seen this in a PCA church, and until recently had never heard that this had happened, anywhere in our denomination.

Important as the Lord's Supper is to us all, and how central it is to how we worship, we MUST settle this as a matter of practice, and follow unity on it, and quickly.

Let us pray toward that end.


----------



## Wayne (Feb 21, 2012)

Kevin:



> ...it should be pointed out that some (many?) in the RPC,ES practiced intinction, both historically and at the time of the joining and receiving.



I'd like to challenge you on this, in an entirely friendly way. 

I could more readily admit for the sake of discussion our speaking in terms of "few", though even there it would have to be demonstrated from historical record. 

In short, after working here in the Historical Center for twelve years, I've never seen mention of such practice in that denomination. They did one study on the admission of children to the Lord's Supper [http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/rpces/docsynod/312.html] and the word intinction does not appear in that brief study. Nor does it appear in the index to the volume _Documents of Synod_ (our own Curt Lovelace prepared that index!). 

Can you cite specifics? The name of the church(es) or officiating pastors?

Also, to speak of it being the "historical" practice of those as yet unnamed, the RPC,ES only existed as a denomination for 17 years. Not a lot of time to get up much of a historical practice.

Looking forward to your equally amiable response.


----------



## gkoerk (Feb 21, 2012)

raekwon said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > raekwon said:
> ...



Rae, I disagree with your interpretation here. Voting down a proposed restriction on a practice doesn't mean the practice is permitted. Imagine if a Presbytery were to vote down a report saying that the ordination of women to the office of Deacon is prohibited by the Scriptures and our standards. It doesn't matter - it is still not permitted in the PCA. Similarly, BCO 58-5 requires the elements be distributed separately, wine after the bread (and implies their consumption separately as well). To make the practice permissible, the Assembly would need to do more than reject the overture coming before it this year. It would need to amend the structure of BCO 58-5. Now, if churches don't follow the BCO here, that's a different matter. The Presbytery has responsibility to review the records of church Sessions, redress whatever they may have done contrary to order and take effectual care that they observe the Constitution of the Church. (BCO 13-9b).


----------



## J. Dean (Feb 21, 2012)

Alright, I know I'm going to have to say five "Hail Calvins" for this  but what is Intinction?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 21, 2012)

Intinction is the practice during the Lord's Supper, where in the partaking of the elements, one takes the bread and dips it into the cup filled with wine and then sticks the bread (after dipping) in their mouth consuming it (that is the informal description so you understand all the actions).


----------



## J. Dean (Feb 21, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Intinction is the practice during the Lord's Supper, where in the partaking of the elements, one takes the bread and dips it into the cup filled with wine and then sticks the bread (after dipping) in their mouth consuming it (that is the informal description so you understand all the actions).



Seems like a minor detail to worry about.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 21, 2012)

Perhaps minor if we don't care about what Christ told us to do, or Paul's view of what Christ told us to do.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Feb 21, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Intinction is the practice during the Lord's Supper, where in the partaking of the elements, one takes the bread and dips it into the cup filled with wine and then sticks the bread (after dipping) in their mouth consuming it (that is the informal description so you understand all the actions).
> ...


Why do it differently than Christ did?


----------



## J. Dean (Feb 21, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Perhaps minor if we don't care about what Christ told us to do, or Paul's view of what Christ told us to do.


Sorry. Just seems like theological nitpicking to worry about whether or not the elements happen to contact each other prior to entering the mouth.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 21, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps minor if we don't care about what Christ told us to do, or Paul's view of what Christ told us to do.
> ...



I definitely don't want to argue for something that I have no idea about, so I won't even "thumbs up" this post to show support, but I do want to add a question to it: WHY is it important that we eat then drink? I've no experience with intinction, but my uninformed head does not recognize any reason why it would be a sin to do it that way. Which is where you all come in...

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

Nevermind...reading this was helpful.


Romans922 said:


> I defend why intinction is out of accord with Scripture.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 21, 2012)

I would also remind people of this excellent article by Rev. Barnes that explains some of the scriptural issues involved. I know it was previously linked here, but it may have been overlooked by some reading this thread.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 22, 2012)

Wayne,

I am speaking only from the perspective of a member of a presbytery that is made up of a few former RP, BP,and RPC-ES congregations. 

My comment was only meant to point out to those in the "Southern Synod" of the PCA that we have in our church those that practiced Intinction prior the joining and receiving and that the practice was not considered by either side to be an issue that required a change of practice. Neither has it been an issue until very recently.

I have done no research as to its prevalence. however I have been told that in some churches did practice it, and that as one retired TE said "we did know that anyone thought it was a big deal".


----------



## Wayne (Feb 22, 2012)

Kevin:

It's my job to search out the history of things, and I've never seen or heard of the practice among the BP, RP or RPC,ES. 
(here I'll have to admit I haven't even had time to slow down to read the Ohio Presbytery report, which I understand opens
with an historical section)

I'll admit there was a element among the RPC,ES that was prone to innovation and exploration, and those men might have 
picked up the practice in a few locations, but I would be highly skeptical of it having ever been practiced among the RP, General Synod 
or BPC churches. The pre-1965 ecclesiastical setting among fundamentalist churches was simply far too traditional for something like that.

Without denying what you are saying, my suspicion is that any such practice among the churches up there began somewhere in the 1970s.

(Here's where I wish I had the staffing here to commit to digitizing the Presbyterian Journal. If the subject had come up, it probably would
have been discussed on that magazine.)


----------



## KMK (Feb 22, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Sorry. Just seems like theological nitpicking to worry about whether or not the elements happen to contact each other prior to entering the mouth.



The issue is not over whether the elements 'happen' to come into contact, but whether the 'purposeful' mingling of the two is instituted in the Word of God. 'Theological nitpicking' is at the very heart of the Reformation.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 22, 2012)

> Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> DIRECTORY FOR WORSHIP 58-1
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 22, 2012)

To be clear Wayne, the oldest congregations here were of the more "fundy" type and I don't know what their practices were. I have heard some of the guys that came in with the J&R cite the practice as being part of the "culture", of at least some, in RPC-ES.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Feb 23, 2012)

Unfortunately, I'm somewhat of a germaphobe. So, on that basis alone, I would not take part in this practice. (Although, I did do it once when visiting a church, because I didn't know what I was about to do.)
It is a very unsanitary practice. I don't know why anyone would agree to something like this.

(I would disagree with it on a biblical basis as well, but others have done a good job already in that regard.)


----------



## KMK (Feb 23, 2012)

Kevin said:


> I have heard some of the guys that came in with the J&R cite the practice as being part of the "culture"



Which guys?


----------



## Scottish Lass (Feb 23, 2012)

Pilgrim72 said:


> Unfortunately, I'm somewhat of a germaphobe. So, on that basis alone, I would not take part in this practice. (Although, I did do it once when visiting a church, because I didn't know what I was about to do.)
> It is a very unsanitary practice. I don't know why anyone would agree to something like this.
> 
> (I would disagree with it on a biblical basis as well, but others have done a good job already in that regard.)



So you would disagree with a common cup, too?


----------



## py3ak (Feb 23, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Wayne,
> 
> I am speaking only from the perspective of a member of a presbytery that is made up of a few former RP, BP,and RPC-ES congregations.
> 
> ...



It seems quite possible according to this account:
1. That the practice was minimal and not publicly encouraged or even reported on;
2. That no one mentioned it due to, on the one hand, an assumption that of course it wasn't happening, and on the other hand, ignorance about it being a problem.
Which would seem to mean that no conclusion regarding its acceptance could be drawn from this hearsay testimony.


----------



## thbslawson (Feb 23, 2012)

Not necessarily defending intinction, but why are certain other practices of communion in Reformed churches not also seen as being out of accord with Scripture? For instance, using grape juice instead of wine, using multiple cups instead of one, or using precut little cracker-like bread bites, rather than one large pieces that is broken. I could see where possibly using grape juice could perhaps be defended, but there was a picture of unity given when Christ gave one cup, and broke pieces from one loaf of bread. How is it that these practices are not out of accord and intinction is?


----------



## J. Dean (Feb 23, 2012)

I actually like the breaking from a common loaf. Not only is it more symbolic of unity, but frankly it just tastes better than those little styrofoam excuses for food!


----------



## SRoper (Feb 23, 2012)

thbslawson said:


> Not necessarily defending intinction, but why are certain other practices of communion in Reformed churches not also seen as being out of accord with Scripture? For instance, using grape juice instead of wine, using multiple cups instead of one, or using precut little cracker-like bread bites, rather than one large pieces that is broken. I could see where possibly using grape juice could perhaps be defended, but there was a picture of unity given when Christ gave one cup, and broke pieces from one loaf of bread. How is it that these practices are not out of accord and intinction is?



I support using wine, drinking from a common cup, and breaking from a common loaf of bread (although of these practices, I think wine is the only thing strictly required). I think Rae was right to bring this up in the minority report, and Andrew, in his article, was only partially right in saying it was a distraction. Yes, it is not the issue at hand, but it seems that Andrew's position would cut against practices that are widespread in the PCA.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 23, 2012)

Ruben, my purpose in even mentioning it was that I have heard (here and elsewhere) PCA members say "I never heard of it in my church/presbytery, it must have just started".


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 23, 2012)

SRoper said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessarily defending intinction, but why are certain other practices of communion in Reformed churches not also seen as being out of accord with Scripture? For instance, using grape juice instead of wine, using multiple cups instead of one, or using precut little cracker-like bread bites, rather than one large pieces that is broken. I could see where possibly using grape juice could perhaps be defended, but there was a picture of unity given when Christ gave one cup, and broke pieces from one loaf of bread. How is it that these practices are not out of accord and intinction is?
> ...



To clarify my position, I believe we need to study more about the one cup, one loaf, issue of wine, and feast meal. But we need to take all of these issues by themselves. 

*Also, in any of these things if Jesus is commanding us to do something, then germs (or the possibility of 'catching' germs) can't stop us from obeying. The question would then be "Do I obey God or man (my own germiphobia which has been heightened in the last 20 years because of other germiphobes which has killed my immune system so I'd rather think upon gross things and what diseases I could contract than the great blessing of obeying the Lord in all things)?"*

* = stepping on/off soapbox


----------



## py3ak (Feb 23, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Ruben, my purpose in even mentioning it was that I have heard (here and elsewhere) PCA members say "I never heard of it in my church/presbytery, it must have just started".




Of course, Kevin: my point was merely that your evidence on the matter hardly showed that the PCA consciously decided to receive known intinctionists and refused to speak against them.


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 23, 2012)

Rev. Andrew Barnes,

Did Mr. Whitlock give any examples of "Intinction" from Reformed Churches during the 16th and 17th century?


----------



## thbslawson (Feb 23, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> *Also, in any of these things if Jesus is commanding us to do something, then germs (or the possibility of 'catching' germs) can't stop us from obeying. The question would then be "Do I obey God or man (my own germiphobia which has been heightened in the last 20 years because of other germiphobes which has killed my immune system so I'd rather think upon gross things and what diseases I could contract than the great blessing of obeying the Lord in all things)?"*
> * = stepping on/off soapbox



Interesting, most of the churches we worked with while in Russia observed common cup, common loaf communion. I remember distinctly being with a small congregation that met in a house where about 15 mostly elderly congregants coughed and wheezed the entire service. I have to confess, I was looking with dread and suspicion upon the single cup of grape juice that I knew was about to be passed around. In some of the rural parts of Russia tuberculosis is a real problem. When it came time to take the cup the pastor actually gave it to me first! Thinking I had dodged a bullet, the cup was passed around to everyone, then the pastor looked at me, handed me the cup, still half-full and said "please finish this brother," which I did. I never got sick in the least. While telling this story to another missionary who had served in Russia a long time he testified to similar experiences. He commented to me "If the Lord intends to kill you through communion there's nothing you can do to stop it." To be sure though, I do get an annual TB test, and have always tested negative =).

All that to say, I agree that perhaps all of these issues (one cup, one loaf, using wine) need to be reviewed in light of the intinction issue being brought to the surface. I've only visited one PCA church once where intinction was practiced. I was unfamiliar with, but at the time didn't necessarily see a problem. I don't know enough yet about the issue to definitively say where I stand, still working on that. But what did strike me as interesting was that they actually did use a common cup, a common loaf, and real wine, which I considered to be more consistent with Scripture. Not understanding the intinction controversy, dipping the bread seemed circumstantial to me, perhaps not wanting 250 people to drink from the same cup. I don't know what their motives were, and haven't had a chance to ask since.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 23, 2012)

SolaGratia said:


> Rev. Andrew Barnes,
> 
> Did Mr. Whitlock give any examples of "Intinction" from Reformed Churches during the 16th and 17th century?



Gil, 

I believe he merely stated of the Ohio Presbytery's report on intinction, "that intinction was practiced in some early Reformed churches". 

Yet I don't see that in the actual report. Rae doesn't give specific examples.

As I look at the committee report, I see the following quote, 



> "In a study by the Dutch scholar, W.F. Dankbaar, "Communion Practices in the Century of the Reformation" (Communiegebruiken in de eeuw der Reformatie), Dankbaar does “a precise and detailed study of how each congregation and refugee congregation celebrated the Lord's Supper, which indicates that not one of these congregations that he studied practiced intinction.”"




The second quote starts out referring to the wine being re-given to the communicants after Roman Catholicism's withholding it, 



> "By the time of the Protestant Reformation, when communion under both kinds was reinstituted, the command to have both bread and wine was a gift to the communicants. The idea that some may have preferred to intinct, having been recently admitted to freely, by faith, feed on Christ, and passed the privilege to drink, seems highly unlikely. They had been withheld the privilege of drinking from the cup of the Lord, but communicants could now freely feed upon Christ completely. Thus the practice of intinction was not generally practiced in the Reformed churches."



However, I don't see any specific examples given by Mr. Whitlock or the committee on churches that practiced intinction during this time. Rae, could correct me, I just don't see it in the articles (I may have glanced over it).


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 23, 2012)

Thank you Rev. Barnes.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Feb 23, 2012)

Scottish Lass said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Pilgrim72 View Post
> Unfortunately, I'm somewhat of a germaphobe. So, on that basis alone, I would not take part in this practice. (Although, I did do it once when visiting a church, because I didn't know what I was about to do.)
> It is a very unsanitary practice. I don't know why anyone would agree to something like this.
> 
> ...



Oh yeah. I would definitely not drink from a common cup. I don't even like the common loaf of bread... with everyone grabbing, pinching and manhandling it. I prefer it to be precut by someone unknown and unseen.  What I don't know can't hurt me...


----------



## Kevin (Feb 23, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> > Ruben, my purpose in even mentioning it was that I have heard (here and elsewhere) PCA members say "I never heard of it in my church/presbytery, it must have just started".
> ...



Right.

Had I wanted to make that point I would have referred to the practice of our church celebrating the Lord's Supper at General Assembly.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 23, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Right.
> 
> Had I wanted to make that point I would have referred to the practice of our church celebrating the Lord's Supper at General Assembly.



And that is a good example of usable evidence: publicly available, subject to confirmation, and documented.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 24, 2012)

There was actually a study to determine the increased risk of disease transmission from using a common cup. The conclusion was that communicant members of the congregation were no more likely to get sick than non-communicant attenders. Other experts have opined that you are far more likely to get sick from eating bread that others have touched than from drinking wine from a common cup.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 24, 2012)

Kevin said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin said:
> ...



And, in fairness, that one off experience, it only happened once, set off a firestorm of debate, and division the likes of which the denomination had never experienced over the Lord's Supper.

It provoked an overture that was not adopted. (Does anyone know the history of how that overture was dealt with procedurally at General Assembly)?

But the invention has not since been repeated.


----------



## Andres (Feb 24, 2012)

Pilgrim72 said:


> Oh yeah. I would definitely not drink from a common cup. I don't even like the common loaf of bread... with everyone grabbing, pinching and manhandling it. I prefer it to be precut by someone unknown and unseen. What I don't know can't hurt me...


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Feb 24, 2012)

SRoper said:


> There was actually a study to determine the increased risk of disease transmission from using a common cup. The conclusion was that communicant members of the congregation were no more likely to get sick than non-communicant attenders. Other experts have opined that you are far more likely to get sick from eating bread that others have touched than from drinking wine from a common cup.



Probably true. But I still don't want to do it. Just the thought of the wine touching everyone's mouths, and then you're up next... Not sure I could bring myself to do it.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 24, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



Good points, Scott. While it is useful evidence, it seems to primarily show that surprised people sometimes go along with an innovation.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> (Does anyone know the history of how that overture was dealt with procedurally at General Assembly)?



GA Minutes state the grounds for their turning down the overture: "Directions concerning administration of the Lord’s Supper at future General Assemblies should be addressed through changes to the Rules of Assembly Operations. Moreover, the administration of the Lord’s Supper is adequately governed by the Scriptures and the Book of Church Order."

---------- Post added at 10:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 AM ----------




Pilgrim72 said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > There was actually a study to determine the increased risk of disease transmission from using a common cup. The conclusion was that communicant members of the congregation were no more likely to get sick than non-communicant attenders. Other experts have opined that you are far more likely to get sick from eating bread that others have touched than from drinking wine from a common cup.
> ...



I would like to add a reminder to you Alex. I already said it above, and so you need to address something far more important than germs. Is the one cup what is called for by Jesus?

Here is what I stated above, 



> *Also, in any of these things if Jesus is commanding us to do something, then germs (or the possibility of 'catching' germs) can't stop us from obeying. The question would then be *"Do I obey God or man* (my own germiphobia which has been heightened in the last 20 years because of other germiphobes which has killed my immune system so I'd rather think upon gross things and what diseases I could contract than the great blessing of obeying the Lord in all things)?"*
> 
> * = stepping on/off soapbox


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 24, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
> (Does anyone know the history of how that overture was dealt with procedurally at General Assembly)?
> GA Minutes state the grounds for their turning down the overture: "Directions concerning administration of the Lord’s Supper at future General Assemblies should be addressed through changes to the Rules of Assembly Operations. Moreover, the administration of the Lord’s Supper is adequately governed by the Scriptures and the Book of Church Order."



So, the invention was not addressed at all in that context. It did not affirm or deny the practice of that one time occurrence. 

Since the Book of Church Order is explicit, adopted on constitutional authority, with a general prescribed liturgy on this as to separate distribution and reflection on the elements, what is the mechanism for discipline?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
> ...



Scott, 

They did address it as much as they could. The overture did not seek to change RAO or BCO. The GA can't condemn a past practice (like file a complaint or anything). They can only change the rules for future. So the grounds state that if anything is to be done it must come as an overture to change the RAO or BCO (that has happened this year with Savannah River's overture to change BCO 58). So they addressed it as much as they could, and stated that the BCO and Scripture is clear (it is adequate).

Those who practice intinction would say the BCO is not explicit... (I believe, I'm willing to be correct obviously).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 24, 2012)

If a common cup is required, how is not a table and table posture, as originally argued by the Scots commissioners to the Westminster Assmbly (contra the Independents who partook sitting in the pews), and practiced by Presbyterians well into the mid 19th century and still is in some corners of Presbyterianism? How does one answer the retort, against any seemingly too strict application of the institution, that "well, then, are we required to partake only at night, in an upper room", etc.?

I think we need a well crafted thread topic to afford discussing what in the institution of the Lord's supper is circumstantial that we need not follow (e.g. partaking at night), what is circumstantial that we should follow (e.g. table posture, common cup), what is essentially prescribed to have the supper at all (the elements and actions). Gillespie in discussing things supposedly indifferent in nature, gives a general rule in his English Popish Ceremonies, that _we are bound to imitate Christ, and the __commendable example of his apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us_. Is that sufficient to apply and determine the legitimacy of every conceivable addition/subtraction from the observance of the Lord's supper?


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Feb 24, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> I would like to add a reminder to you Alex. I already said it above, and so you need to address something far more important than germs. Is the one cup what is called for by Jesus?



I don't think God is asking me to commit unsanitary acts -- ie. common cup/loaf. I think others have given plenty of good biblical reasons not to do this. I'm just adding my own personal reasons not to.
I would also like to add that this is an area that I take into consideration when choosing a church as well.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 24, 2012)

*If we've beaten intinction to death, take the other issues like common cup to new threads; and if anyone is game to take the challenge of crafting a general thread as I proposed; have at it. 

*Apparently we have. Closed.


----------

