# Krispy Kreme Kommunion?



## DMcFadden (Mar 6, 2016)

So wrong on so many levels! This was done by a friend of mine in a Baptist church.





Getting beyond the sacrilege, it gives a whole new meaning to the term "this is my body" when you wear it around your waist for the next umpteen months!


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 6, 2016)

What wine pairs best with KK, I wonder...


----------



## Edward (Mar 6, 2016)

Parakaleo said:


> What wine pairs best with KK, I wonder.



Crisp white? 

Look at the positive side. At least you don't have to worry about intinction. No way the donut would fit into one of those thimble cups.


----------



## Andres (Mar 6, 2016)

Just curious, Dennis...what was your friend's reasoning for doing this?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 6, 2016)

Alliterating Communion, probably not a good idea.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 6, 2016)

The cutesy alliteration was my description. I thought it befit the offense. The man is a friend from CA days. But, youth pastors are famous for doing "creative communion" things such as potato chips and coca cola.


----------



## Andres (Mar 6, 2016)

DMcFadden said:


> The cutesy alliteration was my description. I thought it befit the offense. The man is a friend from CA days. But, youth pastors are famous for doing "creative communion" things such as potato chips and coca cola.



Many years ago I unfortunately participated in some of those Dr Pepper and Dorito "communion" services with the youth group. Any time anyone mentions the word "creative" in relation to worship, Word, and/or sacraments, I know recognize it as an alarm to abandon ship.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 6, 2016)

DMcFadden said:


> So wrong on so many levels! This was done by a friend of mine in a Baptist church.
> 
> View attachment 4445
> 
> Getting beyond the sacrilege, it gives a whole new meaning to the term "this is my body" when you wear it around your waist for the next umpteen months!



KK donuts are nasty anyway.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 6, 2016)

is this any worse than using grape juice instead of wine?

A donut is bread, after all?


----------



## johnny (Mar 7, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> is this any worse than using grape juice instead of wine?
> 
> A donut is bread, after all?



Thats a good question,

And even though I know that, I still find it offensive and dangerous, 
It scares me to make light of Gods Sacraments in any sense.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 7, 2016)

johnny said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > is this any worse than using grape juice instead of wine?
> ...



Isn't grape juice then equally offensive and dangerous?


----------



## johnny (Mar 7, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I would like to say yes, I think it is.
But my theology hasn't quite caught up with my application.

Our new Church had communion yesterday, we used one shared wine glass, and real wine.
In our previous church we had grape juice and little communion glasses.

We have only been in this new church since xmas, so I haven't formed any strong opinions on this yet.
I am happy that we are observing the scriptural mandates for communion as closely as possible.
Although I do not notice much difference in the act itself, it is still solemn and considered.


----------



## Andres (Mar 7, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> is this any worse than using grape juice instead of wine?
> 
> A donut is bread, after all?



I'm an opponent of grape juice in the Lord's Supper, however I do think the doughnut is worse. It seems far more distracting and seems to be done with the intent of being "creative" as Dennis mentioned. Again, while I do think they err, those who select grape juice for the Lord's Supper generally have reasons beyond wanting to purposefully be "creative" and edgy.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 7, 2016)

Andres said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > is this any worse than using grape juice instead of wine?
> ...



I would agree that the trouble with the doughnut is the intention behind it. While we could argue that grape juice is not proper, I do think that a good argument could at least me made for it as it pertains to children and people with alcohol issues. I can see absolutely no good argument for doughnuts and Dr. Pepper.


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 7, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



It seems to, in all of this, like the 60's movement in the U.S., it is a rebellion against everything that was. If they used wine, we'll use grape juice. If they insist on bread, we'll go to Krispy Kreme's. If they insist on a piano or acapella, we'll bring out the Les Paul.....all because we can.


----------



## Edward (Mar 7, 2016)

Gforce9 said:


> it is a rebellion against everything that was. If they used wine, we'll use grape juice.



I do believe that you have wrongly maligned the motives of those who use grape juice, and I call upon you to repent. 

And for that matter, those who use instruments.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Mar 7, 2016)

I can sort of see a justification for the use of "grape juice," although I think its forced, and do not agree. I can't personally see any justification for "donuts." That just smacks (pun intended) of a publicity stunt. your mileage may vary.


----------



## Edm (Mar 7, 2016)

One could make the case that grape juice is just young wine. Not so for a donut.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 7, 2016)

So if all you had available was a donut and your motive wasn't just to be creative, but that you had to use what you had available - would that be okay? After all, if you chop a donut up into little pieces it just looks like bread and wouldn't be creative at all (just a little sweeter).

And, donuts are often fluffy....must we use unleavened bread as well if we want the elements as close to the originals as possible?

If we are okay to stray a bit from the elements, then - in a pinch - we may use a close variant if available, right? If we assume that the intent is good (it is not a publicity stunt but just due to a shortage of other breads), what other reasons are there for denying the donut its day?

If we use grape juice because wine is unavailable, why not a donut because another form of bread is unavailable? The difference between a fermented juice and an unfermented juice seems a greater distance than a different type of bread, after all.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 7, 2016)

The scriptures call for every day bread, correct? not cake or sweetbreads. I mean, cake is not bread. A doughnut isn't even baked.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 7, 2016)

The Catholics put a lot of detail in delineating what the bread must be made of and what kind of wine may be used:



> The Catechism teaches that “the essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine” (Catechism, no. 1412). The Council of Florence (1438-45) taught:
> 
> We have likewise defined that the body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened or wheaten bread; and that priests ought to effect the body of our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether that of the West or of the East.[4]
> 
> ...



http://www.cuf.org/2005/02/invalid-masses/

This level of detail among the Catholics seems logical if the sacrament is partly what saves you. But if the real presence is not found in the elements but they are used for their symbolic use, then it appears okay to deviate a bit as long as the symbol is upheld.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 7, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The scriptures call for every day bread, correct? not cake or sweetbreads. I mean, cake is not bread. A doughnut isn't even baked.



A donut is fried bread.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 7, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > The scriptures call for every day bread, correct? not cake or sweetbreads. I mean, cake is not bread. A doughnut isn't even baked.
> ...



A specific bread recipe for the Lord's Supper doesn't seem to be given, unless it is assumed we are to follow the Passover as closely as possible.

The Scriptures (the KJV at least) speaks of "meat" in a general sense as food (even when such "meat" is not just meat). _My meat is to do the will of him that sent me_. John.4.

So my question is: is it assumed that we must follow, as closely as possible, the pattern given us in the Passover meal since only scant details are given elsewhere in the New Testament about the specific ingredients and way of preparation of the bread and wine?


----------



## Edm (Mar 7, 2016)

I don't think God will damn someone for using a donut. That said..what is the purpose of using the donut? In this case it is obviously to gain attention. Good grief, they even left them in the box advertising where they came from. I see a relation to working on the Sabbath. There are examples given as to when it is ok. If a donut was all that there was in the world, use it. It is the intent. If your sheep falls into a pit on the sabbath, get it out. But that's different than trying to find some stuck sheep so you Can justify working. Are they using a donut to glorify God or to make a cute picture?


----------



## BGF (Mar 7, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> So if all you had available was a donut and your motive wasn't just to be creative, but that you had to use what you had available - would that be okay? After all, if you chop a donut up into little pieces it just looks like bread and wouldn't be creative at all (just a little sweeter).
> 
> And, donuts are often fluffy....must we use unleavened bread as well if we want the elements as close to the originals as possible?
> 
> ...



I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario in which you can get a donut but not bread. Bread is such a basic staple in any society with a few simple ingredients. You don't really need more then heat and a flat surface in order to bake it.


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 7, 2016)

Edward said:


> Gforce9 said:
> 
> 
> > it is a rebellion against everything that was. If they used wine, we'll use grape juice.
> ...



Edward,
Repentance isn't required, I don't think, but an apology is in order. My thought and my response were not in sync when I hit "Post". To Edward and anyone else who I have offended, I apologize. What I should have said more clearly is that that there is an anti-traditional sentiment out there that sometimes manifests itself in the ways described above. I think we would agree on that. Also, that because one or more of those things are present doesn't necessarily mean that liberalism has taken them over. I think motive is important here and that is not so easily discerned.


----------



## Edward (Mar 7, 2016)

Gforce9 said:


> Edward,
> Repentance isn't required, I don't think, but an apology is in order. My thought and my response were not in sync when I hit "Post". To Edward and anyone else who I have offended, I apologize. What I should have said more clearly is that that there is an anti-traditional sentiment out there that sometimes manifests itself in the ways described above. I think we would agree on that. Also, that because one or more of those things are present doesn't necessarily mean that liberalism has taken them over. I think motive is important here and that is not so easily discerned.



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 7, 2016)

In the jungle where I normally live we have a few believers. We have no access to wine or sometimes bread (yes, we have run out of bread at times). We have used a variety of substitutes for wine and bread. Crackers, Cookies, even sweet potato when lacking flour entirely and juice or even a smashed up fruit in water when lacking grape juice.

Is it a greater value to have the exact elements or to take the Lord's Supper? Or is it worse to use a cookie or donut or yam or to not take the Supper entirely? Or, how far may the elements vary before it is no longer the Lord's Supper? Or does our proper worship depend upon importing items from 500 miles away? 

This is why I am so interested in this thread. We have been faced with the scenario and were not merely being creative but were using what was available when we have varied the elements. I believe Jesus' purpose in using bread and wine was that these were commonly found items in most parts of the world. But, in the absence of these common elements, what do we do?


----------



## BGF (Mar 7, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> In the jungle where I normally live we have a few believers. We have no access to wine or sometimes bread (yes, we have run out of bread at times). We have used a variety of substitutes for wine and bread. Crackers, Cookies, even sweet potato when lacking flour entirely and juice or even a smashed up fruit in water when lacking grape juice.
> 
> Is it a greater value to have the exact elements or to take the Lord's Supper? Or is it worse to use a cookie or donut or yam or to not take the Supper entirely? Or, how far may the elements vary before it is no longer the Lord's Supper? Or does our proper worship depend upon importing items from 500 miles away?
> 
> This is why I am so interested in this thread. We have been faced with the scenario and were not merely being creative but were using what was available when we have varied the elements. I believe Jesus' purpose in using bread and wine was that these were commonly found items in most parts of the world. But, in the absence of these common elements, what do we do?



No easy answer for that one. My post only considered bread vs. donuts. I wonder how frequency figures into this question? What would it look like if you were to wait to observe the Supper until you have the elements (of the traditional bread and wine)?


----------



## StephenG (Mar 7, 2016)

A doughnut is fried _dough_, not necessarily bread. Seeing as the definition of bread almost always requires it to be baked, can we say definitively that this was _not_ the Supper? Or is it simply a desecration/deviation from the usual form?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 7, 2016)

Here is what the Anglicans did when they could not get the elements just right:



> The first missionaries walked	across what is now Tanzania and were then paddled across Lake Victoria.
> 
> They	had	all	their	provisions	carried for	them. In 1877	CMS	missionaries	arrived	in
> Buganda.	In	1895	Bishop	Tucker	arrived.5 He	soon	realized	that	the	provision	of	communion
> ...


http://www.cuf.org/2005/02/invalid-masses/


----------



## Edward (Mar 7, 2016)

StephenG said:


> Seeing as the definition of bread almost always requires it to be baked,



Fry bread recipes

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/6880/fry-bread-i/
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/indian-fry-bread-recipe.html

The French law on bread just says 'cooked'
http://www.cooksinfo.com/french-bread-law-1993


----------



## Jack K (Mar 7, 2016)

I say that if we were with Pergamum in the jungle and had no standard bread, we should be thankful for donuts if we had those and would do well to use them. This is a far different act than bringing them in as a non-traditional gimmick.

Must we attempt as nearly as possible to replicate the type of bread and cup that we suppose were served when Christ instituted the Supper? I see nowhere in Scripture where this is either commanded or shown us by example. This means either unleavened bread or leavened bread may be used. And it means arguments in favor of either wine or unfermented juice will be stronger if they avoid appeals to what was consumed at the Last Supper. "Bread" and "cup" are fairly broad categories in the world of food and drink. Scripture narrows both terms somewhat when you look at how they are used in redemptive history. But we're still left with a substantial range of possibilities—enough that we ought to be slow to criticize those who seek to celebrate the Supper in the right spirit.


----------



## johnny (Mar 7, 2016)

I was going to suggest that KK's would be hard to aquire in Africa but I may be mistaken.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/23/news/companies/africa-starbucks-krispy-kreme-hm-dunkin-donuts/


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 7, 2016)

As others have noted, I don't think there is anything prescriptive about the type of bread or wine.

The issue with gimmicks is, to me, that they are irreverent. Sacrements are intended to communicate something higher than theselves. As we participate our senses are to be lifted upward to the fellowship we have with Christ and they proclaim His death and resurrection until He comes again. The worshiper is to look, in faith, to beyond the bread and wine as they are a foretaste of heavenly things.

What's wrong with a Krispy Kreme box? It's the same thing that's wrong if a minister wore a clown nose and big squeaky shoes while preaching the Gospel. He is Chrsist's minister and this is Christ's Table. We're in the presence of the living God and He's not to be trifled with.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 7, 2016)

Now, after stirring up the Net, he sheepishly admitted to me that the pic was staged for effect. 



> See Dennis... you can get a conversation going, you just have to be creative...


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 7, 2016)

Are we to use bread and wine only? Yes

This goes along with the regulative principle. Where in the world does scripture allow us to alter any portion of any element? No where. So to ask the question if bread and wine should only be used is to misunderstand what is clearly commanded in scripture. 



> WCF 21.5
> 
> the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments *instituted by Christ*



Where did Christ institute juice?




> Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
> 
> A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the *receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his Word*; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline;the ministry and maintainance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God; and vowing unto him; as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 9, 2016)

I'd say it's not a matter of prescription or proscription of the kind of bread. We must be careful to not construct our own laws around these things as the Jews have done. Bread can be fried. (English muffins and crumpets are fried, for instance.) I suppose that, for lack of any other kind of bread, it would not be sinful to serve cake. But I can't really imagine a situation in which you could have cake, but no bread.

(Others have mentioned the possibility of not having grape wine in a given culture, but I think that might be another topic altogether.)

The problem with Krispy Kreme Kommunion is that it is irreverent. The Lord's table is not something to play with. Reformed churches hold that the sign is more than a symbol, do they not? It seems to me that to show some reverence would follow.

That makes me wonder, what kind of church was this done in? Perhaps there is an influence here of broad evangelicalism, which, from what I've known, doesn't really offer much explanation of WHY we have communion.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 10, 2016)

I also would add that using cake or anything other then common bread is against the RPW. They had cakes in the first century. However, cake was not used for the Lord's Supper. Bread was used. The Greeks use to offer moon shaped cakes to the god artemis. 

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## JP Wallace (Mar 10, 2016)

I think there is no excuse for using anything other than simple bread (of some kind) and fruit of the vine/wine if such is available. I do not think that bread and wine were chosen by Christ merely because they were conveniently available, sacraments are surely not chosen by convenience? Rather I believe the main symbolism of the "wine" must be that it resembles the blood of Christ with redness. Thus whatever is used perhaps in a missionary situation ought to be red. How can the minister take the cup and quote our Lord in saying "this cup is the new covenant in my blood" if that which the cup contains is green, or clear, or yellow or whatever? The bread is more problematic in terms of symbology - and there may be a greater degree of scope with it in extremis - was bread chosen because it was the main life-giving "staple"?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 10, 2016)

I have been following this thread and to be honest, I have refrained from getting involved. I find it hard to believe that anyone would see this calamity as acceptable when we consider what the sacrament means and conveys to God's people. It makes a mockery out of the supper. -rant over

If anyone is interested or extremely bored, I have a few excellent articles on my website on the subject. 

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/new-wine-a-jewish…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2014/12/wine-and-the-talmud/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/wine-or-grape-juice/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/the-bible-and…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/12/the-supper-is-sinful/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2014/11/fruit-of-the-vine/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/the-weak-and-the…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/stumbling-a-brother…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/the-lords-supper/3980-2/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/the-temperance…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/…/the-regulative…/

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/04/new-wine-a-jewish-perspective/


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 10, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> In the jungle where I normally live we have a few believers. We have no access to wine or sometimes bread (yes, we have run out of bread at times). We have used a variety of substitutes for wine and bread. Crackers, Cookies, even sweet potato when lacking flour entirely and juice or even a smashed up fruit in water when lacking grape juice.
> 
> Is it a greater value to have the exact elements or to take the Lord's Supper? Or is it worse to use a cookie or donut or yam or to not take the Supper entirely? Or, how far may the elements vary before it is no longer the Lord's Supper? Or does our proper worship depend upon importing items from 500 miles away?
> 
> This is why I am so interested in this thread. We have been faced with the scenario and were not merely being creative but were using what was available when we have varied the elements. I believe Jesus' purpose in using bread and wine was that these were commonly found items in most parts of the world. But, in the absence of these common elements, what do we do?





> “When somebody inquired whether, when a sick person wished to have the sacrament but could not tolerate wine on account of nausea, something else should be given in place of the wine, the doctor [Martin Luther] replied, ‘This question has often been put to me and I have always given this answer: One shouldn’t use anything else than wine. If a person can’t tolerate wine, omit it [the sacrament] altogether in order that no innovation may be made or introduced.'”


— Martin Luther, “Table Talk” (Luther’s Works 54:438)


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 10, 2016)

JP Wallace said:


> I think there is no excuse for using anything other than simple bread (of some kind) and fruit of the vine/wine if such is available. I do not think that bread and wine were chosen by Christ merely because they were conveniently available, sacraments are surely not chosen by convenience? Rather I believe the main symbolism of the "wine" must be that it resembles the blood of Christ with redness. Thus whatever is used perhaps in a missionary situation ought to be red. How can the minister take the cup and quote our Lord in saying "this cup is the new covenant in my blood" if that which the cup contains is green, or clear, or yellow or whatever? The bread is more problematic in terms of symbology - and there may be a greater degree of scope with it in extremis - was bread chosen because it was the main life-giving "staple"?



So is purple grape juice or white wine thus less preferable than red Kool-aid if the color red is prioritized?

And if unleavened bread was specified in the Passover why is "bread of some kind" permissible rather than, specifically, unleavened bread?

And it does appear bread and wine were chosen, at least in part, due to their common use and availability. God did not specify eye of newt or whale blubber but things common to His ancient near east audience and, pretty much, worldwide.

If we allow any deviance from the original elements of the Passover/Lord's Supper, what are the principles which allow such deviances? The easy answer would be that NO deviance at all is allowed. And the early church councils seemed to decree such a stance. 

But if we grant that some deviance may occur...what principles are important in evaluating such a deviance? Intent? Color? Similarity in appearance? Same category of food-stuff? 

It seems (a) intent and (b) symbology are two important principles in evaluating any such deviance, even if the particular cases may be disputed.


My conclusion: The outrage expressed in the OP seemed not due to the ingredients of the donut (the fact that it was a sweet bread or a fried bread instead of a baked bread, or bread made of barley or another substance besides wheat), but the outrage seemed to be due to the intent and what the donut represented (symbology).


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 10, 2016)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I also would add that using cake or anything other then common bread is against the RPW. They had cakes in the first century. However, cake was not used for the Lord's Supper. Bread was used. The Greeks use to offer moon shaped cakes to the god artemis.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk



The New Testament Greek Lexicon defines _artos_ as “food composed of flour mixed with water and baked.” And continues, “The Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one’s thumb, and as large as a plate or platter, hence it was not to be cut but broken.”


----------



## BGF (Mar 10, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > I also would add that using cake or anything other then common bread is against the RPW. They had cakes in the first century. However, cake was not used for the Lord's Supper. Bread was used. The Greeks use to offer moon shaped cakes to the god artemis.
> ...



You're mixing word usage. Your definition of the word cake is different than Andrew's use. You can disagree, but it doesn't help the argument to use a meaning obviously not intended.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 10, 2016)

DMcFadden said:


> Now, after stirring up the Net, he sheepishly admitted to me that the pic was staged for effect.


 Ah. I hadn't read this. Feeling somewhat deceived now.


----------



## JP Wallace (Mar 11, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> So is purple grape juice or white wine thus less preferable than red Kool-aid if the color red is prioritized?



Is Kool-Aid whatever that is readily available on the remote mission fields of the world? I think in my post I was offering a certain degree of liberty and sensible margin for missionaries, but too far and you end up with something different that the Lord's Supper.

For myself I'd say you must have bread and fruit of the vine (red) and since red wine is generally not blood coloured whatever is available in that spectrum may be acceptable.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 11, 2016)

JP Wallace said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > So is purple grape juice or white wine thus less preferable than red Kool-aid if the color red is prioritized?
> ...



Yes. We have red Kool-aid. We've used that once when we had it, judging that the intent and the symbology was within acceptability and that it was a greater value to partake of the Supper than not to partake. I would have probably used donuts if unleavened bread was lacking (though cutting them up and putting them on a platter instead of whole in a commercial box).

Is it inconsistent to say that I'd be looser on this issue in some regions of the world than in the USA, since food is plenteous in the USA and there is no excuse?


----------



## Zork (Mar 12, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Wasnt wine of that time un-fermented almost like juice or very weak wine? Or just VERY strong grape juice. ;-) Dont think the wine was the same though. Wasnt the bread unleavened? 

Unleavened donuts. LOL.

Please correct me im still learning all these things. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Zork (Mar 12, 2016)

C.H. Spurgeon: “After the thanksgiving, it is very clear that our Divine Lord broke the bread. We scarcely know what kind of bread was used on that occasion; it was probably the thin passover cake of the Jews; but there is nothing said in Scripture about the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and therefore it matters not which we use. Where there is no ordinance, there is no obligation; and we are, therefore, left free to use the bread. which it is our custom to eat.”


Calvin, Institutes: “But as for the outward ceremony of the action * whether or not the believers take it in their hands, or divide it among themselves, or severally eat what has been given to each; whether they hand the cup back to the deacon or give it to the next person; whether the bread is leavened or unleavened; the wine red or white * it makes no difference. These things are indifferent, and left at the church’s discretion.


----------



## BGF (Mar 12, 2016)

As a subscriber to the WCF, I am bound, both by conviction and by vows, to the RPW. Clearly, bread and wine are the scriptural elements for the Lord's supper, all other arguments aside. Availability does not change this. within the confines of the RPW there may be disagreement on type of bread and wine, but a simple reading and common sense preclude donuts and kool aid. 

So the question remains, what if these elements are not available? May we substitute elements as we see fit? Not according to the RPW. There is no warrant in the bible to substitute man's innovations for God's prescription. One may say then, "But how are we to observe the Lord's Supper?" The simple, but hard, answer is you don't. This may seem unduly harsh, but it is the most reasonable answer to be gleaned from God's Word. Perhaps it is in God's providence that a local community may not observe the prescribed rites. When Israel was in Babylonian captivity they could not observe the temple ceremonies, despite the command to do so. Were they to try to sacrifice in an innovative manner in an attempt to please God? The question in its absurdity answers itself. No, instead they pleaded to God for restoration so that they might again praise Him in the temple



> Psalm 102:18-22
> Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD: that he looked down from his holy height; from heaven the LORD looked at the earth, to hear the groans of the prisoners, to set free those who were doomed to die, that they may declare in Zion the name of the LORD, and in Jerusalem his praise, when peoples gather together, and kingdoms, to worship the LORD.



So why has God providentially prevented the observation of the Supper in some cases? I don't know. Perhaps it is a matter for prayer for that community. Perhaps it is an opportunity for the universal Church to provide for the brothers who lack.

In any event, in a land of plenty Donuts, Doritos, Kool Aid, and Pepsi are not used for lack of elements. They are used for a lack of a fear for the holiness of God.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 12, 2016)

Why would the same pragmatic arguments that places having the Lord's Supper above having it according to biblical prescriptions not apply to the rest of the service? For example, if you lack a pastor, anyone fit may step into his place in order to have the sacrament. Why wouldn't this also apply to preaching? And if all the men are dead or gone, etc.? Where is the line drawn?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 12, 2016)

Zork said:


> C.H. Spurgeon: “After the thanksgiving, it is very clear that our Divine Lord broke the bread. We scarcely know what kind of bread was used on that occasion; it was probably the thin passover cake of the Jews; but there is nothing said in Scripture about the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and therefore it matters not which we use. Where there is no ordinance, there is no obligation; and we are, therefore, left free to use the bread. which it is our custom to eat.”
> 
> 
> Calvin, Institutes: “But as for the outward ceremony of the action * whether or not the believers take it in their hands, or divide it among themselves, or severally eat what has been given to each; whether they hand the cup back to the deacon or give it to the next person; whether the bread is leavened or unleavened; the wine red or white * it makes no difference. These things are indifferent, and left at the church’s discretion.



So these quotes seem to affirm that the intent and the symbology of the ordinance matters most.


----------



## BGF (Mar 12, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Zork said:
> 
> 
> > C.H. Spurgeon: “After the thanksgiving, it is very clear that our Divine Lord broke the bread. We scarcely know what kind of bread was used on that occasion; it was probably the thin passover cake of the Jews; but there is nothing said in Scripture about the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and therefore it matters not which we use. Where there is no ordinance, there is no obligation; and we are, therefore, left free to use the bread. which it is our custom to eat.”
> ...



No. It affirms that Spurgeon and Calvin thought that within the confines of bread and wine, there was freedom.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 12, 2016)

BGF said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Zork said:
> ...



Okay, good clarification.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 12, 2016)

This has been an interesting discussion. I thought of our Lord's words, "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." And I thought of his words, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." I find it convincing that we are to use elements everyone involved would call "bread," and also actual wine, otherwise it seems we might make a mockery of his words and what he was instituting.


----------

