# Intinction: Issue of Elemental Action or Elemental Distribution?



## Romans922 (Nov 8, 2012)

In the PCA there have been many a conversation lately on intinction, and some study committees within presbytery's including my own. 

My question is concerning the practice of intinction: Is practicing intinction an issue of elemental action or elemental distribution?

In other words, is this a 'conversation'/debate over how we distribute the elements or is this about the actions Christ commands of us in the institution of the LS (does this fall under WLC 174?), 

"A. It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance, *diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions*, heedfully discern the Lord’s body, and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints."


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 9, 2012)

Any takers?


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 9, 2012)

It is an issue of sacramental actions, as I understand it. Christ presented each element separately, showing the separation of His body from His blood. All of the OT sacrifices required a draining (separation) of blood from the sacrifice. To dip body in the blood undoes the symbolism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 9, 2012)

Andrew,

I don't understand the question you're asking. I'm not sure the key problem with intinction has to do with the distinction between action and distribution.

From WCF 28 on Sacraments:



> I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.
> 
> II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that *the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.*



In other words, there is a Sacramental union between what is signified and what the grace that is spiritually present so that, even as the sign raises the senses to something, it may be said that it is "really" given spiritually to the believer.

It is not insignificant in the Words that our Savior used, He actually calls to mind two different spiritual realities for bread and wine:


> 26*Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.





> 27*And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28*for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.



That is to say that the Savior Himself states that eating the Bread raises our awareness of His body as we are feeding and He purposefully notes that the wine is to raise our awareness of the blood of the Covenant.

Now, if we confess that, for worthy recipients, the Sacraments not only signify what they "speak" but also are spiritually present to the believer then we may conclude that each action is not merely intended for some bare ritualistic purpose that may be modified as we see fit but that in conflating the signs we are actually muting the speech that the Lord would give to us in each and that we ought to be deliberately raising our awareness during eating to Christ's Body and drinking to the Blood of the Covenant and be confident that each is occurring "really" by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Intinction, first and foremost, impoverishes the recipient because it denies to the Christian what Christ has ordained for their spiritual nourishment as each is intended to communicate something distinctive for their benefit.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 9, 2012)

Rich, 

My question stems from reading those who are pro-intinction and their focus consistently (at least what I've read so far) is on distribution of the elements instead of the elemental actions (eat and drink).

So I am wondering if I am missing something so as to be fair to those who are pro-intinction. Does that set a better context for my question?


----------



## MW (Nov 9, 2012)

Do advocates for intinction try to make it a matter of distribution and thereby turn it into a circumstance subject to Christian prudence?

Out of curiosity, Do those who advocate intinction also, in the main, support or practice weekly communion?


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 9, 2012)

Matthew, 

As to your first question, that is what I have seen.

As to your second question, some may, but not necessarily so. [Not for sure]


----------



## MW (Nov 9, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> As to your first question, that is what I have seen.



In that case I would bring attention back to the word of institution in 1 Corinthians 11, where "this do" includes the distribution for each element individually. There "distribution" is intricately tied to the sacramental action. So one would have to act contrary to the specific word of institution and command, which simply is not prudent.

Also, if one goes back to chapter 10, it is obvious that the apostle establishes a parallel with the "fathers" in the wilderness in order to warn against apostasy. The parallel external privileges included "meat" and "drink" as two distinct elements and actions.


----------

