# What Kind of Elements Should We Use?



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2008)

I am arguing for what we *ought* to do, if possible, not what your church does do. Or maybe it doesn't matter. Since I don't believe in transubstantiation, I do not believe that crackers and grape juice become bread and wine.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2008)

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was a chemistry question at first until I saw what forum it was in.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Jan 29, 2008)

I dont know if I would even bring it up if my church used anything other than my input (bread and Wine) as long as they used some form of bread and juice from the fruit of the vine. I would not partake if they tried using Cake and fruit punch as I have heard done in other churches. Someone please tell the people at the church I grew up in that those little pieces of paper-like crackers and grape juice was not as I was taught "The closest to what Jesus actually gave the Apostles".


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 29, 2008)

Hey don't knock the nearly universal Baptist practice. For many years I was privileged to participate in a monthly miracle: the changing of the wine into grape juice.


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 29, 2008)

I think we should use bread and wine! But, how about unleavened bread vs. leavened? And, should the wine be drank from the same cup by everyone?


----------



## Sonoftheday (Jan 29, 2008)

> Hey don't knock the nearly universal Baptist practice. For many years I was privileged to participate in a monthly miracle: the changing of the wine into grape juice.


Wow, the church you attended must have been much more concerned with the sacrements than my own. I was only able to see that miracle 3 times a year, however I was given a sunday school message over Christ's great miracle of turning water into grape juice at least once a month. 
That was when I was younger, once I grew older I got to hear about the great miracle of Christ turning water into..... water that was mixed with wine.

Something else that always confused me when I was told they drank Grape juice was how the Corinthians got drunk on grape juice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2008)

Naphtali Press » Danger of Being Over Wise


----------



## caoclan (Jan 29, 2008)

The last time I attended my former PCUSA church, they used a goldfish cracker and a grape (yes, a grape you had to chew). My wife and I did not partake and left the church later that day for our current PCA church.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Jan 29, 2008)

What is "Spiritual Food"?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 29, 2008)

caoclan said:


> The last time I attended my former PCUSA church, they used a goldfish cracker and a grape (yes, a grape you had to chew). My wife and I did not partake and left the church later that day for our current PCA church.



All kidding aside, I could care less whether the elements are unleavened bread and wine or something like unleavened bread and grape juice. My problem is with trendy substitutes such as goldfish, Oreo cookies, potato chips, coca cola, etc.


----------



## caoclan (Jan 29, 2008)

Yeah, we were almost ready to leave the PCUSA for so many reasons, that just pushed us over the line. It was irreverent and upsetting to say the least.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 29, 2008)

I believe that the Church should ONLY have Unleavened Bread and Fermented Wine as prescribed by Christ by the inference of the Second Commandment (RPW)..

There is symbolism behind the Unleavened Bread and Fermented Wine that Leaven Bread and Unfermented Grape Juice could never symbolize (Christ Sinless Body, Joy and Feasting with the Joy of Man's Heart, Marriage Supper Symbolism).

We have no right to change what Christ instituted even if it seems okay or even pragmatic in our own eyes.........


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 29, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> My problem is with trendy substitutes such as goldfish, Oreo cookies, potato chips, coca cola, etc.



Is this actually common? I'm shocked!


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 29, 2008)

Leaven symbolizes Sin and Unleaven symbolizes Sinless So Bread should be Unleaven for the Supper to properly symbolize Christ Body and also Christ used Unleaven Bread for the Supper and so showed us the proper way...

As for the Same Cup, I admit I have been shy on this one over the years due to Pragmatic reasons... It seemed Unhealthy and since I have weakened Immune System I seem to be more conscious over the health of a One Cup... But......

I read a really well done scientific paper on the One Cup and as long as the Cup is Silver which resist germs, that the content of the Cup is Wine which also kills germs and as long as people do NOT intict the bread into the Wine which could by carelessness dip their germed fingers into the Cup, It is completely safe and not a health risk even for me.... 

So my Pragmatic Argument failed.... So I have no reason against it....

By the way, Dipping the bread into the Wine is also not biblical as it mixes the elements...






moral necessity said:


> I think we should use bread and wine! But, how about unleavened bread vs. leavened? And, should the wine be drank from the same cup by everyone?


----------



## JBaldwin (Jan 29, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> I think we should use bread and wine! But, how about unleavened bread vs. leavened? And, should the wine be drank from the same cup by everyone?



I had the same question. I always believed it was to be unleavened bread.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2008)

Sonoftheday said:


> What is "Spiritual Food"?



1 Corinthians 10

1For I want you to know, brothers,[a] that our fathers were all under(A) the cloud, and all(B) passed through the sea, 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3and(C) all ate the same(D) *spiritual food, *4and(E) all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 29, 2008)

I tend to agree with having unleavened bread. I'm not sure about the strictness of the method of partaking of the elements though. If one starts down that path, there's a whole lot of items to be considered, besides the using of the same cup. Jeremiah Burroughs' work entitled Gospel Worship was a great read; and he is one who very strenuously preached in the exactness of the method as well as the exactness of the elements. I'm not of that mindset at this time. Does anyone know if there are any churches today that focus on the method of partaking of the bread and wine to the degree that Burroughs was convicted?


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jan 29, 2008)

Bread and wine.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 29, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > My problem is with trendy substitutes such as goldfish, Oreo cookies, potato chips, coca cola, etc.
> ...



Not in any church I pastored. But, in some circles, particularly youth camps and retreats, yes.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 29, 2008)

I have heard of Scottish Presbyterian Church in Scotland do... I also have heard that my pastor would like to have tables to set up for the congregation to sit and eat around the tables but with the current location (A School Rental Gym Area), It is not practical.....



moral necessity said:


> I tend to agree with having unleavened bread. I'm not sure about the strictness of the method of partaking of the elements though. If one starts down that path, there's a whole lot of items to be considered, besides the using of the same cup. Jeremiah Burroughs' work entitled Gospel Worship was a great read; and he is one who very strenuously preached in the exactness of the method as well as the exactness of the elements. I'm not of that mindset at this time. Does anyone know if there are any churches today that focus on the method of partaking of the bread and wine to the degree that Burroughs was convicted?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 29, 2008)

Bread and wine. Common bread for the culture, whatever that is, leavening does not matter. 
Naphtali Press » Danger of Being Over Wise


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jan 29, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> I tend to agree with having unleavened bread. I'm not sure about the method of partaking of the elements though. If one starts down that path, there's a whole lot of items to be considered, besides the using of the same cup. Jeremiah Burroughs' work entitled Gospel Worship was a great read; and he is one who very strenuously preached in the exactness of the method as well as the exactness of the elements. I'm not of that mindset at this time. Does anyone know if there are any churches today that focus on the method of partaking of the bread and wine to the degree that Burroughs was convicted?


 
You must've read my mind. We're going through that in family-worship as our Session has scheduled the Lord's Supper for 02/10/2008 D.V.

I don't see how it's possible to conclude anything other than bread and wine as far as Burroughs' view.

As far as churches that "focus on the method ... Burroughs ..." our congregation and one or two others in our communion are the closest I've ever seen.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 29, 2008)

caoclan said:


> The last time I attended my former PCUSA church, they used a goldfish cracker and a grape (yes, a grape you had to chew). My wife and I did not partake and left the church later that day for our current PCA church.





Ahhh! You're from Independent!

(I'm kidding!)

What church did that? I'm not familiar with all the PCUSA churches in the area, but I know of a few. Also, which RC church were you raised in here, assuming you were raised here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> Naphtali Press » Danger of Being Over Wise





NaphtaliPress said:


> Bread and wine. Common bread for the culture, whatever that is, leavening does not matter.
> Naphtali Press » Danger of Being Over Wise



  Helping re-format the footnotes for Wordpress caused me to remember this article.


----------



## jawyman (Jan 29, 2008)

I believe in kosher wine and unleavened bread. Jesus and the disciples were in the upper room to celebrate the Passover and I believe that we should be as true to the Last Supper as Christ was with His disciples. Orthodox Jews of which they were would have drank wine and eaten unleaven bread. I also believe the Lord said cup (singular). I would prefer a common cup.

Lk 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the *cup*, saying, “This *cup* is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. - NIV


----------



## Zenas (Jan 29, 2008)

If that's the case, then I'd like to drink first.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2008)

A short story to illustrate the problem in American Evangelicalism today.

Around 2000 I encouraged a long time Marine friend to begin attending our OPC congregation in Temecula. He eventually joined and is now a Presbyterian with his family after being in Calvary Chapel for many years.

His step-father was (is?) a worship leader in an Assemblies of God congregation. The man had many friends who had gone to the "Pensacola Outpouring" and he refused to criticize the heresy and craziness ongoing there on the basis of the "good men" he knew that considered it a real work of God.

Anyhow, he visited our congregation once and when the Lord's Supper came around he and his wife were absolutely incensed that wine was being served.

Indeed, like many Evangelicals today, it truly is that which comes from without that defiles a man but not from within. The Scriptures are turned on their heads and, while most could care less about Soteriology, people will have an absolute fit if you actually use wine for the Lord's Supper.


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 29, 2008)

I know of a pastor who serves wine in cups in the outer rim of the communion tray, and grape juice in the cups in the inner holes within the tray, so that partakers can choose according to their conscience before the Lord.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> I know of a pastor who serves wine in cups in the outer rim of the communion tray, and grape juice in the cups in the inner holes within the tray, so that partakers can choose according to their conscience before the Lord.



I do too. We attended a PCA in VA like that.


----------



## Herald (Jan 29, 2008)

shhhh. I'm a Baptist who voted but I won't say how I voted. Oh, wait. The votes are unanimous so far.


----------



## satz (Jan 29, 2008)

Can someone tell me what is 'spiritual food'?


----------



## Zenas (Jan 29, 2008)

I know what BaptistInCrisis voted! *grins*

I'm honestly for the idea of juice and wine, but I wish wine was served. That would not go over well in my congregation I don't think.


----------



## KMK (Jan 29, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> Naphtali Press » Danger of Being Over Wise





I cannot recommend this one enough!


----------



## Grymir (Jan 29, 2008)

If I could change one thing in my church, it would be to use wine like our Lord said. I even asked them are they not causing us to sin by offering grape juice. Well, I don't need to tell about the non-bible based answers I got. but as a sacrament, I would change this one thing before even the Contemporary Christian music and moralistic therapeutic deistic sermons.

I'm actually surprised this grape juice heresy is so prevalent. We don't have any of the 'good' presbyterian church's in my area. Do they do this in yours?


----------



## KMK (Jan 29, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> I know of a pastor who serves wine in cups in the outer rim of the communion tray, and grape juice in the cups in the inner holes within the tray, so that partakers can choose according to their conscience before the Lord.



This is exactly what we do at our church although it is reversed. Grape juice in the outer ring and wine in the inner two. (This of course is much more biblical than having the wine in the outer ring)


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 29, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Bread and wine. Common bread for the culture, whatever that is, leavening does not matter.
> Naphtali Press » Danger of Being Over Wise



Exactly. The unleavened advocates might be shocked at the Greek word that Paul uses for "bread" in 1 Corinthians. (Hint: it's not the word for "unleavened bread" and such a word does exist)


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 29, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Bread and wine. Common bread for the culture, whatever that is, leavening does not matter.
> ...



Yeah, it's the word "host", isn't it?


----------



## danmpem (Jan 30, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > My problem is with trendy substitutes such as goldfish, Oreo cookies, potato chips, coca cola, etc.
> ...



There was a megachurch that used to pass out the crackers and grape juice in packets at the door. It was like getting your communion in a Chicken McNuggets sauce container.

Yeah, I know...


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 30, 2008)

Red wine and unleavened bread.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 30, 2008)

I hope for a day when we can share a meal, with bread and wine involved. The celebration was done as a common meal was it not? We use a common loaf and common cup now. Our congregation s small enough to have a meal in our hall together, and pass the bread and cup through the people sitting..


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 30, 2008)

Honest question: In the Third World, how much variation is exceptable. If the staples are sago and water will that suffice? Sago and banana mixed with water? Is that better? Sweet potato and cassava juice? Or do I arrange for wine to be flown in?


----------



## KMK (Jan 30, 2008)

Can someone walk me through the whole 'common cup' thing? Is this explicitly taught? I see problems with a common cup if a congregation grows over 12 people. What happens when the cup goes empty? Is it refilled? Where does the Bible say Jesus refilled the cup? Do you pray over the new cup? etc. etc.

As for Pergie, I don't know. Is there no way to make wine...eventually? I would definitely be careful of binding consciences either way. Whatever ends up being done it should be taught why it is done that way. You don't want people learning that the RPW is meaningless.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 30, 2008)

KMK said:


> Can someone walk me through the whole 'common cup' thing? Is this explicitly taught? I see problems with a common cup if a congregation grows over 12 people. What happens when the cup goes empty? Is it refilled? Where does the Bible say Jesus refilled the cup? Do you pray over the new cup? etc. etc.



We use one cup which I think is biblical. The rubric states:

If the consecrated Bread or Wine be all spent before all have communicated, the Priest is to consecrate more according to the Form before prescribed: Beginning at [Our Saviour Christ in the same night, &c.] for the blessing of the Bread ; and at [Likewise after Supper, &c.] for the blessing of the Cup.​
The Communion.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 30, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> The celebration was done as a common meal was it not?



I've often wondered what the exact practice of the early Church was.  Does anyone have any sources or accounts of their practices?


----------



## KMK (Jan 30, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone walk me through the whole 'common cup' thing? Is this explicitly taught? I see problems with a common cup if a congregation grows over 12 people. What happens when the cup goes empty? Is it refilled? Where does the Bible say Jesus refilled the cup? Do you pray over the new cup? etc. etc.
> ...



This is interesting. From what I have read, the Church of England seems very liberal. I am surprised (and encouraged) that you church even uses wine, let alone a common cup!


----------



## etexas (Jan 30, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Honest question: In the Third World, how much variation is exceptable. If the staples are sago and water will that suffice? Sago and banana mixed with water? Is that better? Sweet potato and cassava juice? Or do I arrange for wine to be flown in?


Good question Perg! I think the emphasis is the common meal. Am I wrong? What of a situation such as Pergi brought up? I think it valid.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 30, 2008)

Grymir said:


> If I could change one thing in my church, it would be to use wine like our Lord said. I even asked them are they not causing us to sin by offering grape juice. Well, I don't need to tell about the non-bible based answers I got. but as a sacrament, I would change this one thing before even the Contemporary Christian music and moralistic therapeutic deistic sermons.
> 
> I'm actually surprised this grape juice heresy is so prevalent. We don't have any of the 'good' presbyterian church's in my area. Do they do this in yours?



Brother, do you not think your majoring on the minors somewhat?  I agree with you, but I think there are bigger things.


----------



## etexas (Jan 30, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > If I could change one thing in my church, it would be to use wine like our Lord said. I even asked them are they not causing us to sin by offering grape juice. Well, I don't need to tell about the non-bible based answers I got. but as a sacrament, I would change this one thing before even the Contemporary Christian music and moralistic therapeutic deistic sermons.
> ...


I am not sure I would call using grape juice "heresy".


----------



## jawyman (Jan 30, 2008)

I do not know if I would call this a "common meal". This is what Scripture says of the meal and I am using the ESV translation.

Luk 22:7 Then came the day of *Unleavened Bread*, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 
Luk 22:8 So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, *"Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it." *
Luk 22:9 They said to him, "Where will you have us prepare it?" 
Luk 22:10 He said to them, "Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters 
Luk 22:11 and tell the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 
Luk 22:12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there." 
Luk 22:13 And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared *the Passover*. 
Luk 22:14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 
Luk 22:15 And he said to them, "I have earnestly *desired to eat this Passover with you *before I suffer. 
Luk 22:16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." 
Luk 22:17 And *he took a cup*, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 
Luk 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 
Luk 22:20 And likewise *the cup* after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. 

I only see they were celebrating the Passover and I cannot find a reason why Jesus and the disciples would have celebrated it any differently than what is commanded in Exodus. As far as wine or grape juice, I know as all of you do that unless they crushed the grapes the same day and drank it, that juice would have been fermented.

Again, I vote unleavened bread and red wine.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 30, 2008)

The Issue of Wine from John Gill's Body of Divinity:

The wine is another part of this ordinance, and of the matter of it, and one of the outward elements of it, a symbol of the blood of Christ. It is a question, whether the wine used at the first institution of the ordinance was red or white; at the passover that which was the best, whether red or white, was ordered to be used; the red was generally so accounted (see Prov. 23:31; Isa. 27:2); it is reckoned by some a matter of indifference; and therefore some, to show their sense of it as such, and to assert their Christian liberty, have sometimes used the one, and sometimes the other: though it may not be essentially necessary, I cannot but be of opinion, that the red, called the blood of the grape, is most expressive of, and bears a greater resemblance to the blood of Christ, it is a symbol of Genesis 49:11; Isaiah 63:2.

The wine is a symbol of the blood of Christ; for Christ says of it, "This is my blood," that is, a figure and representation of it; not that it was really changed into the blood of Christ rot it is called, "the fruit of the vine," as before observed; after it was poured into the cup and blessed (Matthew 26:28, 29), and the apostle Paul says, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" (1 Cor. 4:6) and it is a symbol of it, not as in his veins, but as shed from the various parts of his body, particularly his hands, feet, and side, when pierced; and as wine is squeezed out of the grape in the winepress, so the blood of Christ was pressed from him, when it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and when he trod the winepress of divine wrath; and as wine cheers the heart of man, so the blood of Christ, applied by the Spirit, speaks peace and pardon to guilty minds, and puts joy and gladness into broken hearts and wounded spirits. The wine in the supper is called, "The blood of the New Testament;" and the cup, "The New Testament in Christ’s blood;" by which is meant, the covenant of grace, sometimes called a testament or will, which became of force by the death of Christ, the testator, and which was ratified, its blessings and promises, by the blood of Christ; which is therefore called, "The blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20).

The wine in the supper is a symbol of the love of Christ, shown in the shedding of his blood to obtain the remission of the sins of his people; which "love is better than wine," than the most ancient, the most generous, the most pure and refined; and therefore the church determines to remember it more than that; "We will remember thy love more than wine," and which is particularly done in the ordinance of the supper (Song 1:2, 4).

Now the bread and the wine being two separate articles, may denote and show forth the death of Christ; the body or flesh being separated from the blood, and the blood from that, in which the life is, death follows; and these being distinctly attended to, is expressive of that separation; and yet both together make a feast, and afford nourishment, refreshment, and delight: with food there must be drink, and when with bread wine, both make a banquet; Christ’s church is a banqueting house, and the banquet in it, like Esther’s, is a banquet of wine; such is the ordinance of the supper, a feast of fat things, of wine on the lees well refined.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 30, 2008)

The Issue of Administration of the Lord's Supper from John Gill's Body of Divinity:

First, with respect to the bread.

3a1. By the administrator; Christ, in his own person, at the first institution of the ordinance and by his ministers, under his direction, and by his orders and example, in all succeeding ones.

3a1a. *Christ "took" the bread*, an emblem of his body, which he took, being actually formed; and consisting of flesh and blood, he partook of it in the fulness at time; he took upon him, not the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham; he took the human nature, consisting of soul and body, into union with his divine person; and he took this body which he assumed, and offered it without spot to God, an offering and a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour; and of this body, his taking the bread in the supper was an emblem, and of his voluntary oblation of it.

3a1b. *He "blessed" it;* or as another evangelist has it, he "gave thanks," (Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:19) such an action was sometimes used by him at other meals (Matthew 14:19, 15:36). This designs a separation of the bread from a common to a sacred use, as everything is sanctified by the word and prayer; by this action the bread was set apart from common use, and appropriated to this solemnity. This is what is sometimes called the consecration of it; but is no other than its destination to this peculiar service. Blessing it, was asking a blessing on it, as spiritual food, that it might be nourishing and refreshing to those who partook of it; and giving thanks, is expressing thankfulness for what is signified by it, for Christ, the true bread the Father gives; for him, the unspeakable gift of his love, and for all the blessings of grace that come by him.

3a1c*. He "brake" it.* From this action the whole ordinance is denominated, "breaking of bread," (Acts 2:42, 20:7) and it was not only used by Christ at first, as an example to be followed; but by ministers in the churches, in all succeeding ages; in the first church at Jerusalem, and by the disciples at Troas, as the passages referred to show; and was practised by the apostle at Corinth, and in other places, "the bread which we break," &c. (1 Cor. 10:16). Song Clemens of Alexandria[7], in the second century, says, "As some divide the eucharist, they suffer everyone of the people to take a part:" And Irenaeus [8], before him, calls it, "the broken bread": and even Ignatius [9] speaks of the bishop and presbytery "breaking the one bread". And nothing is more common with the ancients than to speak of the parts and broken pieces in the supper; yea, to call the supper itself by these names: and this is a very expressive and significant action, and by no means to be omitted; and was used by Christ, not purely for the sake of dividing and distributing the bread; but for the sake of representing his death; it is an emblem of his sufferings, how his "body was broken" for us (1 Cor. 11:24), how it was torn by the scourges and lashes of the Roman soldiers, at the order of Pilate; how his head and temples were torn by the crown of thorns platted about them; how his hands and feet were pierced with nails, and his side with a spear; and how body and soul by death were torn and parted asunder; and he was brought to the dust of death, and liable to be crumbled into innumerable particles; but that his body was preserved from seeing corruption. Moreover, it is an emblem of the communion of the many partakers of the one bread and of the one body of Christ; "For we, being many, are one bread, for we are all partakers of that one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17).

Secondly, there are also very significant and expressive actions to be performed, both by the administrator and receiver, with respect to the wine.

3b1. By the administrator; after the example of Christ, *"who took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them,"* the disciples (Matthew 26:27). He *"took the cup," wine being first poured into it*, which, though not expressed, is implied, and* the thing signified by it, is the shedding or pouring out of the blood of Christ*, after mentioned (Matthew 26:28), or the pouring out his soul unto death. Christ’s taking it, shows his readiness and willingness to drink of it himself (John 18:11), and then he "gave thanks," for the blessings of grace, which came through his blood, of which this was the symbol; such as justification by his blood, remission of sins, for which it was shed, redemption through it, and peace by the blood of his cross: and having given thanks, "he gave it to them," his disciples, to drink of it; his immediate disciples drank of the cup of sufferings, as well as partook of the blessings of his grace; here not the former, but the latter is meant.

3b2, Other actions were to be performed by the receiver; particularly one, everyone was to drink of the cup; *"Drink ye all of it"*: this shows that the ordinance was to be administered under both species; as the bread was to be eaten, the wine was to be drank; which is confirmed by the apostle’s account of it (1 Cor. 11:25-29), and all were to drink of it; the cup is not to be denied to the common people, and restrained to the minister, as by the papists; both clergy and laity partook of it, from the earliest ages, as appears by innumerable instances in the writings of the ancients, quite down to the council of Constance, in the fifteenth century, when it was ordered not to be given to the common people; "hoc non obstante," the institution of Christ, and the practice of the primitive church, as the edict of the council expresses it [15].

"This is my blood of the New Testament," a token of it, by which the New Testament, or the dispensation of the covenant of grace, under the gospel, is ratified and confirmed; "which is shed" freely and abundantly; as it was in the garden, in the hall, and especially on the cross; "for many," for as many as are ordained to eternal life; for as many as Christ has given himself a ransom for; for as many as are made righteous by Christ’s obedience; and for the many sons the great Captain of salvation will bring to glory: and this is shed for them; it was shed for "the remission of sins;" by which it is procured in a way consistent with the holiness and justice of God; and in this ordinance the faith of the Lord’s people is directed to the blood of Christ to look for it.

When the supper was ended, a Psalm was sung by Christ and his apostles (Matthew 26:30), which fulfilled what was prophetically spoken of Christ, and by him (Ps. 22:22), and to this Pliny may be thought to have respect when he says, that Christians at their meetings sung an hymn together to Christ, as to a God; and by a sacrament, bound themselves not to commit such and such sins


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jan 30, 2008)

I like Piper's quote "It is not ment for pizza and Dr. Pepper on the beach."


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 30, 2008)

If you all scheduled communion one morning and then as you were pouring the wine into the cup or little dixie cups or wahtever, and SPILLED ALL the wine! What would you do?

What would be most appropriate in this case?

Say, there was some kool aid in the church fridge. Or some strawberry Fanta. 

Which is the right choice, cancel communion because of lack of perfect ingredients or continue on with the main thing while the ingredients get substituted a bit.


Another question:

The dog breaks in and eats your unleavened bread. Can you slice up some rice cakes, donuts, crackers, goldfish (crackers) even and serve these? Is it more important to have the right ingredients or is the preparation, communality and the prayers involved the main focus of communion.



But, how far can we stretch that?

In New Guinea, can the yam become the bread and banana juice be the wine? In Eskimo land can the blubber and the fish juice do? In China can a rice ball and saki or whatever do? 



This post seems to be about ideals? I am curious about just how weird the elements can be and still be close enough?

And if these other elements can work, can a church with a former drunk in it offer grape juice due to their cultural limitations? 

Ideals and realities often have big gaps in between them. We seem to be talking ideals in this thread. Can I ask a question in the other direction, forget about ideals...what is "good enough" in this discussion?


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 30, 2008)

The Issue of A Single Cup in the Lord Supper by Dic Eccles:

Dic Eccles, Pastor Hebden Bridge Baptist Church, Yorkshire, England.

I want to make comment on the mode of the Lord's Supper. I have never been able to understand why we Baptists as a whole are so insistent on the mode of baptism whilst at the same time we are not particular about the mode of the Lord's Supper.

Yet there are clear biblical grounds for insisting on the use. It is a matter of regret that this expression of fellowship, intrinsic to the Lord's Supper, is not emphasized more among us. We tend to be characterized of a single loaf of bread and a single cup. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17 argues from the fact that they used a single loaf and a single cup to show that the Corinthian church was one body in Christ. The word translated "Bread" may also be translated "loaf," and the adjective "one" would indicate that this would be preferable here: "the one loaf that we break." From this argument there can be no doubt the bread and the wine are intended to symbolize not only the body and blood of Christ given for his people, but also the unity and fellowship of the church.

The point I am making is this: are we not losing this aspect of the symbolism, and thereby losing the symbolic expression of fellowship, if we do not use the single loaf and single cup?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 30, 2008)

If pizza and coke were ALL you had...would it be better to have a pizza and coke communion or cancel communion entirely?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 30, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If pizza and coke were ALL you had...would it be better to have a pizza and coke communion or cancel communion entirely?



I say cancel and wait until bread and wine become available. While I don't wish to minimize difficulties, there is a significance attached to bread and wine that pizza and coke cannot convey.


----------



## KMK (Jan 30, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If pizza and coke were ALL you had...would it be better to have a pizza and coke communion or cancel communion entirely?



What do your co-laborers believe? I would seek a solution based on encouraging unity.


----------



## jawyman (Jan 30, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If pizza and coke were ALL you had...would it be better to have a pizza and coke communion or cancel communion entirely?
> ...



 Cancel and reschedule.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 30, 2008)

jawyman said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 30, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If pizza and coke were ALL you had...would it be better to have a pizza and coke communion or cancel communion entirely?




I am trying to understand how pizza and coke would be avaliable, but not bread and wine.. Or juice.


----------



## jawyman (Jan 30, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If pizza and coke were ALL you had...would it be better to have a pizza and coke communion or cancel communion entirely?
> ...



Dominos delivers.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 30, 2008)

jawyman said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...




But want to know:


----------



## jawyman (Jan 30, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



 I too want to know:


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 30, 2008)

Poor Pergie is twisting in the wind, and no one offers anything but light-hearted banter.
Shocking.  :bawling:

I'll put in my  worth. I would get something as close to the original as I could. That's it. And if nothing seemed to fit the bill, then I'd wait until I had *something* close enough for me.

But I'd let the people know that we were using what we had, and not what we ought, if the circumstances (Providence) would only allow it.

Eventually, I would think that the goal would be to be eating the same meal as the rest of the church, world-wide. It isn't simply _what_ we are doing (Communion) but also _how_ we are doing it. Eventually, I would expect that importers would get appropriate items to customers who wish to purchase them.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 30, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If pizza and coke were ALL you had...would it be better to have a pizza and coke communion or cancel communion entirely?



You cannot have Holy Communion with Pizza and Coke hence the question is moot.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 30, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If pizza and coke were ALL you had...would it be better to have a pizza and coke communion or cancel communion entirely?



Every frat house I've been to has wine around at least, with bread available at the local 7-Eleven. 

Walter Steuart, _Collections and Observations Concerning the Worship, Discipline, Government of the Church of Scotland_ (1770), p. 98:



> § 3. Ordinary bread is to be ufed; and it is moft decent that it be leavened wheat bread. Any kind of wine may be ufed in the Lord's Supper, yet wine of a red colour feemeth moft fuitable. In cafe a fociety of Chriftians fhould want the fruits of the vine of all forts, I cannot think but it might be supplied by fome compofure as like unto it as could be made; and if any church laboured under that invincible neceffity, were it not fafer for them to interpret that as a call and warrant to communicate, though wanting the fruit of the vine, than to conftruct it an authorifing them in a perpetual neglect of that facrament?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 30, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If pizza and coke were ALL you had...would it be better to have a pizza and coke communion or cancel communion entirely?
> ...





Well andrew, Pergie is in some area that I guess is poorer than poor. AS george costanza once said about the handicapped girl who had to go uphill becasue he parked in the handicapped spot;

"These people pergie is around are probably those poor people who want everything done for them, can't they throw some water and flour over a flame and make some bread themselves and walk on some grapes?''

I do have another question, what is this so called 3rd world? Where are the first and the second?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 30, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Well, I've lived in the third world. For several years. If there is a place that has only pizza and coke, I think it would have to be in the first or second. I can sympathize with the difficulties of getting what you need in some places, but it's hard to feel compassion for frat houses. At least wrt proper administration of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 30, 2008)

Pergy......

I happen to know that Grapes are grown on every continent that Man lives on.. They may be poor Grapes, but any Grape can be fermented into Wine...

cultivars of Vitis vinifera, the European grapevine native to the Mediterranean and Central Asia.

Vitis labrusca, Native to the Eastern United States and Canada.
Vitis riparia, Native to the entire Eastern U.S. and north to Quebec.
Vitis rotundifolia, Native to the Southeastern United States from Delaware to the Gulf of Mexico.
Vitis vulpina Frost grape. Native to the United States Midwest east to the coast up through New York.
Vitis amurensis Most Asian species and African.

The sea grape Coccoloba uvifera, Polygonaceae and is native to the islands of the Caribbean Sea. 


The grape is almost a universal plant which makes it perfect for the Lord's Supper...

But.....

Where you live (No Names Mentioned), I Happen to also know that Rice is a Major agricultural plant and Rice can be turned into Rice Wine (Saki), Also other plants are made into Wine where you live... Tuak, a sweet palm wine, Brem, also sweet, non-distilled rice based drink, and Arak a distilled rice based drink.

Also where you live, It was *thought* incompatible with growing grapes. But some traditional wineries were established.

Enter Hattan wineries... Together they have found grapes that can flourish in the climate and produced remarkable wines. The weather permits the vines to be evergreen and up to three harvests a year can be expected...

So even in YOUR remote corner of the world, Grapes can be grown and fermented into Wine for the Supper of the Lord...




Pergamum said:


> Honest question: In the Third World, how much variation is exceptable. If the staples are sago and water will that suffice? Sago and banana mixed with water? Is that better? Sweet potato and cassava juice? Or do I arrange for wine to be flown in?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 30, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > VirginiaHuguenot said:
> ...





I am missing the thought of frat houses andrew. It as well as other things is going right over my head.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 30, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



It's just the only hypothetical place I can think of (half-humorously) that has pizza and coke but nothing else. No biggie.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 30, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > VirginiaHuguenot said:
> ...



Oh ok...lol phewwwwwwwwwwwwww.. I thought it was some new buzz word of discontent with a situation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 30, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If pizza and coke were ALL you had...would it be better to have a pizza and coke communion or cancel communion entirely?
> ...



Yes, surely you need bread in order to make a pizza?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 30, 2008)

yes, if you can make pizza, you can surely make bread. If you can find ingredients for pizza, you most likely also have ingredients for wine.

I have a ton of grapevines (concord  ). We're going to try making wine this summer


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 30, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Well I hope pergie was being fascicious anyway...


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 30, 2008)

If unleavened bread symbolizes the sinlessness of Christ, is Paul saying that this not an important idea to have conveyed to us while eating the bread, since, as somebody said earlier in this thread, Paul used the word for "bread", not "unleavened bread" in his letter to the Corinthians? Would that therefore mean that the only purpose of breaking and eating of the bread is to communicate to everyone who eats it that they are partakers in the body of Christ?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 30, 2008)

leavened bread could also symbolize the growth of the kingdom.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 30, 2008)

wine has a different force than grape juice:

Zechariah 9:15, "The Lord of hosts will protect them,
and they shall devour, and tread down the sling stones,
and they shall drink and roar as if drunk with wine,
and be full like a bowl,
drenched like the corners of the altar.

"But the passage pictures Israel drunk with another kind of wine: filled with the wine of Yahweh's Spirit, Israel would be bold, wild, untamed, boisterous in battle. This suggests one dimension of the symbolism of wine in the Lord's Supper: it loosens our inhibitions so that we wil fight the Lord's battles in a kind of drunken frenzy. If this sounds impious, how much more Psalm 78:65, where the Divine Warrior himself is described as a mighty man overcome with wine? Yahweh fights like Samson, but far more ferociously than Samson: He fights like a drunken Samson!"


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 30, 2008)

Spear Dane said:


> leavened bread could also symbolize the growth of the kingdom.



Yeah, but, shouldn't what it represents be drawn from the passover feast from which the bread was taken? If so, then, wouldn't unleavened bread refer to sinlessness and leven refer to sin?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 30, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > leavened bread could also symbolize the growth of the kingdom.
> ...



Perhaps. My point was that leaven refers to growth. Not to sin. Not to kingdom stuff. Just growth.


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 30, 2008)

Spear Dane said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



It certainly contains that idea. Do you think it only refers to growth when Christ says, "Beware of the leven of the Pharisees?"


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 30, 2008)

The kind of growth would have to do with whatever the context was. 

Mat 13:33 He told them another parable. "*The kingdom of heaven is like leaven* that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened."


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 30, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The kind of growth would have to do with whatever the context was.
> 
> Mat 13:33 He told them another parable. "*The kingdom of heaven is like leaven* that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened."



I guess I'm getting off topic, but, I'm not sure what you mean by "kind of growth." Do you mean "slow or fast growth", "irregular growth"; or do you mean "what kind of thing is growing"?

I tend to think of leven as a thing or an object, first and foremost. It is a thing that has been added or mixed with another thing, as yeast is added to dough. It also has inherent within it a property of growing or overtaking the object it is placed in. When Jesus warns the disciples to beware of the leven of the Pharisees, he is referring to a specific thing about the Pharisees that has a tendency to overtake or consume whatever it is mixed into. Sin is symbolized as leven; malice is described with the term leven. It is a thing.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 30, 2008)

And I'm trying to help answer your question, nothing really on the topic either. If I'd begun this part of the conversation, I probably would have used the term "influence" rather than "growth", but the ideas are related.

The point that was made, and which I tried to make explicit with a Scripture text of my own, is that "leaven" as a symbol in the Bible isn't equatable to "sin" or "malice." And the proof of that is that the Kingdom of Heaven is like leaven. The Kingdom of Heaven promotes neither sin or malice, but the very opposite of those traits.

The "leaven of the Pharisees" (Mt. 16:6) was their pernicious influence. THEY made their "leavening" bad. THEY made their leaven _sinful_. So, In my humble opinion, you might want to adjust your thought about "leaven" in the Bible being a particular (sinful?) _thing_, because I think its getting you off in one particular direction. You'd have then to overcompensate in the case of Mt 13:33.

If, in 1 Cor 5:8, Paul uses the term "*old *leaven" which he then describes epexegetically as "leaven of malice", it doesn't follow to say that Paul means for us to think sylogictically: A) Leaven is bad in Scripture, b) Malice is bad, :. C) Malice and leaven are both Scripture-evils. The first premise (A) is neither to be assumed nor is it necessary to his point, which is entirely based on Passover ritual, Ex.13:7.

I'm just saying that Mt. 13:33 thoroughly explodes the idea that leaven in the Bible is an exclusively negative symbol, and so we need to adjust our hermeneutic to accommodate that fact.

Here is another: Lev 23:17 "Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; *they shall be baken with leaven*; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD." Leaven was forbidden on the altar of burnt offering (Lev. 2:11), but clearly it was not excluded from all OT ceremony.

Peace.


----------



## KMK (Jan 31, 2008)

I have found the leaven = sin axiom comes from Dispensational circles. Mainly it is used by Dispensationalists to explain away the parable of the 'lump'.


----------



## Grymir (Jan 31, 2008)

Hi Y'all, These are all good posts. Now, some have said that I was majoring on the minors. I spoke about if I could change one thing, it would be to change the heretical grape juice instead of the Christian contemporary music or the therapeutic, moralistic deistic sermons I have to hear each week. The reason is that communion is a sacrament. The others are how we, well, they worship (so-called). But they are all related. I call it heretical because Jesus used unleavened bread in the passover and wine. Nobody can doubt that because according to the Torah, they had to get the leavening out of the house during passover to symbolize their hasty exodus from Egypt. We have such a don't drink booze culture that we want to make God's word fit our wants and desires. Which is how all these things are related. If I, as a non-seminary trained, non-ordained person can read the Bible, and the church's early history on the subject, and they say unleavened bread and wine, why is this even being debated? You all can call me names and say I'm nuts, but unless you can make a case from scripture and evident reason, The church should stand firm on this matter. Because that is what makes the visible church the visible church. Where the Word of God is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2008)

Some personal conclusions:

Okay, so rice wine or maybe banana juice and sago bread (not really bread, but like bread) is good enough. Tell the people "This is the best you've got" and make do. Right.

Jesus used the elements of his place and time. 


Rice wine/or banana juice and sago bread or taro root CAN substitute in a culture if that is ALL that is available.

Pizza and coke in the US, however, seems to signify a lack of decor rather than a mere necessity of substituting elements. It bespeaks frivolity rather than trying to do the Lord's Supper with the best one has. 



When one deviates from the elements of bread and wine one usually falls into three classes:

(1) The Local food and local bread staple group: I.e. those that simply do not use bread and wine as normal staples and often are poor. For these it seems more tolerance ought to be exercised,
(2) Former alcholics: who do not want alcohol. For these too I believe tolerance ought to be given as they substitute grape juice for wine
(3) Those who are in the US but like to rejoice in their liberty and thus use pizza and coke, etc. I believe that these ought to be opposed due to their reasoning. They are not destitute, bread and wine is readily available...so why not use it?

For destitute people in the Third World that do not eat bread and wine normally I say: As the situation of the "local juice and local bread staple group" improves, perhaps they will improve these elements, but let's take communion now with the "good enough stuff" until improvements come. 

For this group, it seems a greater imperative to partake of communion with banana juice and bajed sago than to cancel it entirely due to lac of bread or wine. In my area the people have never even seen bread or wine. There is a danger in leading them to think of some food as more holy also. Although, from the NT example, Jesus did use bread and wine and it does seem that bread and wine would be preferable (if available).


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2008)

GRYMIR:

Not to give unneeded offence....But...


It is hard to take lessons from someone speaking about the visible church's purity when the church in their signature is PCUSA.


Why tolerate the PCUSA and then call a poor little unfermented grape a heresy?



Also, another note: It seems that Jesus and the disciples all reclined around the table. Let's talk about the heresy of the chair too!


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 31, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Hi Y'all, These are all good posts. Now, some have said that I was majoring on the minors. I spoke about if I could change one thing, it would be to change the heretical grape juice instead of the Christian contemporary music or the therapeutic, moralistic deistic sermons I have to hear each week. The reason is that communion is a sacrament. The others are how we, well, they worship (so-called). But they are all related. I call it heretical because Jesus used unleavened bread in the passover and wine. Nobody can doubt that because according to the Torah, they had to get the leavening out of the house during passover to symbolize their hasty exodus from Egypt. We have such a don't drink booze culture that we want to make God's word fit our wants and desires. Which is how all these things are related. If I, as a non-seminary trained, non-ordained person can read the Bible, and the church's early history on the subject, and they say unleavened bread and wine, why is this even being debated? You all can call me names and say I'm nuts, but unless you can make a case from scripture and evident reason, The church should stand firm on this matter. Because that is what makes the visible church the visible church. Where the Word of God is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered.





Aha, the true fruit of the age of internet theologians. This is the reason the word Heretic has no power attached to it anymore. I'm reminded of the old joke.it bears repeating:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Well ... are you religious or atheist?"
"Religious."
"Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
To which I said, "Then die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.


----------



## SueS (Jan 31, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > My problem is with trendy substitutes such as goldfish, Oreo cookies, potato chips, coca cola, etc.
> ...






The man who is now in control of our former church once told us about a congregation in one of the southern states that used moon pies and grape kneehi - he was amused by it and said it's the intent that matters. I'm waiting to hear that he has pulled a similar stunt with our former congregation!


----------



## SueS (Jan 31, 2008)

By the way, Dipping the bread into the Wine is also not biblical as it mixes the elements...




The pastor of our former church (not the man who is now in control of it) always dipped his bread into the juice - I always thought it was just a personal thing with him and never thought about it as mixing the elements. Interesting....so, what would be the theological ramifications of that?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 31, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Hi Y'all, These are all good posts. Now, some have said that I was majoring on the minors. I spoke about if I could change one thing, it would be to change the heretical grape juice instead of the Christian contemporary music or the therapeutic, moralistic deistic sermons I have to hear each week. The reason is that communion is a sacrament. The others are how we, well, they worship (so-called). But they are all related. I call it heretical because Jesus used unleavened bread in the passover and wine. Nobody can doubt that because according to the Torah, they had to get the leavening out of the house during passover to symbolize their hasty exodus from Egypt. We have such a don't drink booze culture that we want to make God's word fit our wants and desires. Which is how all these things are related. If I, as a non-seminary trained, non-ordained person can read the Bible, and the church's early history on the subject, and they say unleavened bread and wine, why is this even being debated? You all can call me names and say I'm nuts, but unless you can make a case from scripture and evident reason, The church should stand firm on this matter. Because that is what makes the visible church the visible church. Where the Word of God is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered.



Brother

A heresy is a major doctrinal aberration; some believers consider grape juice to be legitimate because they think alcoholic wine was circumstantial and not a principle. I disagree because the use of alcoholic wine is necessary to also using one cup; the use of grape juice is irregular, but it is not heretical. You need to remember that a visible church is a church which administers the sacraments more or less purely, not absolutely purely. I believe Baptists are wrong to deny the sacrament of baptism to infants, however, I do not consider them to be heretics because of this error. 

Moreover, on the one hand you say that a visible church is where the word of God is properly preached, yet, you are more concerned about a minor error concerning the administration of the sacrament than you seem to be about men preaching another gospel.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 31, 2008)

Daniel,

Grymir is not the first to call it the Grape Juice Heresy... I have heard it plenty of times and I can understand where they are coming from... Of course there are Greater Heresies and Lesser Heresies, The greater being ones like Christological Aspects of Christ. Of Course there are matters that are secondary that would not be heresy but erroneous error, i.e. Tribulationalism, Millennialism, etc.. But I can understand why those who call it Grape Juice Heresy, because the Sacrament is no small matter... Even Jeremiah Burroughs said in Gospel Worship that even the Gestures of how we partake of the Supper is No Small Matter and is Not a thing "InDifferent". Now I agree that the issue should be moot, the answer is Wine and Red Wine because of color of Blood. Do I call it a heresy, even a lesser Heresy? I am undecided right now but could lean that way... Let me quote from the Belgic Confession...

"The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; *if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ*; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church."




Daniel Ritchie said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Y'all, These are all good posts. Now, some have said that I was majoring on the minors. I spoke about if I could change one thing, it would be to change the heretical grape juice instead of the Christian contemporary music or the therapeutic, moralistic deistic sermons I have to hear each week. The reason is that communion is a sacrament. The others are how we, well, they worship (so-called). But they are all related. I call it heretical because Jesus used unleavened bread in the passover and wine. Nobody can doubt that because according to the Torah, they had to get the leavening out of the house during passover to symbolize their hasty exodus from Egypt. We have such a don't drink booze culture that we want to make God's word fit our wants and desires. Which is how all these things are related. If I, as a non-seminary trained, non-ordained person can read the Bible, and the church's early history on the subject, and they say unleavened bread and wine, why is this even being debated? You all can call me names and say I'm nuts, but unless you can make a case from scripture and evident reason, The church should stand firm on this matter. Because that is what makes the visible church the visible church. Where the Word of God is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered.
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 31, 2008)

thunaer said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Grymir is not the first to call it the Grape Juice Heresy... I have heard it plenty of times and I can understand where they are coming from... Of course there are Greater Heresies and Lesser Heresies, The greater being ones like Christological Aspects of Christ. Of Course there are matters that are secondary that would not be heresy but erroneous error, i.e. Tribulationalism, Millennialism, etc.. But I can understand why those who call it Grape Juice Heresy, because the Sacrament is no small matter... Even Jeremiah Burroughs said in Gospel Worship that even the Gestures of how we partake of the Supper is No Small Matter and is Not a thing "InDifferent". Now I agree that the issue should be moot, the answer is Wine and Red Wine because of color of Blood. Do I call it a heresy, even a lesser Heresy? I am undecided right now but could lean that way... Let me quote from the Belgic Confession...
> 
> "The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; *if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ*; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church."



Michael

He may not be the first to call it heresy, but the position is extreme to say the least. While the use of grape juice may be a product of the total abstinence error, to deem it heretical is going over-board. Nobody is saying that the due administration of the sacraments is a matter of no consequence - though I think this discussion is about a small error (not something indifferent, as I do not believe in adiaphora) - but things need to be kept in proportion. The words "heretic" and "heresy" are thrown around far too lightly these days. Remember we have a duty to protect the good name of others even when they are in error.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 31, 2008)

Wine kills Germs, But Dipping the Bread into the Wine which a Finger or two could touch the Wine would allow Dirt and "Unhealthy Matter" to touch the Wine and Float.. (Remember, Some people do not wash their hands after visiting a certain Room), The Wine still kills the Germs, but the matter that floats is still present in the Wine... 

I also have heard that Mixing the Elements would be like mixing the body and the blood together which are suppose to be seperate.. (Need to find more info on this one)

Then... Our Dearly Beloved WebMaster, Pastor McMahon quoted in a previous post on this matter by the following:

"If the the bread was broken and given, and then AFTER the wine was drunk [drink ye all of you] by direct example at the Supper, and direct pedagogic exploanation and application by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, then to do otherwise is a break in manner in which God has revelaed to us how the supper shoudl be taken. That woudl be a break in the RPW. I'm not sure if there could be a more clear break with it.

1) Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."

2) Matthew 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,

2 steps.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed...

He is teaching us something directly.

1) ... took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

2) In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Reiteration: For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.

Again, I can't see how intiction is not a break, or in direct opposition to the didactic teaching of Paul and the expressed example of Christ. What does it take to make it a break in RPW?

If we go with the Lutherans - whatever is not forbidden is allowed, then we have the doors open to disregard the key texts on it.

If we go with Rome, then, well, no holds barred.

The confession does not mix them on purpose:

III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]

5. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Cor. 10:16-17; 11:23-27
6. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:20

All of the confession, though, make the distinction between "eat and drink". I don't think any of them meant intinction, or left that up for debate."




SueS said:


> By the way, Dipping the bread into the Wine is also not biblical as it mixes the elements...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Grymir (Jan 31, 2008)

Goodmorning Peramum! Don't worry, no offence taken. I'm in the PCUSA because it's the most legit church around here. I'm also a reformer. I'm not gonna change the denomination, but who knows about my local church? I'm stuck with it and they are stuck with me. If there was a good Presbyterian church like y'all have, I'd be there! But I cannot forsake the assembling of ourselves as we see the day grow closer either. Anyway, just wanted to say a little before I have to goto work. I have to get out the w-2's.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 31, 2008)

Moderator. Call it the grape juice error and I think misunderstandings and needless offense can be avoided.


----------



## SIXDAYZ (Jan 31, 2008)

*"Fruit of the Vine"*



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Y'all, These are all good posts. Now, some have said that I was majoring on the minors. I spoke about if I could change one thing, it would be to change the heretical grape juice instead of the Christian contemporary music or the therapeutic, moralistic deistic sermons I have to hear each week. The reason is that communion is a sacrament. The others are how we, well, they worship (so-called). But they are all related. I call it heretical because Jesus used unleavened bread in the passover and wine. Nobody can doubt that because according to the Torah, they had to get the leavening out of the house during passover to symbolize their hasty exodus from Egypt. We have such a don't drink booze culture that we want to make God's word fit our wants and desires. Which is how all these things are related. If I, as a non-seminary trained, non-ordained person can read the Bible, and the church's early history on the subject, and they say unleavened bread and wine, why is this even being debated? You all can call me names and say I'm nuts, but unless you can make a case from scripture and evident reason, The church should stand firm on this matter. Because that is what makes the visible church the visible church. Where the Word of God is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered.
> ...



 
Brothers... this kind of heresy-hunting is why so many reformed Christians have segregated themselves from the rest of the church. Of course we cannot accept ESSENTIAL errors, but we MUST BE CHARITABLE with those NON-ESSENTIAL issues and those who have not been given the grace that we have. We must not impose LAWS upon other Christians, or call each other heretics when the Bible is silent. "Heresy" should be reserved for those doctrines that "deny" the faith. I just can't imagine grape-juice qualifying for this...

Colossians 3:12-14

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 31, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Goodmorning Peramum!



Who is Peramum?


----------



## Grymir (Jan 31, 2008)

O.k. Sorry Pergamum for mis-typing your name. I had just woken up and had no coffee yet.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 31, 2008)

SixDayz,

I agree with your Principle, that we "MUST BE CHARITABLE with those NON-ESSENTIAL issues". But I disagree with your conclusion.... Worship is the Chief End of Man and is Quasi-Total-Essential to the Christian Faith including what goes on and how worship is conducted.

I am in agreement with John Calvin who said that Worship is Totally Essential and is EVEN more important then the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone which was a major battle cry of the Reformation. I am not belittling Justification by Faith Alone and I view it as just as Essential, but as John Calvin said, "The act of Justification is for the purpose of Worship of God." In other words, we are saved for the direct purpose of Worship, and Who we Worship, How we Worship, The Name we worship, and the Day we Worship are all totally essential to the Christian Faith. It is in fact the First Table of the Law.

Grace is given by the Spirit, and the Spirit Directs us to read what God will have for us in the Scriptures. There is no excuse for a Christian not to find the truth in the Scriptures. I have an Aunt who has been caught up in the Evangeljellyism and when I show something from the scripture she will say "Well, the Spirit as not led me to that", That is wrong thinking, the Spirit directs us to the Scriptures and he will never led us contrary to Scriptures. A Christian who is directed by the Spirit, will be directed to the Scriptures to which the Truth is contained... It is not imposing man laws, it is imposing the Word of God which contains God's Laws.

Just my  



SIXDAYZ said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Grymir said:
> ...


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 31, 2008)

thunaer said:


> Wine kills Germs, But Dipping the Bread into the Wine which a Finger or two could touch the Wine would allow Dirt and "Unhealthy Matter" to touch the Wine and Float.. (Remember, Some people do not wash their hands after visiting a certain Room), The Wine still kills the Germs, but the matter that floats is still present in the Wine...
> 
> I also have heard that Mixing the Elements would be like mixing the body and the blood together which are suppose to be seperate.. (Need to find more info on this one)
> 
> ...




Michael, this is going a tad to far in my humble opinion. Like someone said above, they were actually sitting or lounging while the supper was eaten, so should we do that? Perhaps ill lay on my pastors shoulder too. 

What way is acceptable then? Portion controled 1'' x 1'' pieces and shot glasses of wine?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 31, 2008)

Michael

I think by essential he means things that are essential to a credible profession of the Christian faith (JbFA etc). Of course, there is a sense in which we may speak of worshipping God in His prescribe manner as _essential _, but we are using the word in a somewhat different context. Moreover, while Christ commended people for tithing mint, He also reproved them for forgetting about the weighter matters of the law. So there is an objective difference between things of primary and secondary importance.




thunaer said:


> SixDayz,
> 
> I agree with your Principle, that we "MUST BE CHARITABLE with those NON-ESSENTIAL issues". But I disagree with your conclusion.... Worship is the Chief End of Man and is Quasi-Total-Essential to the Christian Faith including what goes on and how worship is conducted.
> 
> ...


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 31, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The point that was made, and which I tried to make explicit with a Scripture text of my own, is that "leaven" as a symbol in the Bible isn't equatable to "sin" or "malice." And the proof of that is that the Kingdom of Heaven is like leaven. The Kingdom of Heaven promotes neither sin or malice, but the very opposite of those traits.
> 
> The "leaven of the Pharisees" (Mt. 16:6) was their pernicious influence. THEY made their "leavening" bad. THEY made their leaven _sinful_. So, In my humble opinion, you might want to adjust your thought about "leaven" in the Bible being a particular (sinful?) _thing_, because I think its getting you off in one particular direction. You'd have then to overcompensate in the case of Mt 13:33.
> 
> ...



Brother Bruce,

With all respect, I think that you might have accidentally read beyond what I wrote, as I might have done with you as well. I didn't realize your only point was that leven was not equitable to sin or malice, of which I agree. I thought your point was that leven had to do with the act of growing rather than the object of influence.

I agree that leven is not equatable to sin or malace, or is always a negative term. I never said it was, nor did I try to limit it to such. My only point originally was that unlevened bread represented to the Jews the sinlessness of the Messiah that would come. And my original question was regarding whether or not this was an important idea to include in the partaking of the bread and wine. My only point to Jacob was that leven represented sin in the instance of the passover bread, that it represented a thing or an object, not just growth. It is not limited to the idea of growth, but refers also to the object growing, whether it be good or bad. Leven truly describes the Kingdom of God, for the Kingdom of God is a thing/object that has the ability to grow and overtake within those who it is among. If leven only refers to the act of growing or influencing, then what did unleavened bread represent to the Jews during the Passover?

I hope I clarified my statements better this time.

Blessings!


----------



## DavidCPorter (Jan 31, 2008)

The wife of one of our elders bakes the bread for the Lord's Supper. It is very different to normal bread and more like shortbread. We also use grape juice rather than wine. I do not find this a problem as the elements while important only serve to help us feed upon Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit. If we did use wine I would not have a problem with that but I do not think it would be an improvement on the present elements. In this matter as in most things the important thing is the Lord and our hearts.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jan 31, 2008)

I do know of a church that serves the Wine in Shot Glasses, which I was more leaning that way before I came to the Single Cup.... 

I also know that In Gospel Worship, Burrough believes that people should sit around the table and partake in much the same way that you described like it was done with Christ... I am still studying the Table Idea. So I will get back to you on that one... 

I heard once that Charles Wesley went to Scotland and visited a Scottish Covenanter's church during Communion Season, They had a long table set up for people to come up and partake of the supper sitting around the table, Groups taking their turn and when it was not someone's turn they were either preparing with meditation on the Lord's Death, or in Prayer Thanking the Lord.. He came back to America and wrote that he was so relieved to be back in America because the Scottish Covenanter's Communion took for hours, to have everybody served.....  





Amazing Grace said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> > Wine kills Germs, But Dipping the Bread into the Wine which a Finger or two could touch the Wine would allow Dirt and "Unhealthy Matter" to touch the Wine and Float.. (Remember, Some people do not wash their hands after visiting a certain Room), The Wine still kills the Germs, but the matter that floats is still present in the Wine...
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 31, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Brother Bruce,
> 
> With all respect, I think that you might have accidentally read beyond what I wrote, as I might have done with you as well. I didn't realize your only point was that leven was not equitable to sin or malice, of which I agree. I thought your point was that leven had to do with the act of growing rather than the object of influence.
> 
> ...



OK. Cool. I don't want to mistake your question either.

Here's what I think the Passover and leaven were about: Getting rid of leaven _at the ritual, remembrance Passover_ was to remind them of getting rid of the leaven of Egypt at the _first_ Passover. Leaving Egypt behind meant leaving everything about Egypt behind. "Leaven" is "starter" dough, you keep making bread with a lump from the last batch. That's how the yeast was "kept" ordinarily, no little foil packs in the fridge, just leftover dough from yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before...

Passover wasn't just a "national" ritual (any more than circumcision was). It was a sacrament of the Old Covenant, the sacrament associated with Salvation. It was to be "prepared for." And part of that preparation was *repentance*, just like coming to the Lord's Supper. Israel was to make an annual "fresh start," as their parents had, by eliminating vestiges of the "old life." Leaven symbolized bondage to sin, the "influence" of Egypt, WRT the Passover.

Passover was a lesson in Salvation, in making that clean break with sin. So each year, when the household "purged" leaven, they should have been thinking of the spiritual significance of the act: "God wants me without the influence of my past life of sin, without *last year's* sins!" God is saying to his people: "Time to start fresh."

Yes, it was repetitive, it was easy to get jaded, its so... childish, to "start over" once a year. And I'm sure that like many modern NewYear's resolutions, people fell right back into the same sins of the previous year. But that was the nature of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:24f, Gal. 4:1ff).

When you think about it, this is a great argument for more frequent (even weekly maybe?) communion. We don't wait a year to start thinking seriously about repentance, keeping short accounts with God, self-examination as with the Old Covenant celebration. Self-examination is demanded on a far shorter time-scale, because now we are in the "grown-up" age of the church. far less indulgence is to be expected from our Heavenly Father.You want to know why I think we don't see more people "ill" from Lord's Supper abuse? For 1) we don't know how many people actually ARE ill for that reason, and 2) because we don't have Communion enough to make a good correlation. But that's just my thoughts.​Anyway, I hope this is more along the lines of what you were thinking. To sum up, WRT the Passover, leaven did have an association with sin, with the "leaven" of the past, in bondage to sin in Egypt.

BTW, I don't think it matters what bread we use in the Lord's Supper. We use what is readily available, because "purging leaven" was a part of the Old Testament Passover, and a once-a-year thing, part of being "under age". Now, if we want to have Lord's Supper only once a year, maybe then...


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 31, 2008)

Thanks for your thoughts, Bruce! Any books you could direct me to that elaborate on this position?

Blessings!


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Brother Bruce,
> ...



Excellent post, Rev Buchanon. Do you see any connection between forbidding leaven and the fact that on the original Passover, the COI were to be ready to flee at a moment's notice?

Exd 12:11 And thus shall ye eat it; [with] your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it [is] the LORD'S passover.

There was not time to let bread rise when they were redeemed from slavery on that night.

Just thinking out loud...


----------



## Grymir (Feb 1, 2008)

Hi Naphtali, I'm a little slow today. I thought you were asking a moderator to come in and call grape juice communion an error. I just read all the posts again, and you were a moderator telling me to call it the grape juice error instead of heresy. O.K. Here it goes:

The unbiblical, world pleasing grape juice error.

yea! I feel better already. I can feel the love. I'm reaching out in brotherly kindness. 

I don't mean to be disrespectful either. Now I'm not talking to you Naphtali here, but others who are watching. I'm illustrating absurdity here. An internet theologian I'm not. I've gone up against the best (or worst because they were arminians or modernists). This is a sacrement we are talking about. If there are parts of the world were they don't have bread and wine, they ought not be using whatever they can get their hands on! Just a little compromise here, just a little there, and there goes the gospel. Denominationalism is not a bad thing. And I would never push someone I consider a heretic off the bridge. Where's the fun in that?? I would tell him the error of his ways. And those who would listen to him.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 1, 2008)

KMK said:


> Do you see any connection between forbidding leaven and the fact that on the original Passover, the COI were to be ready to flee at a moment's notice?
> 
> Exd 12:11 And thus shall ye eat it; [with] your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it [is] the LORD'S passover.
> 
> ...


KMK,
I think thinking of time to rise or bake may come close to the focus, but doesn't really hit the nail. They had no opportunity to get any new yeast or leaven, period. No time to knead. They had time roast a lamb. If they had had dough with yeast, they could have cooked that while roasting the meat; I don't see why not--if the wives already had dough ready for the day, baking a standard batch would not have required more time.

God told them to get ready for the event at least a week or two in advance of it. They were commanded to purge leaven from their midst as part of the preparation for Passover. They ate at dusk. They left in the middle of the night. I doubt if many wives would have been kneading/baking bread at that hour regardless. If they had leavened dough, they would have simply taken it with them.

Here's one of the relevant texts: Exo 12:34 "And the people took their dough _before it was leavened_, their kneadingtroughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders." The idea seems to be that having performed the purging ritual in the last week, there was no time to start a new batch--from scratch or borrowing from the neighbor-lady. The people threw their kitchen on their backs and ran out the door. *God wanted to enforce his ban on Egyptian leaven*. They had no opportunity to knead fresh yeast into dough, nor (I suspect) while they were taking "backpay" from their slavers were they asking the Egyptian neighbors for a little "starter" lump.

They did leave in a hurry, but I don't think that waiting for the dough to set or bread to rise was in God's view a potential "delay".


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Feb 4, 2008)

> I like Piper's quote "It is not ment for pizza and Dr. Pepper on the beach."



I wrote that jokingly, because I thought it was funny when he said this. However, I did use saltines and Grape soda in a prision. Those were my only options. And wine is just plain not in the question in a state prision.


----------

