# Visiting a church that practices intinction



## SRoper

To those who are opposed to intinction, what would you do if you visit a church that practices intinction and why?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

When I have been to a service where Intinction was practiced I have abstained.


----------



## Zach

Before I understood the Confessionally Reformed position I took part in Intinction, however, now I would abstain.


----------



## Jack K

I suppose I count as one "opposed." I believe intincition is an error but not so grave an error as to, in itself, render the Supper void or an affront to the gospel.

Given that, I would participate if nothing else stood in the way. In fact, I have done so once (in a typically liberal-ish mainline church) and was more concerned with larger questions of whether or not I considered that church a true church, whether or not the gospel was being proclaimed in the administration of the Supper, etc. than I was with their practice of intinction. Those issues would have stopped me before intinction would have.

It's good to avoid error, but not all errors are worth breaking or refraining from fellowship over.


----------



## Kevin

I do not oppose intinction, in fact we practice it. But I would hope that this discussion is moot.

I would be very surprised if a PCA church did not accommodate the scruples of a brother that felt restrained by partaking via intinction. When I give the instructions re partaking I almost always mention that you may intinct or drink from the cup as your conscience dictates. 

We also try to accommodate those that avoid wine by offering two cups. Almost no one uses the juice except a few kids and one pregnant lady.

I began this practice after GA when I learned how passionate some of the anti-intinction brothers were about the issue.


----------



## AThornquist

Too weeks ago I visited a PCA church in Florida that practices intinction. However, they also had a couple ladies off on the side holding grape juice and crackers for those who didn't wanted the alcohol--or in my case, those who didn't want to practice intinction. Of course, among some that raises another question about using grape juice instead of wine, but whatever.


----------



## Scott1

Knowing what I now know,
would peaceably abstain and look for opportunity to give reason to someone at that church.

Observing the Lord's Supper carefully is of highest importance. As is unity over it.

If it were a PCA church, knowing its constitution, and being an officer myself, I would respectfully and peaceably communicate to church authority there (because it is unconstitutional, and therefore a violation of elder vows).

Were it my own PCA church, would communicate through the steps up to the point of lodging petition with Session.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Kevin said:


> I do not oppose intinction, in fact we practice it



As someone who is fairly ignorant on this subject, I am curious as to what the motivation or purpose is to practicing intinction. I can understand the arguments against it, but there must be some logic behind it or else no one would do it.


----------



## Scott1

Scott,
Your post also asked why.

For the PCA, it's a matter of the clear reading of the constitution regarding a separate contemplation of the elements, reflection on the part of each by the PCA BCO which is constitutional authority. Intentionally, the confession of the denomination is bound this way by oath.

Just like with officers who violate their oath by installing women deaconess and substituting them for the office and vocation doctrine of the BCO, they are responsible to God and the officers He has appointed for their oath.

We live in a generation where oaths are taken lightly.

In addition, for all churches it is that the Scriptures require what the PCA BCO implicitly assumes is the doctrine- especially careful handling of a holy sacrament, instituted by our Lord, with admonition not to partake or handle carelessly or lightly. Scripture also speaks to disunity over its practice. The body and the blood are separate things our Lord spoke to as He instructed the sacrament. We don't really need anyone's modern day opinions on this because Scripture speaks enough to it so it is plain, by good and necessary consequence, to require careful adherence to a separate contemplation of those two elements.

Inventions have no place in the sacraments. If the regulative principle has any application, it is here, and God is particular about protecting the decency and sanctity of His Supper. While this may be taken lightly in our generation, we have every reason to believe our Lord does not take it so.

We need to respect it and have a holy fear of not doing so.

In this generation, as in any other.


----------



## Romans922

SRoper said:


> To those who are opposed to intinction, what would you do if you visit a church that practices intinction and why?



I would abstain, and as an elder of the Church (PCA - your denomination), I would seek to address the problem (if I were not an elder, I would talk with my own elders about it to see how they are addressing it), whether that is to address the Session, Presbytery or what have you. If I knew the church I was going to attend practiced intinction, I would avoid them and go elsewhere. If they cannot submit to Christ on this one main issue of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and worship, I would not want to expose my family to such things. Our Lord is seeking true worshippers who worship in spirit and truth, not compromising ones.

Intinction is contrary to the Scriptures where our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Lord's Supper and thus it brings disunity to the Church. Jesus was very clear, 

"But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. *For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you*, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also he took the cup, *after supper*, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."


----------



## kodos

Kevin said:


> I do not oppose intinction, in fact we practice it. But I would hope that this discussion is moot.
> 
> I would be very surprised if a PCA church did not accommodate the scruples of a brother that felt restrained by partaking via intinction. When I give the instructions re partaking I almost always mention that you may intinct or drink from the cup as your conscience dictates.
> 
> We also try to accommodate those that avoid wine by offering two cups. Almost no one uses the juice except a few kids and one pregnant lady.
> 
> I began this practice after GA when I learned how passionate some of the anti-intinction brothers were about the issue.



Some of the other elders here on the PB say that intinction is unconstitutional - how does a church stay in the PCA and practice it?


----------



## Romans922

The language of the Book of Church Order of the PCA states, 



> "*58-5.* The table, on which the elements are placed, being decently covered, and furnished with bread and wine, and the communicants orderly and gravely sitting around it (or in their seats before it), the elders in a convenient place together, the minister should then set the elements apart by prayer and thanksgiving.
> 
> The bread and wine being thus set apart by prayer and thanksgiving, the minister is to take the bread, and break it, in the view of the people, saying:
> 
> 
> *That the Lord Jesus Christ on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, gave it to His disciples, as I, ministering in His name, give this bread to you, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."* (Some other biblical account of the institution of this part of the Supper may be substituted here.)
> 
> 
> Here the bread is to be distributed. After having given the bread, he shall take the cup, and say:
> 
> 
> *In the same manner, He also took the cup, and having given thanks as has been done in His name, He gave it to the disciples, saving, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Drink from it, all of you."*
> 
> 
> While the minister is repeating these words, let him give the cup."



This is the relevant section to the BCO for the PCA. The underlined (is my underline, everything bolded is original) is what I would say is the disagreed upon part. Those opposing intinction would say it is sufficiently showing that the cup is distinguished from the bread and should be partaken of separately. Those approving of intinction would say that it is only talking about distributing not the partaking of it (I think I am being fair in that assessment, as it appears to be the only possible way to go about approving the practice from here or to see that those who practice it are still submitting to the BCO on this point).



The WLC 174 is helpful as well as it says, 



> "*Q. 174. What is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper in the time of the administration of it?
> *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."



I have underlined the relevant part here. I don't know how advocates of intinction interpret this. I guess they may say that the actions of what Jesus and Paul showed does not include the partaking of the bread distinct from the partaking of the cup. Obviously the sacramental elements are the bread and cup, the actions (from a Westminster Divine perspective) are the partaking of the bread and then after that the partaking of the cup to show forth the sacrificial imagery of Christ's death in the separation of the body and blood.


----------



## OPC'n

Never heard of it till now . I think we should follow the example Christ gave to us and not try to come up with something we think is a better way.


----------



## littlepeople

Kevin, I can tell you that not all churches will accommodate as you are willing to. After several meetings with the church planter where we were attending, my only choice was to abstain. I'm glad to hear of your reasonableness about it.


----------



## SRoper

Jack K said:


> I suppose I count as one "opposed." I believe intincition is an error but not so grave an error as to, in itself, render the Supper void or an affront to the gospel.
> 
> Given that, I would participate if nothing else stood in the way. In fact, I have done so once (in a typically liberal-ish mainline church) and was more concerned with larger questions of whether or not I considered that church a true church, whether or not the gospel was being proclaimed in the administration of the Supper, etc. than I was with their practice of intinction. Those issues would have stopped me before intinction would have.
> 
> It's good to avoid error, but not all errors are worth breaking or refraining from fellowship over.



Thanks for the replies so far! For those who would or do abstain, how would you reply to Jack's position (which, incidentally, is similar mine at present)? I hold that intinction is an error, but not one that invalidates the sacrament. It seems if this is the case, those in attendance can partake in good conscience while still working for the peace and purity of the church.



Kevin said:


> I do not oppose intinction, in fact we practice it. But I would hope that this discussion is moot.
> 
> I would be very surprised if a PCA church did not accommodate the scruples of a brother that felt restrained by partaking via intinction. When I give the instructions re partaking I almost always mention that you may intinct or drink from the cup as your conscience dictates.
> 
> We also try to accommodate those that avoid wine by offering two cups. Almost no one uses the juice except a few kids and one pregnant lady.
> 
> I began this practice after GA when I learned how passionate some of the anti-intinction brothers were about the issue.



I think that would be a good way to handle it if you insist on intinction. At the church I have in mind, I asked the pastor about this option, and he said it is perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that it is never publicly offered as an option and the fact that exactly zero congregants partake of it this way makes it a bit awkward.


----------



## Scott1

SRoper said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I count as one "opposed." I believe intincition is an error but not so grave an error as to, in itself, render the Supper void or an affront to the gospel.
> 
> Given that, I would participate if nothing else stood in the way. In fact, I have done so once (in a typically liberal-ish mainline church) and was more concerned with larger questions of whether or not I considered that church a true church, whether or not the gospel was being proclaimed in the administration of the Supper, etc. than I was with their practice of intinction. Those issues would have stopped me before intinction would have.
> 
> It's good to avoid error, but not all errors are worth breaking or refraining from fellowship over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the replies so far! For those who would or do abstain, how would you reply to Jack's position (which, incidentally, is similar mine at present)? I hold that intinction is an error, but not one that invalidates the sacrament. It seems if this is the case, those in attendance can partake in good conscience while still working for the peace and purity of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not oppose intinction, in fact we practice it. But I would hope that this discussion is moot.
> 
> I would be very surprised if a PCA church did not accommodate the scruples of a brother that felt restrained by partaking via intinction. When I give the instructions re partaking I almost always mention that you may intinct or drink from the cup as your conscience dictates.
> 
> We also try to accommodate those that avoid wine by offering two cups. Almost no one uses the juice except a few kids and one pregnant lady.
> 
> I began this practice after GA when I learned how passionate some of the anti-intinction brothers were about the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that would be a good way to handle it if you insist on intinction. At the church I have in mind, I asked the pastor about this option, and he said it is perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that it is never publicly offered as an option and the fact that exactly zero congregants partake of it this way makes it a bit awkward.
Click to expand...


I don't intend to speak for Jack or Kevin,
but the issue is not really whether the invention invalidates the sacrament. 

Nor is it one of accommodating an individuals "scruples." It is corporate worship after all. That means people doing something in common together, at the same time. In the case of the PCA, there is a confession, and a constitution upheld by oath. If we know these things, we do not want to further disunity, false witness, violation of oath, etc. It's a serious matter for the Christian.

The Lord's Supper is neglected, ignored, mishandled in many communions. For example, the Salvation Army virtually does not practice it all. Calvary Chapel seldom practices it. Others teach it is merely a memorial, and only of incidental importance.
Yet our Lord very specifically laid out the pattern for its administration- and commanded His people to do likewise.

Nor is it a matter of the communion not being charitably called Christian or even regarding its members or that minister mishandling the Lord's Supper as an unbeliever.

But, indeed, it is a matter of "breaking fellowship" in the sense of not joining the church or further participating in major error and/or violation of its oath and confession.

The reason is the warnings concerning the Lord's Supper and the seriousness with which Scripture treats it demands we do the same. 

There are preferential areas of Christian practice, but the Lord's Supper is not one of them.

At minimum, inventing in one's imagination, or changing it for convenience is disobedience. It's more serious for the minister, bishop or elder mishandling it in that way, and aggravation of sin because to whom much is given (minister), much is required.

Since the Lord's Supper is a requirement of a Christian church, it's not a matter of preference, but a matter of principle. So, knowing what the Bible teaches by good and necessary consequence, and knowing what a church confession or constitution requires, it's best that one not further that disobedience, including by example.

Knowing what I now know, it would require peaceable abstinence followed by communication to the church in some way. If someone were to know of the serious error and still partake, knowing the Lord's Supper was being mishandled, or its officers violating their oath, it would seem to me they _must_ communicate that to the church authority, else they would share in the guilt. To do nothing would be countenance open sin, and in the Lord's House.

And while the Session would ultimately share some blame if it were mishandled, there is immediate cause for discipline of the teaching elder who mishandles it.


----------



## Edward

Scott1 said:


> would peaceably abstain



I'd abstain, as I do when I visit a LCMS, or Roman church. Step out in the aisle to let others on the row out, walk to the other end of the row, and then resume my place as folks return to their seats. That probably falls within the 'peaceable' range, but my standards for confrontational might be different from some others here.


----------



## lynnie

I would take it and thank God that you don't have to drink from a cup that a whole lot of germy other mouths just drank from. Don't jump on me about trusting God not to get sick with one cup; people are coughing and sneezing and running fevers around here, and you can be contagious before the symptoms start. I don't think pastors are trying to rebel aginst scripture or confessions, they are trying to be sanitary. I don't have the faith to share one cup right now.

Yes you can use those little individual plastic cups, but then you lose the idea of the one cup.

I think the anti-intinction crowd is right, I really do, they are trying to be biblical. I don't know what the answer is with germs to consider, but I think you should show some mercy and just do it.


----------



## J. Dean

Never had the chance to abstain from or participate in it.

I would be curious, however, to know whether or not the views of those who disagree with it see the Lord's supper as symbolic a la Zwingli.


----------



## Covenant Joel

J. Dean said:


> Never had the chance to abstain from or participate in it.
> 
> I would be curious, however, to know whether or not the views of those who disagree with it see the Lord's supper as symbolic a la Zwingli.



I doubt you will find any of Zwingli's view here, at least among those opposed to intinction.


----------



## Mushroom

J. Dean said:


> Never had the chance to abstain from or participate in it.
> 
> I would be curious, however, to know whether or not the views of those who disagree with it see the Lord's supper as symbolic a la Zwingli.


Rather than bait, how about you put forth your evident opinion that anti-intinction derives from a Zwinglian view of the Supper?


----------



## SRoper

lynnie said:


> I would take it and thank God that you don't have to drink from a cup that a whole lot of germy other mouths just drank from. Don't jump on me about trusting God not to get sick with one cup; people are coughing and sneezing and running fevers around here, and you can be contagious before the symptoms start. I don't think pastors are trying to rebel aginst scripture or confessions, they are trying to be sanitary. I don't have the faith to share one cup right now.
> 
> Yes you can use those little individual plastic cups, but then you lose the idea of the one cup.
> 
> I think the anti-intinction crowd is right, I really do, they are trying to be biblical. I don't know what the answer is with germs to consider, but I think you should show some mercy and just do it.



You're far more likely to get sick from the bread. Do you eat the bread after others have handled it?



J. Dean said:


> Never had the chance to abstain from or participate in it.
> 
> I would be curious, however, to know whether or not the views of those who disagree with it see the Lord's supper as symbolic a la Zwingli.



Would you care to elaborate? I'm not sure what the connection would be. I understand the sacrament to be a means of grace conferred by the Spirit and received by faith. I certainly don't have a Memorialist view. (Whether Zwingli is properly considered a Memorialist is a discussion for another time!)


----------



## Kevin

For those of us in the PCA the proper place to debate this issue is at our presbyteries. I took full advantage of that opportunity at our recent meeting. So I will not be debating it here.

However I will attempt to explain some of the issues raised here.

Intinction is considered by many to be an acceptable method of receiving the two elements. It seems to have had advocates in the PCA and the RPC-ES for a few years now. As the PCA has planted churches outside of the old PCUS geography planters often find themselves far from any other elders. The (existing) practice of intinction seemed to solve the issue of how to celebrate the Lord's Supper with only one elder. 

This expansion of the PCA also happened when a renewed interest in sacramental theology was leading men to consider issues of frequency, common cup, wine, etc.

So several (many?) people adopted it.

The practice became more widespread and was the method of celebrating the Supper at a recent GA. Some men began to oppose it and introduced a resolution to that effect. It passed at the most recent GA by a slim majority and is now working it's way through the presbyteries. As our standards require.

I was frankly stunned to hear the level of opposition at the recent GA. As a result of the passion of those opposed I made a couple of changes to our local practice.

1) I use the invitation to invite people to participate by intinction (I call it dipping) or by drinking form the cup as their consciences dictate. No one has drunk so far.

2) In deference to the unsettled nature of the issue (constitutionally in the PCA) I have not intincted myself since GA. I always drink form the cup.

I am trying very hard to maintain a practice that I believe is Biblical and constitutional while still submitting to my brothers. If the presbyteries uphold the 2012 GA vote then I will follow it. However, I wonder if all of those that have posted so confidently and self-assuredly against the practice are prepared to be magnanimous if the vote in the presbyteries goes against their view?


----------



## lynnie

_You're far more likely to get sick from the bread. Do you eat the bread after others have handled it?_

Bread? You use real bread, like made with yeast? No no no, it was the passover, they had unleavened bread. It isn't biblical to imitate the last supper with yeast bread.

We don't use bread, they break up matzah ahead of time on a plate. So no "one loaf". If they did have some sort of tortilla fried bread, or some dense heavy thing with no leavening, then you would be correct about the germs. I guess we should be breaking up the matzah as we partake and not do it ahead of time.

But I am gluten intolerant and pretty badly so; even one bite of wheat will cause me constant pain for a day. So I don't even eat the bread at all. I guess I should ask them to use some rice wafers for people like me. Potato chips maybe?

I sure hope I am truly feeding on the Lord by His spirit day by day seeing as my communion experience is so deficient from the TR point of view 

Before I get an infraction, let me go on record as saying that the position of one cup and one (unleavened) loaf being shared separately certainly seems like the most faithful to scripture......but modern day pastors being considerate of germs should be treated with respect for their kindness, even if you do disagree with them about it.


----------



## Romans922

Kevin said:


> Intinction is considered by ,any to be an acceptable method of receiving the two elements. It seems to have had advocates in the PCA and the RPC-ES for a few years now. As the PCA has planted churches outside of the old PCUS geography planters often find themselves far from any other elders. The (existing) practice of intinction seemed to solve the issue of how to celebrate the Lord's Supper with only one elder.



Popularity is not an argument for something when it pertains to the worship of the Lord (see golden calf). Also, as it has to do with the PCA, 4.6% is not many or several.





Kevin said:


> I am trying very hard to maintain a practice that I believe is Biblical and constitutional while still submitting to my brothers.



You believe the practice of intinction is biblical, based on what from Scripture? I've yet to hear a Biblical defense for the practice.





Kevin said:


> However, I wonder if all of those that have posted so confidently and self-assuredly against the practice are prepared to be magnanimous if the vote in the presbyteries goes against there view?



If the vote is to not approve the BCO amendment (which is most likely the case), nothing changes. The Scriptures and the Constitution are still clear on this issue, that intinction is not a proper or valid way to practice the Lord's Supper. Voting against the amendment is not a vote for intinction. It is only a vote against the amendment. I know many who who are not voting for the amendment (for whatever reason) and yet believe intinction is very much contrary to Scripture and skews the picture of Christ's death on the cross.


----------



## Romans922

lynnie said:


> No no no, it was the passover, they had unleavened bread.



When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, He actually used a very generic word for bread even when the words of 'unleavened' were at His disposal.


As for one bread, Scripture does give that picture when in 1 Cor. 10 it shows that the 'one bread' points to the reality of the unity of the Church (one Church). 

However, 'one cup' is not exactly found in Scripture. Even at the Last Supper the picture is more towards individual cups, for Christ called the disciples to divide up the cup amongst themselves before they drank.


----------



## Kevin

As I stated above Andrew, the place for us to debate this is at our presbytery meetings. And I agree BTW, popularity is no argument.

I do disagree with you however vis your assertion that if the amendment fails nothing changes. 

Certainly those that argued for the minority substitution did not think this way. Clearly those who took the floor in favour of the minority believed that they were working to ban intinction. I was convinced by their passion and argument. So it seems probable that should the amendment fail that intinction is allowed. N'est pas?


----------



## Romans922

I agree that a good place to discuss these things are at the Presbytery level, but that doesn't mean we also can't discuss them here. Hence, one of these reasons for these types of forums. You are free to do as you like, but it is somewhat rude to come here and 'argue' or start a debate with things you say to stir the pot and then keep saying that you don't want to debate and the place for it is at Presbytery level. Seems contradicting in my view.

So again, I say I have never heard a Biblical defense for the practice and here you are saying that intinction is a biblical practice.

I would add that on the overtures committee there were some who voted against changing the BCO because they thought it was already clear in not allowing intinction. It would stand to reason that others on the floor of GA had the same view (more than just the OC), that it doesn't need to be changed. This is one of the reasons there was not a rationale that came to the floor of GA from the Over. Committee. Those voting against it on the OC had two (actually 3) different reasons why they opposed it.

To be quite frank, the amendment that came to the OC had intinction as the reason, but the minority's view was to strengthen the Lang. Of the BCO to be more in line with Scripture instead of just bar one particular practice (intinction). So that language/word 'intinction' is not in the amend. It is only one of many possibilities barred under the amendment.


----------



## Kevin

So by "strengthening the lang." you intended to ban intinction and...mini cups?...grape juice?

I must disagree. Those that spoke to the substitution were to a man opposed to intinction. The only reference to other sacramental innovations were from those brothers that practiced intinction. Or defended their right to do so.

Also I consider it "churlish" of you to call me rude for offering an explanation of how a practitioner of intinction deals with the process of our courts.

I only intended to explain my own practice, not to debate the issue.


----------



## Jack K

Scott1 said:


> For the PCA, it's a matter of the clear reading of the constitution regarding a separate contemplation of the elements, reflection on the part of each by the PCA BCO which is constitutional authority. Intentionally, the confession of the denomination is bound this way by oath.



Scott1... I mentioned earlier that my vote (if I had one) would be against intinction. And I agree that the PCA BCO at least strongly suggests that intinction is not the right way to administer the Supper. But that said, allow me to challenge you on two matters...

1. Since you typically are a supporter of the need to submit to the church's constitutional documents, as enforced by the church's courts, why do you say so strongly that administering the Supper by intinction is a clear violation of an officer's vows? Hasn't that very question come up recently in the PCA's highest court? And isn't the church still in the process of deciding whether or not intinction is a violation of those vows? It seems that a spirit of submission to the church courts would dictate that we reserve judgment on the matter of oath-breaking (a serious charge) until the issue is decided. Don't you agree that the question of what the constitutional documents allow is for the church courts to decide, not for individuals to declare as they see fit? Do you see that it's hard to make the charge of vow-breaking stick when the church courts have considered the issue and not yet acted to stop intinction (no matter what we may guess the majority of voters at GA were thinking)?

2. Only a fraction of churches in this world are PCA. In many cases of visiting another church where intinction is practiced, the pastor has taken no oath to uphold any document that even suggests intinction is wrong. In such a case, would you say it's okay to partake? Or would you still refrain and, if so, does that mean you think it is a matter that goes beyond officer vows after all?


----------



## TylerRay

Kevin said:


> So by "strengthening the lang." you intended to ban intinction and...mini cups?...grape juice?
> 
> I must disagree. Those that spoke to the substitution were to a man opposed to intinction. The only reference to other sacramental innovations were from those brothers that practiced intinction. Or defended their right to do so.
> 
> Also I consider it "churlish" of you to call me rude for offering an explanation of how a practitioner of intinction deals with the process of our courts.
> 
> I only intended to explain my own practice, not to debate the issue.



Rev. Rogers,

Will you give an argument for intinction from the Scriptures?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Scott1 said:


> Knowing what I now know,
> would peaceably abstain and look for opportunity to give reason to someone at that church.
> 
> Observing the Lord's Supper carefully is of highest importance. As is unity over it.
> 
> If it were a PCA church, knowing its constitution, and being an officer myself, I would respectfully and peaceably communicate to church authority there (because it is unconstitutional, and therefore a violation of elder vows).
> 
> Were it my own PCA church, would communicate through the steps up to the point of lodging petition with Session.


I believe Rev. Winzer's comment on my blog here is very appropriate here.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/time-new-reformed-confession-537/


Someone in advocating a new Confessional Standard wanted to cut out some the sticky points of contention that seem to plague the Reformed Church. His position was that minimalizing the standards a bit would bring more Unity.


http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/time-new-reformed-confession-62902/index4.html#post811544


> Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?




Reverend Matthew Winzer responded splendidly in my opinion. His last statement is spot on as usual. 


armourbearer said:


> In what universe could it have that effect? While there are men who conscientiously act with the vows of God upon them there is obviously going to be a group of people who maintain, assert, and defend every article of the confession which they have subscribed with their own hand in the sight of God and men. And why shouldn't they? Afterall, they not only promised to the church that they would do so, but the church also promised her support and nurture in the process.
> 
> 
> The modern reformed church is in trouble, not because of her traditional forms, but because her traditional forms are being maintained without traditional values of integrity, respect, and trust.


----------



## J. Dean

SRoper said:


> Would you care to elaborate? I'm not sure what the connection would be. I understand the sacrament to be a means of grace conferred by the Spirit and received by faith. I certainly don't have a Memorialist view. (Whether Zwingli is properly considered a Memorialist is a discussion for another time!)



No need to elaborate.  I was just curious to see whether or not the tie-in to an opposition to intinction had any coincidence with a Zwinglian or Calvinist understanding of communion. As I said, I'm not crazy about the practice, but I was simply wondering the baseline stance of those who are more staunchly opposed to it. That's all.


----------



## VictorBravo

J. Dean said:


> I was just curious to see whether or not the tie-in to an opposition to intinction had any coincidence with a Zwinglian or Calvinist understanding of communion. As I said, I'm not crazy about the practice, but I was simply wondering the baseline stance of those who are more staunchly opposed to it.



It does seem like a strange indicator for you to seize on, though. As Lane's paper in the other intinction thread makes clear, even Roman Catholics historically have been opposed to inctinction, and their view of the Lord's supper is about as far from Zwingli as you can get.


----------



## Kevin

TylerRay said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by "strengthening the lang." you intended to ban intinction and...mini cups?...grape juice?
> 
> I must disagree. Those that spoke to the substitution were to a man opposed to intinction. The only reference to other sacramental innovations were from those brothers that practiced intinction. Or defended their right to do so.
> 
> Also I consider it "churlish" of you to call me rude for offering an explanation of how a practitioner of intinction deals with the process of our courts.
> 
> I only intended to explain my own practice, not to debate the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Rogers,
> 
> Will you give an argument for intinction from the Scriptures?
Click to expand...


Not here.


----------



## Zach

SRoper said:


> Thanks for the replies so far! For those who would or do abstain, how would you reply to Jack's position (which, incidentally, is similar mine at present)? I hold that intinction is an error, but not one that invalidates the sacrament. It seems if this is the case, those in attendance can partake in good conscience while still working for the peace and purity of the church.



Though I am not as educated as others who have responded, I would respond by saying that intinction is not the sacrement of the Lord's supper. I don't think that those who partake are sinning while doing so, but I don't believe that they have actually received the Lord's supper because of WSC 96:

Q. 96. What is the Lord's supper?
A. The Lord's supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and *receiving bread and wine according to Christ's appointment*, his death is showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.


----------



## SRoper

Thanks, Zack. So would you take issue with Rev. Keister's statement in his intinction paper, "Nor would anyone claim that the Lord's
Supper becomes null and void through the use of intinction"? This was actually the statement (combined with my travel plans in the next week) that drove me to start this thread. Are those who are abstaining indeed declaring the sacrament null and void?


----------



## Zach

SRoper said:


> Thanks, Zack. So would you take issue with Rev. Keister's statement in his intinction paper, "Nor would anyone claim that the Lord's
> Supper becomes null and void through the use of intinction"? This was actually the statement (combined with my travel plans in the next week) that drove me to start this thread. Are those who are abstaining indeed declaring the sacrament null and void?



Scott, I haven't read Rev. Keister's paper but from what I have read on the Board from Rev. Keister I would hesitate to take issue with what he has to say. I would be interested in his reasoning (maybe I will read his paper now that I am done with finals!) but from my uneducated perspective it seems that the Shorter Catechism teaches that the Lord's Supper is receiving bread and wine according to Christ's appointment. I believe Scripture teaches that he appointed the bread and wine to be received as separate elements. I would be interested in hearing the scriptural arguments from Pastor Rogers, but I respect his desire to not discuss it here.

Currently, I am not facing a scenario where I would be faced with this decision. Were I faced with it, I would ask my Pastor what he would recommend I do. However, at my present understanding I would presently abstain.


----------



## greenbaggins

This raises a very interesting point. It seems to me that there would be a way of saying that the Sacrament is not null and void (if administered by intinction), even if one decides to abstain. Abstaining is a matter of conscience. If I were to attend a church, and they practiced intinction, I would have to abstain, because I would believe that the sacramental symbolism is obscured by the practice of intinction. In my paper, I try to make the point that what is at stake is the clarity of the sign of the sacrament, not the actual existence of the sacrament. So, if one compares intinction to the Mass, one can see that the Mass is not the Lord's Supper at all. Intinction, on the other hand, does not negate the actuality of the Lord's Supper, even if it does obscure the sacrificial death of Christ as blood poured out from the body.


----------



## Scott1

Jack K said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the PCA, it's a matter of the clear reading of the constitution regarding a separate contemplation of the elements, reflection on the part of each by the PCA BCO which is constitutional authority. Intentionally, the confession of the denomination is bound this way by oath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1... I mentioned earlier that my vote (if I had one) would be against intinction. And I agree that the PCA BCO at least strongly suggests that intinction is not the right way to administer the Supper.
> 
> Thanks, Jack. I understand your post to say you are opposed to the invention on the Lord's Supper and that there is strong evidence to suggest it is prohibited by the PCA's BCO. I would only add that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the language of the BCO, supported by history of its adoption, prescribes the invention. Laws (of God and men) state things positively, negatively, explicitly and implicitly- and they are all just as valid asserting the truth they intend.
> 
> For example, the Scripture does not mention the word "trinity." But more to your point, it does not explicitly say one cannot teach something other than the Trinity.
> 
> But it does.
> Tthe Trinity is a holy attribute of our one God in three persons. It's not merely there being a strong case for it as if there is a weak case a Christian can assert against it because it is not explicitly prohibited.
> 
> 
> But that said, allow me to challenge you on two matters...
> 
> 1. Since you typically are a supporter of the need to submit to the church's constitutional documents, as enforced by the church's courts, why do you say so strongly that administering the Supper by intinction is a clear violation of an officer's vows?
> 
> Because the officer takes vows to receive, teach and obey the doctrine and polity of the denomination. It's a sacred oath, he asks God and the people to witness and seal.
> 
> Hasn't that very question come up recently in the PCA's highest court?
> 
> Someone may have other information, but I don't believe it has arisen to highest court enforcement [yet].
> 
> And isn't the church still in the process of deciding whether or not intinction is a violation of those vows? It would only do that if it were to change the constitutionally binding Chapter 58 which very intentionally binds the practice to orthodox presbyterian understanding of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
> 
> It seems that a spirit of submission to the church courts would dictate that we reserve judgment on the matter of oath-breaking (a serious charge) until the issue is decided. Don't you agree that the question of what the constitutional documents allow is for the church courts to decide, not for individuals to declare as they see fit?
> 
> If words had no meaning, I would agree. But they do.
> 
> Do you see that it's hard to make the charge of vow-breaking stick when the church courts have considered the issue and not yet acted to stop intinction (no matter what we may guess the majority of voters at GA were thinking)?
> 
> One of the wise things in presbyterian practice is that it moves slowly and deliberately. It can be corrupted if men lose their will for godly discipline as happened to the mainline denomination.
> 
> When one Presbytery in the PCA declared that they could nominate, elect, train, and install women deacons the same arguments were made. Interesting, not so much that the BCO allowed it (and by derivation their vows to God and the people), but really the emphasis was that they just believed they had liberty to decide their own doctrine and practice within self-determined (imagined) parameters.
> 
> Of course, that's not what a constitution is for,
> not what an oath is for,
> not presbyterian,
> not what confessional means,
> 
> but the argument went on for about four years.
> 
> In the meantime there were absolutely absurd arguments, some that placed church polity in a false light (yes, that happened, we are all sinners) saying things like...
> 
> Deacons are not really officers
> Deacons are optional for presbyterian church government
> Deacons are an office but have no authority
> The PCA allows ordination without laying on of hands
> Ordination is merely a technicality
> The head of the Diaconate can be a non-deacon
> There is no possibility for women to do mercy unless they are Deacons
> 
> There was even one congregation taking vows to submit to the authority of a woman deacon, with none of the officers and no one in the congregation noticing (except a visitor who published it on YouTube). Meanwhile the church publically argued Deacons have no authority.
> 
> On and on the absurdity and false light went,
> and by some really smart people, too.
> 
> Finally, the utter untenability of the argument came back to the Presbytery and they repented, said they understood AND agreed with the Book of Church Order.
> 
> Same thing needs to happen here for the peace and purity of the church.
> 
> One of the truths Scripture tells us is that open defiance (sin) left unchecked tends to get worse, spread more disunity and confusion. It cause more harm the more it is allowed to go unchallenged.
> 
> (That's also a part of the officer's vow to God).
> 
> 
> 2. Only a fraction of churches in this world are PCA.
> 
> Yes, that's true. And a small number of true believers are reformed, too. And while we can't know for sure, there is substantial reason in Scripture to believe true Christians are relatively few in number in the world generally, too. And that doesn't make the rest right. It certainly didn't in the days of Noah, Lot, Abraham, Israel, the Apostles, etc.
> 
> In many cases of visiting another church where intinction is practiced, the pastor has taken no oath to uphold any document that even suggests intinction is wrong. In such a case, would you say it's okay to partake? Or would you still refrain and, if so, does that mean you think it is a matter that goes beyond officer vows after all?
> 
> That's why the case of the PCA is distinguished in the question because I know what the constitution, vows and confession are.
> 
> So, let's say one was visiting another church. The priority is to be obey God, so that's the lens we look at for all of life.
> Part of that might be to do due diligence in preparing for Lord's Day worship and planning, inasmuch as it is within your power, to know the beliefs and seek out those you know to be true. That's first, above seeking mere convenience, accommodation in the submitted life of a believer.
> 
> And that doesn't mean the other church does not have any believers in it, or that it cannot charitably be called a Christian communion. It just means they are wrong biblically- whether by ignorance, lack of diligence to biblical doctrine or wilfull disobedience, still wrong in our Lord's sight and misrepresenting something very central to Christian worship and practice.
> 
> Knowing what I now know, I would probably peaceably abstain and look for opportunity to mention it to someone there at the church. Wouldn't file a complaint, obviously because it was not contrary to their doctrine (it is in the PCA, but possibly not in another communion).
> 
> Certainly would not continue on in fellowship there week-by-week.
> 
> And it's not because the sacrament would be rendered "invalid," it's about not countenancing something wrong done to something precious.
> 
> Make sense?
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Jack K

Scott1, the reason I asked is because I'm one of those those guys who (if I had a vote, which I don't) would be likely to vote in favor of the amendment to the BCO making it more clear that intinction is not how we administer the Supper. I think that position is biblical, and I tend to like added clarity. But... I would want to be very careful to take that action in a spirit of gentle correction and respect, taking pains to avoid combativeness and accusations wherever possible.

So, I would be a theoretical ally of your cause on this issue. But the moment you started asserting that the issue was how some church officers were being oath-breakers, a red flag would go up. That's an allegation of serious, removal-worthy sin. That sounds combative. I'd like to think better, but it makes me suspect the effort to stop intinction is not marked by a spirit of gentle correction but rather by an attitude more like "We found another bunch of bad guys in our denomination—let's get 'em!" And it makes me fear that past battles regarding other issues are carrying forward in grudges, so that there's an eagerness to be combative and to make the strongest possible accusations from the start.

You see, if I start to suspect your true cause is a larger battle—to win a victory for a particular wing of the denomination by making harsh accusations—I cease to be an ally. I favor correction, but I'm not a big fan of winners and losers. And whether or not you mean to take that combative tone (I will assume you don't), to me it _sounds_ like you're taking that tone when you assert that oath-breaking is the issue.

I'm not convinced that the handful of PCA churches practicing intinction need to be accused that strongly. I suspect some of those pastors are very consciencious about their PCA oaths. Accusing them from the start of being otherwise, especially when the denomination is still in the process of ironing this out, does not make for a healthy process. Nor (to get back to the opening question) is the particular error of intinction one that would cause me to refuse to join in the fellowship-in-Christ meal at any PCA church.


----------



## Scott1

Jack,

If you don't sense the gravity of the issue, perhaps it is difficult to discern the passion to protect it.

On the one hand you say you believe it is biblically wrong, very likely unconstitutional, and therefore violative of oath, but you would participate and imply you would not say anything.

That seems inconsistent.

Nor is it morally superior to have it both ways though our flesh would have us believe it is.


----------



## Jack K

Not all errors are equally grievous. Nor am I equally sure that all things I suspect to be error truly are error. It this case I think intinction likely is an error but I'm not 100% certain it is. And assuming it is, I don't consider it so grievous as to mean I should not partake of the Supper while visiting a church that practices it.

So you're right. I don't think the gravity is of that level, which essentially is what Scott was asking in his opening post. Is that being inconsistent? I rather think it's recognizing the difference between various levels and types of error.

As for whether I would say anything... if I was just visiting and not connected in some way to the church in question, I probably would not. Do you go visiting churches and then find an elder afterwards so you can tell him all the things they did wrong? I notice things I disagree with nearly every time a visit a church. But my purpose in visiting a church, flawed as that church my be, is to worship God, not to uncover and point out errors.


----------



## Scott1

> I Corinthians 11
> [emphasis added]
> 
> 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
> 
> 24 *And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said,* Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
> 
> 25 *After the same manner also he took the cup*, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
> 
> 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
> 
> 27 Wherefore *whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily,* shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
> 
> 28 But *let a man examine himself*, and so *let him eat *of that bread, *and* *drink of that cup*.
> 
> 29 For he that *eateth and drinketh unworthily*, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
> 
> 30 For this cause *many are weak and sickly among you*, and many sleep.
> 
> 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
> 
> 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
> 
> 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
> 
> 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And *the rest will I set in order* when I come.



Serious indeed.


----------



## Scott1

> Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> DIRECTORY FOR WORSHIP
> CHAPTER 58
> The Administration of the Lord's Supper
> 
> 58-5.
> 
> The table, on which the elements are placed, being decently covered,
> and furnished with bread and wine, and the communicants orderly and
> gravely sitting around it (or in their seats before it), the elders in a convenient
> place together, the minister should then set the elements apart by prayer and
> thanksgiving.
> 
> The bread and wine being thus set apart by prayer and thanksgiving,
> the minister is to take the bread, and break it, in the view of the people,
> saying:
> 
> That the Lord Jesus Christ on the same night in which
> He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He
> broke it, gave it to His disciples, as I, ministering in His name,
> give this bread to you, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body
> which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (Some other
> biblical account of the institution of this part of the Supper may be
> substituted here.)
> 
> Here the bread is to be distributed. After having given the bread, he
> shall take the cup, and say:
> 
> In the same manner, He also took the cup, and having
> given thanks as has been done in His name, He gave it to the
> disciples, saving, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood,
> which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Drink from it,
> all of you."
> 
> While the minister is repeating these words, let him give the cup.


.


----------



## Scott1

Presbyterian Church in America

PREFACE TO
THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER

II. Preliminary Principles



> .... 4. Godliness is founded on truth. A test of truth is its power to promote holiness according to our Saviour's rule, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same level.
> 
> On the contrary, there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.


----------



## Scott1

> Matthew 26
> 
> 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
> 
> 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;


.


----------



## SRoper

greenbaggins said:


> This raises a very interesting point. It seems to me that there would be a way of saying that the Sacrament is not null and void (if administered by intinction), even if one decides to abstain. Abstaining is a matter of conscience. If I were to attend a church, and they practiced intinction, I would have to abstain, because I would believe that the sacramental symbolism is obscured by the practice of intinction. In my paper, I try to make the point that what is at stake is the clarity of the sign of the sacrament, not the actual existence of the sacrament. So, if one compares intinction to the Mass, one can see that the Mass is not the Lord's Supper at all. Intinction, on the other hand, does not negate the actuality of the Lord's Supper, even if it does obscure the sacrificial death of Christ as blood poured out from the body.



Do you see three degrees of error: 1. error that is not so serious as to warrant abstention, 2. error that warrants abstention but does not make the sacrament null and void, and 3. error that is so serious that it makes the sacrament null and void? Or does the first kind of error not exist?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

I would dare say that it's rather the middle category (#2) that does not exist. An error that warrants abstention must logically make the sacrament null and void. If the sacrament is not null and void I see no grounds for abstention.


----------



## Scottish Lass

I agree with Mr. Cornell--on its face, I can't see how #2 can exist. Can someone in the discussion provide an example to clarify it?


----------



## greenbaggins

SRoper said:


> Do you see three degrees of error: 1. error that is not so serious as to warrant abstention, 2. error that warrants abstention but does not make the sacrament null and void, and 3. error that is so serious that it makes the sacrament null and void? Or does the first kind of error not exist?



I really don't think that intinction nullifies the sacrament. However, it obscures the clarity of the sign. I have a conscience issue with taking it that way, because I know that the Lord's sacrificial death is portrayed by blood being poured out, being separated from the body. Therefore, I only want to celebrate the sacrament in a way that honors this theological point. But I don't feel comfortable saying that someone who holds that intinction is valid would get no benefit from the sacrament when partaken of in that way. Maybe I am being inconsistent here. It seems to me that differences in understanding and conscience should be taken into consideration. I could, therefore, agree with all three categories. An example of 1 would be a failure of the minister to fence the table. An example of 2 would be intinction, and an example of 3 would be the Roman Catholic Mass.


----------



## Kevin

Of the 3 categories mentioned above into what category would taking communion in a pew from tiny cups fall?

Would it obscure the clarity of the sign to such a degree that it should be avoided by those whose consciences would scruple at intinction?


----------



## Covenant Joel

Kevin said:


> Of the 3 categories mentioned above into what category would taking communion in a pew from tiny cups fall?
> 
> Would it obscure the clarity of the sign to such a degree that it should be avoided by those whose consciences would scruple at intinction?



One would have to make the case that it was error first, but assuming it was, I am not sure how it could be regarded as anything other than #1, though I' be happy to hear a case for something different.


----------



## Scott1

SRoper said:


> Do you see three degrees of error: 1. error that is not so serious as to warrant abstention, 2. error that warrants abstention but does not make the sacrament null and void, and 3. error that is so serious that it makes the sacrament null and void? Or does the first kind of error not exist?



I don't think it makes the sacrament null and void,
nor is that really the issue.

It's about following the Lord's command for something that is precious and to be handled especially carefully. To cooperate in its wrongness is not only a matter of conscience, but a matter of causing harm to others and to the reputation of our Lord. Scripture speaks to this and it is very real.

In the PCA, it's also cooperating in an unlawful administration of the sacrament, contrary to vows taken. That compounds it.

But in neither case does it invalidate the sacrament.

We don't view it exclusively as about protecting one's conscience, but rather also from the standpoint of duty to God.
And duty to man.


----------



## Scottish Lass

greenbaggins said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see three degrees of error: 1. error that is not so serious as to warrant abstention, 2. error that warrants abstention but does not make the sacrament null and void, and 3. error that is so serious that it makes the sacrament null and void? Or does the first kind of error not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think that intinction nullifies the sacrament. However, it obscures the clarity of the sign. I have a conscience issue with taking it that way, because I know that the Lord's sacrificial death is portrayed by blood being poured out, being separated from the body. Therefore, I only want to celebrate the sacrament in a way that honors this theological point. But I don't feel comfortable saying that someone who holds that intinction is valid would get no benefit from the sacrament when partaken of in that way. Maybe I am being inconsistent here. It seems to me that differences in understanding and conscience should be taken into consideration. I could, therefore, agree with all three categories. An example of 1 would be a failure of the minister to fence the table. An example of 2 would be intinction, and an example of 3 would be the Roman Catholic Mass.
Click to expand...

Thanks!


----------



## greenbaggins

Kevin said:


> Of the 3 categories mentioned above into what category would taking communion in a pew from tiny cups fall?
> 
> Would it obscure the clarity of the sign to such a degree that it should be avoided by those whose consciences would scruple at intinction?



My paper disputes the common cup interpretation of the Lord's Supper, especially exegetically from Luke's Gospel, where Jesus says, "take this and distribute it among yourselves." If my exegesis is correct, then having the wine distributed is not an obscurity of the sign at all. How would it be?


----------



## Jack K

Scott1 said:


> Jack,
> If you don't sense the gravity of the issue, perhaps it is difficult to discern the passion to protect it.



You know, Scott, I think with me it's more than just that I don't think the error is among the most grievous.

It's also that I think a decision to refuse the fellowship of the Lord's Supper _is_ a big deal. What method has Christ given us to show that we consider another believer our brother or sister in the Lord? Well, one of the main things he's given us for that purpose is the Supper we eat together. So if I consider a church to be a true church (and its members, presumably, to be fellow believers so far as I can discern) and they invite me to eat the Supper with them, then one way I show this spiritual unity is to accept. So my default inclination is to participate any time I believe I'm in a true church that proclaims the gospel... even though they may proclaim it imperfectly.

This doesn't mean I condemn those whose consciences would have them choose otherwise. But I fear that if I were to start eating the Supper only with those believers who, I think, get everything right about its administration... well, soon I would find myself in a position where I'm refusing Christ-instituted fellowship with a majority of those whom I suspect are true Christians. That feels wrongheaded. So I come down on the side of going ahead and participating—not just because of the nature of the error, but also because I see non-participation as a quite serious matter.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Is there a grace that would go unfulfilled or obscured by the method of intinction? Is there a teaching or significant understanding that is being skewed by the practice of intinction? Those are two questions that a person would need to discover and deal with. 

I also take the business of fellowship very seriously as Jack does. The command to sing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs is very important to me as God commands it. Some people that hold to different views of the Regulative Principle of Worship might be forced to attend a church that doesn't hold to the same practice of worship that they adhere to. They might be forced to participate in worship that violates their understanding of the Regulative Principle of Worship. While they still worship and fellowship with those people they might abstain during certain parts of the worship for conscience sake. I see no problem with that nor do I see that as being contentious. It can be done in a contentious way and I think that should be avoided. 

Concerning the intinction issue I think I would have to abstain. And I have before. I see it as a regulative principle issue but it wouldn't mean that I forsake fellowship with those who hold to the practice. If asked I would also instruct them on why. But I wouldn't forsake the assembling of myself with them or cause a incident by trying to draw attention to the issue on purpose. I also take fellowship and caring for the body of Christ very seriously. I care deeply about the grace that is imparted by partaking at the Lord's Table. To me it is a serious issue. Just because I don't participate with them in some of their practices doesn't mean I am hard to live with or don't love them. I do believe when one violates the Regulative Principle of Worship there is a loss of gracious influence and blessing from God. Especially for those who have tasted the of the Lord's goodness and have knowledge of the truth. To violate it would be violating conscience and taking a step backwards. It would be violating the truth as one knows it and that is not a safe practice.

As I have noted many times in the past I have friends in all kinds of denominations and I fellowship with them and love them. I am very easy to get along with in person and I care deeply for others. I have friends who are Independent Fundamentalists, Roman Catholic, Islamic, Atheistic, etc.... There are just some issues that are important and don't need to be compromised. That doesn't mean I love others less or become ungracious to them.


----------



## Mushroom

So, if twinkies and grape soda are used as elements, do we participate? The elements I read of are wine and bread, not a single element of wine-soaked bread. The sop was given to the betrayer.

But I can only define things from within my own station. I am a layman. If my Elders are telling me intinction is acceptable, then I can participate with the knowledge that it is they who will be held accountable for introducing novelties. I am submitting. They have to bear the higher standard. Being only an armorbearer rather than a knight does have its advantages...


----------



## MW

I would argue along the following lines:

Sacraments should be administered purely. It is a mark of the church. This means they should be both valid and lawful. "Valid" means they include all the necessary elements according to Christ's appointment. "Lawful" means the valid sacrament is administered according to the rule of the Word and without the unnecessary additions of men. Roman Catholic baptism would be considered valid but unlawful. Roman Catholic communion in one kind would be considered neither valid nor lawful. That which is valid but not lawful can be accepted as true but not pure. Roman Catholic baptism is true baptism and therefore should not be repeated. However, the addition of human rites makes it unlawful, which means one should be dissuaded from receiving baptism by the Church of Rome. Likewise, intinction includes the addition of human rites and the confusion of the sacramental actions. It is valid but it is unlawful. One can accept it as a valid communion but individuals should be dissuaded from receiving communion in such churches.


----------



## Romans922

I don't like to disagree with you Matthew as I am usually in agreement with you, and what I am saying is a tangent, but Roman Catholic anything is not valid because it is not Christian and is no Church at all.  But, having said that, I understand your argument and if you were using another analogy I would probably agree.


----------



## MW

Romans922 said:


> I don't like to disagree with you Matthew as I am usually in agreement with you, and what I am saying is a tangent, but Roman Catholic anything is not valid because it is not Christian and is no Church at all.  But, having said that, I understand your argument and if you were using another analogy I would probably agree.



I suppose, whether one agrees with this traditional position or not, that at the very least the traditional categories of valid and lawful, true and pure, help to give some light on the question. For myself, I would maintain that the failure to understand the protesting relationship of the Reformed Church to the Roman Church is probably the reason why there is some confusion on the nature of the visible church and its worship today.


----------



## Reformed Musings

As an officer of the church (PCA), I'd have to abstain and let the local session or representative thereof know why. That would be the case even if offered a choice off to the side as if I were a lesser brother. I don't even see the logic in doing it both ways in a church. Either you believe in intinction or you don't. To me, offering a choice is like saying, "Well, we believe weakly both ways." Really?

Andrew has clearly expressed the view that I hold. We can parse the issue until the cows come home, but it comes ultimately down to obedience to our Lord's CLEAR commands as I argued on the floor of GA last year. Andrew and Scott1 cited the relevant Scriptural passages and BCO excerpts that recognize the commands. I'm not sure how our Lord could have been any clearer in His institution of the sacrament.

1 Sam 15:22: "And Samuel said, “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams." It isn't approximation or accommodation to the culture or circumstances, but obedience to His explicit commands that delights God. If we believe that worship is about honoring and glorifying God, then how do we do so with disobedience?

With great respect to my friend Lane, I don't see three positions on this switch. I simply see binary - either we honor God through obedience in our worship or we don't. If our practice is based in disobedience, then our practice is not valid and therefore dishonors God. Is that not our bottom-line basis for the regulative principle - do what He has commanded and do not do what He has not commanded? No one has yet shown me where God commanded intinction. I've see lots of parsing of words to squeeze intinction in as allowable, but no commands. I do, however, see explicit commands to EAT and DRINK separately and that's therefore the only allowable practice in Scripture and the BCO regardless of what happens to the current BCO amendment.


----------

