# Intinction Paper



## greenbaggins (Dec 18, 2012)

I have written a paper on intinction for the Palmetto Presbytery. The stub is here, and the full paper is here.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Dec 18, 2012)

Thanks for that. I'll be posting it on my blog and hope to have some good discussions with friends and other TEs and REs in our presbytery.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 18, 2012)

Well done, Lane. Thank you for posting this.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Thanks much for doing this.
And timely.

It is of highest importance to the church that the Lord's Supper be handled carefully, there be unity over it, and that it not be subject to invention.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Dec 18, 2012)

A real gift to the church. Thank you.


----------



## J. Dean (Dec 18, 2012)

A curious question, Rev Keister: do you hold to Zwingli's take on communion?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 18, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> A curious question, Rev Keister: do you hold to Zwingli's take on communion?



Curious is not the word I would use to describe your question. I would use the word churlish.

Lane is a minister in good standing in a Church whose Sacramental views are not Zwinglian. If you have a specific clarification that you wish to be made then ask but don't obliquely ask a man if he's taken an exception that would strike at our fundamentals.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 18, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> > A curious question, Rev Keister: do you hold to Zwingli's take on communion?
> ...



Did not the good Rev. Winzer defend Zwingi's view as essentially Reformed? Or are you distinguishing between Zwingli and the Zwinglianists?

The Lord's Supper - Zwingli's View Question
Zwingli's View of the Lord's Supper? 

I doubt that Mr. Dean meant to impugn Rev. Keister, even if his question was "curious."


----------



## Gage Browning (Dec 19, 2012)

Thanks Lane. Very helpful.


----------



## J. Dean (Dec 19, 2012)

SRoper said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > J. Dean said:
> ...


Agreed. All I wanted to ascertain was whether or not Rev. Lane (and others who oppose intinction) happened to hold a symbolic view of communion as opposed to the view taken that there is a true grace administered with the Sacraments a la Calvin, as people in the Reformed camp are not necessarily monolithic on this (thus Zwingli and Calvin, both Reformed).

I would hope that we are more mature and levelheaded here than to think that all questions asked regarding clarification to doctrinal positions are motivated by bad intentions.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 19, 2012)

Thank you, Lane!

I've been so busy helping people that I had never really given much attention to the mode of communion. Your paper was a good introduction and case for the mode I practice.

Perhaps it is just me, but I believe your paper would have come across as being more urgent if you hadn't spent so much time in your introduction telling intinction proponents that they shouldn't feel under attack and that churches that practice it shouldn't be run out, etc. 

If you are advocating for the adoption of a statement in the BCO that would effectively outlaw intinction - with all that entails and implies for those who practice it - then I don't think your introduction comments helped your cause.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 19, 2012)

In answer to previous inquiries, I hold to Calvin's position on the spiritual presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper. Interestingly, Zwingli's views are not as iron-shod as they are often portrayed to be. For instance, I have heard (though not examined the sources themselves), that Zwingli, later in life, came much closer to Calvin's position than his earlier work. 

In answer to Ben, my comments were geared entirely towards lowering the temperature of a debate that has, on the internet, at least, been involved in blatant misreading of motives (see ByFaith magazine comments for a good example). In particular, proponents of intinction have been levelling the charge of legalism against their opponents, a ridiculous charge, to be sure, but one well calculated to raise the emotional temperature of the debate. My purpose in the comments in the introduction were therefore to open people's minds (Lord-willing) to talking about the historical, exegetical and systematic concerns raised there, and hopefully to get people's minds off the motive-reading and name-calling of the internet debates. Plus, I am not going to leave the PCA if the PCA decides to allow intinction with no repercussions. This is not a hill on which I am willing to die. I am willing to die on the theistic evolution hill, on the Federal Vision hill, on the doctrine of Scripture hill, but not on the intinction hill.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 19, 2012)

greenbaggins said:


> In answer to previous inquiries, I hold to Calvin's position on the spiritual presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper. Interestingly, Zwingli's views are not as iron-shod as they are often portrayed to be. For instance, I have heard (though not examined the sources themselves), that Zwingli, later in life, came much closer to Calvin's position than his earlier work.
> 
> In answer to Ben, my comments were geared entirely towards lowering the temperature of a debate that has, on the internet, at least, been involved in blatant misreading of motives (see ByFaith magazine comments for a good example). In particular, proponents of intinction have been levelling the charge of legalism against their opponents, a ridiculous charge, to be sure, but one well calculated to raise the emotional temperature of the debate. My purpose in the comments in the introduction were therefore to open people's minds (Lord-willing) to talking about the historical, exegetical and systematic concerns raised there, and hopefully to get people's minds off the motive-reading and name-calling of the internet debates. Plus, I am not going to leave the PCA if the PCA decides to allow intinction with no repercussions. This is not a hill on which I am willing to die. I am willing to die on the theistic evolution hill, on the Federal Vision hill, on the doctrine of Scripture hill, but not on the intinction hill.



Sounds fair enough! Thanks for writing the paper.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Dec 19, 2012)

greenbaggins said:


> In answer to previous inquiries, I hold to Calvin's position on the spiritual presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper. Interestingly, Zwingli's views are not as iron-shod as they are often portrayed to be. For instance, I have heard (though not examined the sources themselves), that Zwingli, later in life, came much closer to Calvin's position than his earlier work.
> 
> In answer to Ben, my comments were geared entirely towards lowering the temperature of a debate that has, on the internet, at least, been involved in blatant misreading of motives (see ByFaith magazine comments for a good example). In particular, proponents of intinction have been levelling the charge of legalism against their opponents, a ridiculous charge, to be sure, but one well calculated to raise the emotional temperature of the debate. My purpose in the comments in the introduction were therefore to open people's minds (Lord-willing) to talking about the historical, exegetical and systematic concerns raised there, and hopefully to get people's minds off the motive-reading and name-calling of the internet debates. Plus, I am not going to leave the PCA if the PCA decides to allow intinction with no repercussions. This is not a hill on which I am willing to die. I am willing to die on the theistic evolution hill, on the Federal Vision hill, on the doctrine of Scripture hill, but not on the intinction hill.



Thanks a lot for this. I just finished reading through it and found it quite helpful, in content and in tone.

Do you know of anyone on the pro-intinction side that has written something either laying out the positive case, or responding to your paper? Would there be anyone who might be willing to do an extended conversation with you on Reformed Forum or something similar?

I personally have found the view you present in the paper quite persuasive. But I tend to think that it would be helpful to hear two men discuss it in some more depth in a calm way that we might hear them interact well.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 19, 2012)

Joel, my paper was published online for the first time on Tuesday. I seriously doubt that there is any reply out there this quickly. The only modern defense of the practice I know of is the Grigg-Smith paper, noted in my paper, aside from Rae Whitlock's response to the Ohio Presbytery report, and the Henry Smith piece from the Southeast Alabama Presbytery. None of these are full-blown defenses of the practice. The Grigg-Smith is the longest, is out of print, and argues nothing from Scripture. Rae's piece argues a few points from Scripture, but is more of a response to the Ohio Presbytery report rather than a full-blown defense of the practice. I don't know of any full defense of intinction. If you read the chapter on intinction in the Freestone book, you will find a 12th century defense of the practice, written by Ernulph, bishop of Rochester (look on pages 157ff). The Freestone book is available on Google books.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 19, 2012)

Thanks, Rev. Keister, for your excellent contribution with this paper. Your tone is inviting and your arguments are largely helpful. I had a question, though. On page 18 you write:


> Given what happened at the Orlando General Assembly, when people could not partake of the Lord's Supper because of conscience issues, it seems difficult to argue that intinction preserves unity in our denomination. How is intinction, therefore, a symbol of unity when many people cannot partake of Communion in that manner? This could only be the author's impression, but it seems to me that very few practitioners of intinction in the PCA are actually offended at the common cup, or think it wrong.


I don't understand the last sentence. Isn't it obvious that practitioners of intinction aren't offended at the common cup since that is what they almost universally use?


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 19, 2012)

Yes, Scott, I can see why that sentence would be confusing. It is actually an error. It should read "it seems to me that very few practitioners of intinction in the PCA are actually offended at individual cups, or think it wrong." So, the point of the paragraph is that practitioners of intinction do not usually judge the individual cup method as being wrong, or a violation of conscience. Therefore, they should not practice intinction, for the sake of unity in the church, since intinction does create a point of conscience for people opposed to the practice.


----------



## MW (Dec 19, 2012)

SRoper said:


> Did not the good Rev. Winzer defend Zwingi's view as essentially Reformed?



There is none good but one!

I understood the question of Mr. Dean to require something unique in Zwingli's view, which is counter-productive to what I wrote concerning Zwingli. If Mr. Dean does not think there is something distinctive in Zwingli's view, with a hint that Rev. Keister might share that distinctive, why draw attention to it in the first place?

I will defend Zwingli's view of the Supper as basically the same as the Reformed with respect to the nature and instrumentality of the sacrament, but would also accept the Reformed view, as expressed in the WCF, has the advantage of hindsight and mature deliberation. So, formally, I would not say Zwingli's is the Reformed view, though there is much that is materially common.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Dec 19, 2012)

greenbaggins said:


> Joel, my paper was published online for the first time on Tuesday. I seriously doubt that there is any reply out there this quickly. The only modern defense of the practice I know of is the Grigg-Smith paper, noted in my paper, aside from Rae Whitlock's response to the Ohio Presbytery report, and the Henry Smith piece from the Southeast Alabama Presbytery. None of these are full-blown defenses of the practice. The Grigg-Smith is the longest, is out of print, and argues nothing from Scripture. Rae's piece argues a few points from Scripture, but is more of a response to the Ohio Presbytery report rather than a full-blown defense of the practice. I don't know of any full defense of intinction. If you read the chapter on intinction in the Freestone book, you will find a 12th century defense of the practice, written by Ernulph, bishop of Rochester (look on pages 157ff). The Freestone book is available on Google books.



Thanks for that info. I've read Rae's response, but it is, as you say, not intended to be a defense of intinction per se. I missed the Henry Smith paper reference the first time through, somI'll check that out. But again thanks for your paper, it was quite helpful.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 20, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > Did not the good Rev. Winzer defend Zwingi's view as essentially Reformed?
> ...



Perhaps "esteemed" is more accurate, Rev. Winzer! I hope I did not misrepresent what you wrote. I agree that you were pointing to a basic unity between the positions while Mr. Dean's question was premised on the existence of significant differences. I was just questioning whether "Zwingi" means "out of bounds."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 20, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Agreed. All I wanted to ascertain was whether or not Rev. Lane (and others who oppose intinction) happened to hold a symbolic view of communion as opposed to the view taken that there is a true grace administered with the Sacraments a la Calvin, as people in the Reformed camp are not necessarily monolithic on this (thus Zwingli and Calvin, both Reformed).


Can you show me in the WCF where the Zwinglian view is present?

I naturally assumed you knew what the 3FU and the Westminster Standards teach on the Sacraments and that ministers are required to subscribe to these Confessions in their respective denominations. Both teach that the graces signified by a sacrament are really present to worthy recipients.


----------



## MW (Dec 20, 2012)

SRoper said:


> Perhaps "esteemed" is more accurate, Rev. Winzer! I hope I did not misrepresent what you wrote. I agree that you were pointing to a basic unity between the positions while Mr. Dean's question was premised on the existence of significant differences. I was just questioning whether "Zwingi" means "out of bounds."



That's OK; wires are easily crossed on these kinds of threads. My reading of Zwingli leads me to believe that he would not be out of bounds; however, in popular theology, Zwingli is regarded as holding something less than the Reformed position, so identification with his supposed position -- i.e., bare memorialism -- would obviously be out of bounds. I hope that clarifies. Blessings!


----------



## py3ak (Dec 20, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps "esteemed" is more accurate, Rev. Winzer! I hope I did not misrepresent what you wrote. I agree that you were pointing to a basic unity between the positions while Mr. Dean's question was premised on the existence of significant differences. I was just questioning whether "Zwingi" means "out of bounds."
> ...



I was thinking that it might be illustrated by another controversy. There is no doubt that Nestorianism is a heresy, though quite a few scholars have questioned whether Nestorius was actually a Nestorian. In the same way, it might turn out that Zwingli's position is distinguishable from Zwinglianism - but within Reformed communions there can be no doubt that Zwinglianism is an error. The historical question of the particular theologian's views, in other words, is distinguishable from the theological question of which view is correct.


----------



## MW (Dec 20, 2012)

py3ak said:


> I was thinking that it might be illustrated by another controversy. There is no doubt that Nestorianism is a heresy, though quite a few scholars have questioned whether Nestorius was actually a Nestorian. In the same way, it might turn out that Zwingli's position is distinguishable from Zwinglianism - but within Reformed communions there can be no doubt that Zwinglianism is an error. The historical question of the particular theologian's views, in other words, is distinguishable from the theological question of which view is correct.



My hope would be that a good historico-theological method, together with hard and honest work, would bring truth to light and popular sentiment might be corrected accordingly. Then there wouldn't be so much confusion. I find it hard to accept the parallel, as I do not think Nestorius has been exonerated.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 20, 2012)

I haven't found the pro-Nestorius case particularly convincing myself; but IF it were demonstrated, it still seems unlikely that we would be able to replace the venerable label of Nestorianism with some other.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 20, 2012)

Lane,

I finally found some time to sit down and read your paper through. Very well done. It's a keeper from a historical perspective alone but I really appreciate the exegetical case you make as well.

One other interesting thing we might note from 1 Corinthians is this:

1 Corinthians 11:20–21 (ESV)
20*When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21*For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.

Just an observation that if a common cup was the practice, how was it possible for people to get drunk from the common cup?

At the end you write this:


> The Westminster Standards issue- At last year's General Assembly, many people voted against the amendment on the basis of their belief that our standards (both the Westminster Standards and our Book of Church Order) were already clear in forbidding the practice. I would strongly dispute this, for two reasons. Firstly, intinction was not practiced anywhere in Christendom except for the Greek Orthodox Church at the time of the Westminster Assembly. The Greek Orthodox were hardly regular targets of the divines' polemics. Although there would be a few of the divines who might have known about the practice, it was definitely not on the radar screen at the time of the Assembly. Secondly, if our standards are so crystal clear, then why are we having this debate? And why are some churches practicing intinction?



This is not an attack on your statement, per se, but just a concern I have for the manner in which I see controversies taken up. I'm not writing this to correct you but to lay out some thoughts.

Our system of doctrine is meant to fit together as a coherent whole not as individual aphorisms or "sayings" where we might ignore what the relationship of one practice is to another. Hence, at the same GA, I heard men stating that they didn't have a problem with those who held to paedocommunion as long as they didn't practice it. The underlying notion is that what a man believes concerning paedocommunion is an argument over participants or practice and that the results of a particular view don't resonate across the entire system of doctrine. We might call something a second or third order effect where you have to look at what a particular statement in one arena says about many different parts of the entire system.

Thus, the concern I have with the BCO amendment is that, even if passed, if a fundamental disconnect exists in other parts of our system still exists then its effects are felt in many other ways. Let me take this up in a few ways:

1. With respect to the sacraments, our standards have a very robust presentation of what we believe the Scriptures teach about the significance of sacraments and the graces they convey to worthy recipients. I believe you have helpfully drawn out, from the writings of our forebears, the historic Reformed consensus that the actions of the Sacraments are actually meant to communicate something to those participating in it. In Baptism our senses are aroused and the physical, tangible, and historical administration of water communicates to us that "as surely as water washes away the filth of your flesh, so surely are your sins forgiven if you have faith in Christ." We understand that the Holy Spirit, by His Sovereign work, unites the thing signified to the graces it conveys. Consequently, we who are historically bound to earth are placed in contact with the eternal plan of redemption as grace through water is administered to us.

Likewise, if we reflect upon the words of institution by our Lord, we hear Him tell us one thing about the bread and another thing about the wine. With each historical action, the grace signified is meant to arise our senses to the heavenly reality. If we bear in mind what we believe about the Sacraments then we don't consider each action as somehow inconsequential and that the important thing is just to consume both elements. Rather, as earth bound creatures, we are given precious emblems of our Lord's goodness that He gives to us for this sojourn.

Now, for those who argue for intinction on the basis that it preserves unity, we can stop to consider the argument being made that part of what is signified by the sacrament is our mystical union with Christ and that the Supper ought to be organized in such a way that raises our senses to that unity. That said, we must not stop there but must press the question about the intention of our Lord that He stopped at each element and asked us to raise our senses to what each meant as we partake of them. Without this further step then the full connection to our understanding of the sacraments is undermined.

2. You touch on the Regulative Principle for Worship but I fear increasingly that the argument is increasingly not heard. When one begins with the question about where the Lord has forbidden a practice, the RPW has already been negotiated. Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that you undermine the credbility of the historic practice of intinction but it is troubling to me about how the "ancient-ness" of the practice is even considered to carry more weight then first establishing an exegetical basis for a practice in the minds of many. I fear that we are increasingly losing contact with our system of doctrine that places a high premium on avoiding idolatry in our worship. It is hard for us to admit that even our best intentions in worship may not be pleasing to the Lord and I wonder if we're negotiating or completely losing the RPW in favor of a view that permits Churches the freedom to introduce new ways of worshipping God. Do we really still believe in the principle that we worship God only in the manner He has commanded?

3. I used the word "freedom" in the last paragraph in lieu of the word liberty because I believe liberty is increasingly used in a way, once again, that demonstrates that we're losing contact with the system of doctrine as a whole. We have liberty to obey God. Liberty, as Scripture teaches and as we have historically confessed, is not that I'm OK with a practice and so I have the right as an elder in Christ's Church to require others to practice in worship something I am OK with.

I believe the principle of Sphere Sovereignty is critical here. Liberty of conscience is actually a principle that complements the RPW in matters of worship. In highlighting that principle separately, the Confessions underline the principle that a believer's conscience is to be bound by Scripture alone. Whatever authority I have as an elder in the Church or as a father in my home, that authority begins and ends with the boundary markers God has granted me for that specific sphere. I may, by the Scriptures, bind another person's conscience to something the Lord teaches or commands in His Word. We not only may but must preach the Word to the congregation. We not only may but must administer the Lord's Supper to every worthy recipient in the congregation.

Now, here is the problem. Some believe they _may_ administer the Lord's Supper in a manner that they deem appropriate. If, as I've previously argued, there is a reason why Christ instituted the Supper and commanded the bread and wine to signify distinct gracious "speech" then I don't have any liberty whatsoever in how I administer it. On the one hand, the RPW has already circumscribed worship so, unless I have positive warrant, I don't have the liberty to disobey. _On the other hand_, when I come in contact with the individual worshiper, I have no authority _whatsoever_ to require the person to worship His Lord in a manner He has not prescribed.

This was what I was trying to underline when I rose on the floor of GA. Among all the other considerations already mentioned, we must consider the conscience of the individual worshiper as a factor in everything we do in worship. We have no right to bind his/her conscience to anything outside of what is in God's Word. You mention that unity is lost in intinction because there are many who will not partake because it violates their conscience. This is not a mere scruple but the conviction that it is a violation of the 2nd Commandment. In all the arguments for intinction, I have not seen anyone answer this concern satisfactorily. Again, I see us losing the interconnectedness of the whole system of doctrine where we as Churchmen are assuming authority to ourselves over the consciences of believers that the Lord has not granted.

The sad part of this whole affair is, as you have noted, the brush with which many who are trying to protect the system are painted. It is always difficult in these discussions because whenever you say "No" to something in our culture we are immediately placed as those who are negative. I've tried above to lay out the many positive reasons why we ought to consider all of the factors of the debate and how they all fit together. My hope is for those advocates to at least wrestle with the full system of doctrine. I'd be at least more satisfied if I saw them affirming the sacramental aspects of the Lord's Supper, the RPW as we confess it, and the nature of liberty of conscience and demonstrate how intinction can be shown to preserve all of them. It's not the physical action that I'm hung up on any more than I'm hung up on whether a man practices paedocommunion or not. It's the things that are neglected in these arguments or even arguments that are made that strike at one or all three of these principles that greatly concern me.

Thus, if the PCA passes the BCO amendment and men stop practicing intinction for no other reason than it is forbidden then I will be grateful that (in my view) our members are protected from an errant practice. But if that's the only reason our ministers stop and they still don't have these other principles as foundational to their thinking then it makes me very sad.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 20, 2012)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Rich (almost as long as my paper!). I, too, agree that we have become very atomistic in our understanding of the confessional standards. It has come to my attention in a much more pointed way in my study of Roman Catholicism. It is a system, a paradigm. There are many treatments of Roman Catholicism from an evangelical perspective that simply treat one issue at a time, without connecting those issues to the entire system. The same thing is true with regard to our confessional heritage. It is a system. I remember going through the Westminster Standards and noting how many exceptions a paedo-communion advocate would actually have to take, if he were honest, and it is rather a lot of exceptions. That being said, my paper did not really seek to examine the Westminster Standards to see if the system forbade it (except in comments about the RPW). Perhaps that is a weakness, although, as I did say in the paper, intinction was hardly on the radar screen for the Westminster divines.


----------



## MW (Dec 20, 2012)

The paper gives a strong exegetical presentation and is to be commended on that account. Historically, however, there are two points of concern. First, Antiquaries have merely assumed a paedo-communion reference in Cyprian and paedo-communion advocates have laid claim to it. Careful reading of the sources demonstrates that there is no actual observance of it; and if that is the case there could be no basis for a mode of celebrating the communion based upon the practice, contrary to a suggestion made in the paper. Secondly, it matters not if a Greek orthodox practice was a target of the Westminster divines. The fact is, the mode of receiving communion was intricately debated after the Elizabethan Settlement, as a result of polemic against Romanism on the one hand and Puritan dissent on the other. These debates directly contributed to the final formulation of the Westminster Standards relative to the practice of the Lord's supper, to the effect that those Standards must be regarded as positively rejecting inconsistent modes of administration even though such modes are not explicitly barred.

As an aside, the common cup is part of the Reformed communion rite, which warrants a more cautious handling of the point.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 20, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> The paper gives a strong exegetical presentation and is to be commended on that account. Historically, however, there are two points of concern. First, Antiquaries have merely assumed a paedo-communion reference in Cyprian and paedo-communion advocates have laid claim to it. Careful reading of the sources demonstrates that there is no actual observance of it; and if that is the case there could be no basis for a mode of celebrating the communion based upon the practice, contrary to a suggestion made in the paper. Secondly, it matters not if a Greek orthodox practice was a target of the Westminster divines. The fact is, the mode of receiving communion was intricately debated after the Elizabethan Settlement, as a result of polemic against Romanism on the one hand and Puritan dissent on the other. These debates directly contributed to the final formulation of the Westminster Standards relative to the practice of the Lord's supper, to the effect that those Standards must be regarded as positively rejecting inconsistent modes of administration even though such modes are not explicitly barred.
> 
> As an aside, the common cup is part of the Reformed communion rite, which warrants a more cautious handling of the point.



I appreciate these points of historical interest. My paper does not, however, assert that paedo-communion was a cause of the introduction of intinction. I believe that other people have interpreted it so, and that was what I was trying to convey. I think that communion to the sick was the real issue, though even there we must be cautious. 

As to your point about the Elizabethan settlement, even if it was a polemic against Romanism, that does not mean that they explicitly rejected intinction. I would agree that an honest reading of the Westminster Standards gives no support to intinction, and I would even be willing to go so far as to say that the tenor of the Standards is against intinction. I just don't feel comfortable saying in an unqualified way that the Westminster Standards clearly reject intinction, since it wasn't part of their polemics. 

I thought I was being exceptionally cautious about the common cup. I am well aware that it is part of the Reformed tradition. I was trying to argue that it is not required by the Scriptural evidence, though it is certainly a valid way of serving communion.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Dec 20, 2012)

My phone will only let me read the stub so I have not read the paper in its entirety & apologize in advance of you have dealt with what I am about to say.

Before I say anything else, let me be perfectly clear that I do not practice intinction nor am I trying to advocate that it is a Confessional/Reformed practice.

As a members of the Free Church of Scotland (continuing) we share a common cup of wine & common bread seated around a table because it is the Biblical, Confessional, Reformed, faithful, proper and/or "correct" administration of the sacrament.

That said, when I heard of the practice of dipping a broken piece of a common loaf of bread into the a common cup of wine, I found it far more Biblical than individual disposable cups of grape juice and crackers/wafers (unlevened bread).

I say "more Biblical" because the first thing that came to mind (without any in-depth research) was Scripture.

Jesus Christ, on the night in which he instituted the Lords Supper, said that the one who would betray Him "is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it." He was speaking of Judas but the disciples still didn't seem to know that Christ was speaking of Judas, at least that is how the passage reads. 
(An implication being that during the meal they all had dipped a morsel of bread into the wine with their/our Redeemer, just not at that moment when Satan entered Judas)

This language of dipped bread is the same Biblical language used in Ruth when she meets her kinsman redeemer Boaz & he said to her, “Come here and eat some bread and dip your morsel in the wine."

I am no theologian and do not pretend to know what proponents of intinction argue. But, I would not be quick to call the practice *unbiblical*. As far as calling it faithful, correct or proper... the Westminster Standards don't even hint at the practice of intinction.

I am just glad this isn't a hill to die on.

On a side note: Because my husband is a Virologist & all of the communicant members of our congregation drink from a common cup at the Lord's Table, the concept of dipping bread is somewhat appealing BUT appealing still doesn't mean "correct"


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 21, 2012)

Jessica,

I suggest you read the paper because both examples you cited are not exegetically sound.

In the first place, Christ did not dip the bread into wine but a mixture of spices as was the practice during the Passover meal. This was not during the Lord's Supper but when he was identifying who the betrayer was. 

Let me leave that aside for the moment and follow the logic that Christ was administering the Lord's Supper by dipping bread into wine and giving it to His disciples. Was Judas the only one who received the Supper? In other words, if the Lord's Supper was being distributed to all the disciples then how would Christ distributing a dipped piece of bread identify Judas in particular?

In the second example, why is the fact that Boaz invites Ruth to dip bread into wine (vinegar in the Hebrew) a support for the Lord's Supper? This is not during a Passover meal or any other feast day.

As for being "biblical" nobody is claiming that there are not examples, therefore, of individuals dipping bread into something and consuming it, the question is whether, just because we see it elsewhere, it is how a particular meal is to be observed. When Christ (and later Paul) specifically notes a sequence of events that are to occur we cannot ignore plain language and import whatever else we might see in the Scriptures to infer that what they say clearly may be overthrown by inference. As I noted previously, Christ and Paul specifically reflect on the significance of each action and its spiritual union with what is signified by it.

Finally, I'm certain your husband will note that germs are not merely carried by saliva but by the fingers as well. It's the reason we tell our kids to wash their hands before supper.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Dec 21, 2012)

I did not say intinction was the correct administration because it is not.
I said I do not practice it nor do I believe it is Confessional or Reformed.
I was just sharing that one can say it is incorrect without saying it is unbiblical.
In the stub it said that the paper would try to prove intinction is unbiblical.
I was only sharing what came to mind.
My husband has no problem with one bread or one cup. If the LORD allows us to get sick from partaking of the Lord's Supper so be it (He hadn't yet). This is why I said that appealing doesn't mean "correct"


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 21, 2012)

irresistible_grace said:


> That said, when I heard of the practice of dipping a broken piece of a common loaf of bread into the a common cup of wine, I found it far more Biblical than individual disposable cups of grape juice and crackers/wafers (unlevened bread).





irresistible_grace said:


> I did not say intinction was the correct administration because it is not.


Jessica,

I was responding to your observations that "dipping a broken piece of a common loaf of bread into a common up...is far more Biblical."

You then cited two examples, which were dealt with in the paper. I was trying to summarize the exegetical issues surrounding those examples because you had concluded that dipping was "...far more Biblical."


----------

