# Common cup for The Lord's Supper.



## Jash Comstock (May 8, 2012)

What are your opinions on using one or several common cup/cups for the Lord's Supper, as opposed to the little plastic cuppy's? I personally love the idea. It seems to take the focus of The Supper off of individualism and onto community. This seems so needed in our society of T.V Dinner-esque Communion services where each member sits back and is "served" The Supper, instead of coming to the elements as a communal body. Of course neither is biblically commanded, and I believe both are acceptable in light of the RPW; this is purely an opinion based question. What are your opinions?


----------



## Andres (May 8, 2012)

I support the idea of a common cup as well.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (May 8, 2012)

I'm a common cup guy. I understand that alcohol and silver have an antiseptic quality. Our old church used to do intinction, but I don't think that counts.


----------



## wsmeathers (May 8, 2012)

I like the idea of a common, single cup about as much as I like the idea of French kissing everyone in the church. That is, I don’t know of any Biblical verses that forbid the licking of each other’s tongues prior to Communion, but I would object to the notion that I must do so in order to participate in the sacrament of Communion. So, I don’t object to others doing it at all; and I doubt that Christ would have any objections to a single cup either, unless it was being taught that it was the ONLY way to participate.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (May 8, 2012)

All for it, but I want to be the first guy to take the cup, and not at the end of the line! 

Intinction gives me the heebie jeebies. This board must be rubbing off on me.


----------



## lynnie (May 8, 2012)

Alan, that was pretty funny.

It must have been easier in the days before germ theory. Sickness came from the damp night air, and demons, to be fixed with leeches for bad blood. 

Iodine pills take half an hour to disinfect water. Even with wine and wiping the rim, a common cup gives me the germ creeps.


----------



## dudley (May 9, 2012)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I'm a common cup guy. I understand that alcohol and silver have an antiseptic quality. Our old church used to do intinction, but I don't think that counts.



I agree withy the people in favor of a common cup. When I was a Roman catholic we had communion with a common cup , actually several . One minister would hold the tray of bread and the other would hold the cup of wine. There was more than one communion station at the Lords table. Some people drank from the common cup some elected not to. It was up to the individual. I would take the bread and then drink the wine from the cup and I never got sick.


----------



## bookslover (May 9, 2012)

Germs! Yuck!


----------



## J. Dean (May 9, 2012)

I can go either way with it. I don't think our salvation hinges on it


----------



## yeutter (May 9, 2012)

When did this modern innovation of individual cups start?


----------



## Romans922 (May 9, 2012)

It seems more important that there is one bread, "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." (1 Cor. 10:17)

I don't see a verse like that as it has to do with the cup that would make it so clear as that of the bread.


----------



## JOwen (May 9, 2012)

This, from a paper I wrote on the Common Cup...

Many who do not wish to use the common cup have only one objection- “the yuck factor”. It is believed that drinking from one cup will greatly increase the risk of contracting illness. This is a very real concern for many serious Christians.

Does this objection then remove the command to use a common cup? We think not. The reasons are :

1. The common cup has been used for over 2000 years. Are the dangers of illness any more pressing today than they were in Christ’s day? Do we have better or worse
methods of sanitation today than ever before? The answer is obvious. The risk of contracting a disease has always been a factor in any public setting. Yet the Lord,
who knew full well the potential of illness, still commanded a common cup.

2. Many diseases can also be contracted by handling the communion tray, or the communion loaf. The doorknobs of the Church building, a hand shake, a cough, a sneeze, a bathroom sink, are all more unsanitary than the sterilized cup used at Holy Supper. If illness is in view first and foremost, many would not attend Church at all.
You are far more likely to contract illness from the common building that you are from the common cup.

3. Strong wine (even fortified wine 12% or higher) is often used as communion wine to to kill bacteria on the edge of the cup.

4. Noble metals such as silver are scientifically proven to be strong bacteria killers.

In understanding the potential of contracting illness with the common cup, we must bear in mind one thing, “the cup of blessing which we bless”, is just that, blessed. Many old ministers have given testimony that in all the years they have been administering the common cup, no one has been made sick by it. This is the general understanding and experience of most congregations.

The “yuck factor” is not new to the Church. It has always been with us. Should we then use it to erase all biblical doctrines on this subject and 2000 years of Church tradition? Are we wiser than our fathers? Are we wiser than God?​
If anyone ins interested in the full article, you can contact me for it.
[email protected]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 9, 2012)

Is the common cup a more important circumstance of the supper to retain than say the table posture or sitting at table?


----------



## JOwen (May 9, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> It seems more important that there is one bread, "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." (1 Cor. 10:17)
> 
> I don't see a verse like that as it has to do with the cup that would make it so clear as that of the bread.



I would respectfully disagree dear brother. 

*The Common Cup in Scripture*

The first thing we should take notice of is the fact that at the institution of The Lord’s Supper, Christ did not give each of the disciples their own cup. These are the words we find in Luke 22:17, “And he took *the cup*, and gave thanks, and said, *Take this*, and divide* it *among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come” .

When Christ instituted the sacramental meal of the New Covenant, it came at the end of the supper of the Passover (Mark 14:18; 1 Corinthians 11:25). Yet our Lord did not give the disciples their own cups as He instituted Holy Supper, but took _one cup _and blessed _it_. Now some would say that Christ would not have used individual cups because the Passover meal had a common cup. Exactly. There is a continuum in the institution of Holy Supper with that of the Passover, though it superseded it. On the basis of the old Passover, and the new Lord’s Supper, the disciples then each drank from the single cup and passed it to the next disciple until everyone had partaken.

In fact, _every time_ the Lord’s Supper is mentioned in the New Testament, the single cup is also mentioned.

Notice,

“And he took *the cup*, and gave thanks, and gave *it* to them, saying, Drink ye all of* it*” (Matthew 26:27).
“And he took *the cup*, and when he had given thanks, he gave* it* to them: and they all drank of *it*” (Mark 14:23).
“And he took *the cup*, and gave thanks, and said, Take *this*, and divide* it* among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come” (Luke 22:17).
“Likewise also *the cup* after supper, saying, *This cup* is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).
“*The cup* of blessing which we bless, is* it* not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16)?
“Ye cannot drink *the cup* of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils” (1Cor 10:21).
“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” (1 Cor. 11:25).
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink *this cup*, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26).
“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” (1 Corinthians 11:27).
“But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of *that* cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28).

By quoting these texts, we find that in _every case_ the _singular article_ is used when referencing _the cup_. The same is found in the original. Never do we find the Greek using the _plural noun_ or the_ plural article_ in reference to the wine of the Lord’s Supper. By doing this, the Holy Spirit has made it very clear as to how He expected the element of wine to be distributed. The emphasis is on one cup (singular), not personal cups (plural). In fact, there is far more biblical data to prove a common cup than there is to prove a common table or _sprinkling_ in baptism. All three doctrines however, are biblical.

The command given by Christ is simple, and its conclusion, unavoidable. “Take this, and divide it among yourselves” is the command of Luke 22:17. Further, our Lord says in Matthew
26:27 “Drink ye all of it”. In both instances the Lord’s emphasis is on the single word “it”. We are to divine “it” (the cup held by Christ), among the many, and drink, everyone, from “it” (the same cup.) Let us remind ourselves of Paul’s words in Col 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Individual cups are not found anywhere in Scripture, or the confessions, and has crept in by “the rudiments” (the thoughts), of this world.
“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deut. 12:32).


----------



## Romans922 (May 9, 2012)

Pastor Lewis, 

I don't really disagree with you, but I'll disagree for the sake of this thread to think through things. 

It is interesting to me that he continually and descriptively says, "The cup" or "this cup" etc. when he could have said, "the one cup" or "this one cup".

You see he didn't have to say "the one cup". But he also didn't have to say, "one bread". He could have said "because there is bread", but he doesn't he adds the word "one" in there. That was available to describe the cup but he doesn't use that in the same context. Why not?

Just some thoughts.


----------



## JOwen (May 9, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Pastor Lewis,
> 
> I don't really disagree with you, but I'll disagree for the sake of this thread to think through things.
> 
> ...



Because we believe in the perspicuity of the Scriptures, we would take at face value, in context, the _singular article_ of the word _cup_ that is used in each instance. This would indicate a single cup, or "the one cup", if you will, by _contextual exegesis._ That would be an _a priori _understanding of the text. This is why the common cup has been _universally used_ by our forefathers. I would argue that individual cups are a modern independent fundamentalist invention, right around the same time as the temperance movement came to the fore in the USA.

Blessings!


----------



## Romans922 (May 9, 2012)

Good answer, (again I don't really disagree). 

Greek question, can't the same of what you said about the cup be said about the bread (without the use of the word 'one')?


----------



## JOwen (May 9, 2012)

Yes, that is why historically, the crust is cut off a large thick loaf, scored length and width, and broken off in pieces as it is passed around.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 9, 2012)

If we did a common cup, I would feel it a duty of love to sit out of communion -- I have the virus that causes mono, stays in the body and re-emerges. I don't understand it well enough to be certain I would not be passing it along: my entire family got it when my mom did, when I was a child.

It seems (speaking as a woman who is mindful of such details in her own home) quite in keeping with true love and union (which are surely the substance of what we are attracted to in a common cup) to be mindful of those of us who would feel responsible for communicating something that can significantly alter another person's health. 

In my small reading of Calvin it seems that careful avoidance of superstition about circumstances is as much a part of our reformation heritage as careful avoidance of will worship?

I don't mean to argue this, just to throw it out for consideration.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 9, 2012)

My church uses a common cup (with trays for those who prefer it).

After what seems like 100 years taking communion in Baptist churches with individual trays, I'm too set in my ways to jump over the yuck factor yet. If my conscience begins to bother me, I will consider the common cup. However, as long as my church offers the option, I'd rather pass the distraction of the yuck factor during communion.


----------



## JOwen (May 9, 2012)

a mere housewife said:


> If we did a common cup, I would feel it a duty of love to sit out of communion -- I have the virus that causes mono, stays in the body and re-emerges. I don't understand it well enough to be certain I would not be passing it along: my entire family got it when my mom did, when I was a child.
> 
> It seems (speaking as a woman who is mindful of such details in her own home) quite in keeping with true love and union (which are surely the substance of what we are attracted to in a common cup) to be mindful of those of us who would feel responsible for communicating something that can significantly alter another person's health.
> 
> ...



I completely understand. Respectfully, I don't think it is superstition, but is based on solid exegesis on which Calvin himself relied as did 2000 years of Church history (Be it Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthadox, or Protestant). In my congregation, I am the last to drink from the cup at the last seating of Holy Supper, in part to live to the command that a minister must be the servant of all, and also to show that it is a blessed cup. To date, I have not been infected by any harmful germs. I have seen a lot of lipstic glazing the wine as I sip it! That is yuck for me!
On a simular note, I have a friend who is a physicist, who has done significant research on the noble metal of silver, demonstrating that it kills almost all germs on contact. 

In one case, I knew of a man with HIV (contracted by a blood transfusion in the 70's) who went last at the table so to avoid communicating his disease. In particular cases, I would happily have a secondary cup for such souls, so that they might partake with the people. The exception should not make the rule, however, and we should be mindful of serious (known) infections at the same time. But as a rule, the common cup is the Biblical and historical modle. 
Blessings!


----------



## Jack K (May 9, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> It seems more important that there is one bread, "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." (1 Cor. 10:17)
> 
> I don't see a verse like that as it has to do with the cup that would make it so clear as that of the bread.



Agreed. A common loaf is emphasized in Scripture as having meaning. Not so clearly with the cup.

And even the loaf is broken before we eat it. No one insists that we take a bite directly out of the common loaf and then pass it to the next person. No, we each have our own piece. Likewise, it's fine to pour out the "cup" into individual cups. "Broken" and "poured out" are part of the language of institution, too.


----------



## Peairtach (May 9, 2012)

We use a common cup, or two or three common cups, here in the FCoS, FCoS (Continuing), FPCoS and APC.


----------



## Romans922 (May 9, 2012)

Jack K said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems more important that there is one bread, "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." (1 Cor. 10:17)
> ...



But perhaps that 'pouring out' from THE cup should be done in the administering of the sacrament instead of 'in the kitchen'.


----------



## JOwen (May 9, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Romans922 said:
> ...



Then how could it be "_the cup of blessing which we bless?_" ala Paul's words? Bring the whole congregation into the kitchen for the blessing before the service? ;-) No, the clear exegetical and historic model is the common cup, blessed before the people, and passed out to the communicants. "Drink ye all of IT". That does not mean "drink every drop”, but drink “everyone form the cup itself”. That is the “it” .

Blessings,


----------



## Andres (May 9, 2012)

I appreciate Pastor Lewis' argument for the common cup. Much of my views/understanding concerning the Lord's Supper came from Robert Letham's excellent book, _The Lord's Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread_. I would recommend it for anyone interested in understanding the sacrament of the Lord's Supper better.


----------



## Jack K (May 9, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Romans922 said:
> ...



I like that. Though for large churches, I could see some of it being poured on the spot while the rest was done ahead of time, similarly to how many churches break some bread on the spot but also have pieces already cut.


----------



## Miss Marple (May 9, 2012)

"Yes, that is why historically, the crust is cut off a large thick loaf, scored length and width, and broken off in pieces as it is passed around."

If the bread is distributed in small pieces, as opposed to passing a loaf and everyone bites off a piece -

it seems to me the same argument would apply. Jesus uses the singular (this is MY body, etc.), does He not, in describing the loaf of bread?

My question here is not be argumentative but to see the same standards applied to the bread as the cup.

If, as is being posited, we should all drink from a common cup because of the singular references at the institution of the Lord's Supper, should we all bite from a common loaf for the same reason?


----------



## JOwen (May 9, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> "My question here is not be argumentative but to see the same standards applied to the bread as the cup.
> 
> If, as is being posited, we should all drink from a common cup because of the singular references at the institution of the Lord's Supper, should we all bite from a common loaf for the same reason?



The Lord's command is, "This is my body, wich is broken for you. Take, eat". This is done when the communicant_ pulls off_ (take eat) a piece of the one loaf. "Drink ye all of it", is the command for the for the cup. The references to _mode_ are far more numerous for the cup than for the bread (14/1). Why? I don't know, but they are. I get why some are uncomfortable with the common cup because of the "yuck factor", but the exegesis is too clear, in my mind, to simply pass over. The whole idea of individual cups is a brand-spanking new idea, that came in at the same time as the temperance movement under the banner of American Fundamentalism and the insistence of grape juice. It has never been an argument in history before. I personally find that amazing IF there is an actual sound exegetical argument for the other. Add it all up, and you have a solid foundation for the common cup. I'm not saying you have to agree with it. But the exegetical evidence, along with the historical testimony is singular through the ages. 

Blessings,
JL
www.frcpp.org


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 9, 2012)

When Chalmers got rid of the table, did they pass the common cup up and down the pews or did multiple cups come in then? I think perhaps there were always more than one goblet in Scottish practice; I recall the reference in the Directory to "large cups," large being a reference to size or to "many" if used in the old use. I'm not clear which now.


----------



## JOwen (May 9, 2012)

NaphtaliPress said:


> When Chalmers got rid of the table, did they pass the common cup up and down the pews or did multiple cups come in then? I think perhaps there were always more than one goblet in Scottish practice; I recall the reference in the Directory to "large cups," large being a reference to size or to "many" if used in the old use. I'm not clear which now.




The single cup remained with Chalmers. The singularity of the cup has been maintained in larger congregations in symbol, though two cups bight be passed down either side. During the Black Plague, multiple cups were permitted, but it was done by families, until such a time as the plague had passed. Interesting!


----------



## Peairtach (May 9, 2012)

*Chris*


> When Chalmers got rid of the table, did they pass the common cup up and down the pews or did multiple cups come in then? I think perhaps there were always more than one goblet in Scottish practice; I recall the reference in the Directory to "large cups," large being a reference to size or to "many" if used in the old use. I'm not clear which now.



Some churches in Scotland still have a table up front and there is a division in the congregation. The Free Presbyterian church does this and probably some Free Church congregations. I would prefer to have this in Knox Free in Perth. 

All the communions I've been to in the above mentioned denominations pass one, or two or three chalices of wine around.

I think I've used the little individual glasses only once at an interdenominational conference. They may have been accepted more quickly in the CofS. I've never seen them in the FC, FPC, FC (cont) or APC.

I don't know what the United Free Church of Scotland does, another mixed denomination like the CofS, but smaller, or what the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland does - it has just four congregations.

Ian Paisley's Free Presbyterian Church also has a few congregations in Scotland, but I don't know if they use a common cup or not.

The little individual glasses don't seem to be popular at all in conservative Presbyterian churches in Scotland.


----------



## JOwen (May 9, 2012)

> Some churches in Scotland still have a table up front and there is a division in the congregation. The Free Presbyterian church does this and probably some Free Church congregations. I would prefer to have this in Knox Free in Perth. .



This was my experiance on Lewis in the APC when I did a Communion Season there. It was very nice.


----------



## wsmeathers (May 10, 2012)

JOwen said:


> The “yuck factor” is not new to the Church. It has always been with us. Should we then use it to erase all biblical doctrines on this subject and 2000 years of Church tradition? Are we wiser than our fathers? Are we wiser than God?[/INDENT]



No. Thanks for the perpetually needed rebuke; however, if I take what you say about the single cup to heart, what do I do about it? Should I now refuse to partake unless there’s a common cup provided, or quit going to any church that refuses to use a common cup? Wouldn’t those actions serve only to defeat the biblical purpose behind the common cup?

How decisive an issue do you consider this to be and to what extent would you go in trying to sway church leadership?


----------



## JOwen (May 10, 2012)

wsmeathers said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> > The “yuck factor” is not new to the Church. It has always been with us. Should we then use it to erase all biblical doctrines on this subject and 2000 years of Church tradition? Are we wiser than our fathers? Are we wiser than God?[/INDENT]
> ...



As far as I see it, using individual cups does not mean the Lord's Supper is not administered. It means that it is not being administered as precisely as it could be according to the Word of God and secondarily, the historic Reformed tradition. The Lord is gracious, I believe, and because the unity of the Church trumps form, I would tread lightly on the subject. I have administered the Lord's Supper in congregations that use individual cups, a single cup, and combination of both. For me, the issue is not first or even second on the list of needed reforms in the church, but I'd say it makes the top 10 list. But then again, the issue of conscience comes in to play on a subject, which needs to be obeyed as it is informed. Having said that, I have never met anyone who would not partake because individual cups are used. I have met many who would like to see reform on it, and have or are working gently to see it come to pass. 

As far as swaying church leadership goes, I think the only way to deal with it is to make it a matter of prayer, speak lovingly on the subject should the subject ever come up, and leave it with the consciences of those the Lord has placed in authority in the Church. There has to be a spiritual appetite for such a reform, and it should never be lofted above its place in the life of the Church. Education, prayer, love, and a submissive spirit are the key ingredients In my humble opinion. As far as I see it, it is not a reason to leave a good, gospel preaching Church, nor is it a reason to split it. As Rutherford once said, "Schism is making a tear in the garment where there is only a hole." I think this falls into that camp.

I'm very thankful that in my own congregation, the common cup is used and loved by all who are able to attend.

Every blessing,


----------



## crimsonleaf (May 10, 2012)

We break of pieces of bread and consume them. Then we receive little cups but withhold the drinking of the wine until everyone has one. The drinking is then done corporately. It seems a fully inclusive method and speaks to the unity of the act.

When I used to take wine from one cup in the Anglican Church, the rim was always wiped with a cloth before being passed to the next communicant. Unfortunately it was wiped with the same part of the same cloth each time, which made me a little twitchy. Now all I have to put up with is other people's fingerprints in the loaf as it's passed round. Hey-ho.


----------



## Andres (May 10, 2012)

JOwen said:


> As far as I see it, using individual cups does not mean the Lord's Supper is not administered. It means that it is not being administered as precisely as it could be according to the Word of God and secondarily, the historic Reformed tradition.


----------



## yeutter (May 10, 2012)

JOwen said:


> As far as I see it, using individual cups does not mean the Lord's Supper is not administered. It means that it is not being administered as precisely as it could be according to the Word of God and secondarily, the historic Reformed tradition. The Lord is gracious, I believe, and because the unity of the Church trumps form, I would tread lightly on the subject. I have administered the Lord's Supper in congregations that use individual cups, a single cup, and combination of both. For me, the issue is not first or even second on the list of needed reforms in the church, but I'd say it makes the top 10 list. But then again, the issue of conscience comes in to play on a subject, which needs to be obeyed as it is informed. Having said that, I have never met anyone who would not partake because individual cups are used. I have met many who would like to see reform on it, and have or are working gently to see it come to pass.
> 
> As far as swaying church leadership goes, I think the only way to deal with it is to make it a matter of prayer, speak lovingly on the subject should the subject ever come up, and leave it with the consciences of those the Lord has placed in authority in the Church. There has to be a spiritual appetite for such a reform, and it should never be lofted above its place in the life of the Church. Education, prayer, love, and a submissive spirit are the key ingredients In my humble opinion. As far as I see it, it is not a reason to leave a good, gospel preaching Church, nor is it a reason to split it. As Rutherford once said, "Schism is making a tear in the garment where there is only a hole." I think this falls into that camp.
> 
> ...


I view the use of multiple individual cups as a concession to modernity. It is irregular; but not necessarily invalid. In recent years I have seen Lutheran congregations split over the issue by some who were more strongly committed to the use of a common cup then I am. I read in the Standardbearer about a group of Reformed Congregations in Namibia who were hardcore in their staand for the common cup.


----------



## Pergamum (May 10, 2012)

I have folks with active TB in my church. Is it a sin if I elbow Mr Slobbers out of the way and go first?


----------



## JOwen (May 11, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> I have folks with active TB in my church. Is it a sin if I elbow Mr Slobbers out of the way and go first?



Probably

---------- Post added at 06:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> I have folks with active TB in my church. Is it a sin if I elbow Mr Slobbers out of the way and go first?



Probably


----------



## a mere housewife (May 11, 2012)

Rev. Lewis, thanks much for your kind response -- and for your consideration of those who have scruples like my own.

Please know that I certainly did not intend to accuse anyone of superstition, simply to remark generally that it seems like those two principles of our reformed heritage are brought to bear on each aspect of our worship -- as with other aspects of the Lord's table (posture, etc, as Mr. Coldwell referenced). Alred Edersheim speaks of the postures having some significance in 'The Temple, Its Ministry and Services'; and indicates that the cup of blessing was understood in Paschal feast tradition rather differently -- with four cups of wine throughout the supper, at various points -- the third 'cup of blessing' being associated by the Lord with the institution of his own feast. It would seem that even the poorest in Israel were to procure these four cups for themselves, which would not indicate a communal cup so much as a communal drinking? This is not put forward for argument: I am not knowledgeable on the subject so much as curious - I was wondering if you could refer me to where Calvin defends drinking from a single cup? (In what I was able to find, he is more concerned to speak about communion in both kinds, and transubstantiation.) I do remember that when it came to headcoverings, he had no view that the symbol ought to be practiced in such a way as to cross health concerns. (He seems to have removed his own hat as a token of respect, and then replaced it, to keep warm while he preached.) 

In fact I have no yuck factor. I was raised eating and drinking very much in common with my siblings, and am probably one who would feel how wonderful it was to behave so much like family. It's more a matter of principles of love, over against feelings, in my own case.


----------



## JOwen (May 11, 2012)

Dear sister in Christ, 

From *The Form Of Prayers And Ministration Of The Sacraments as practiced in Geneva *(1556), approved by both John Calvin and John Knox. It should be observed how the singualrty of divinsion of the same cup among the communicants is used in the following lnaguage.

"This done, the Minister breaketh the bread, and delivereth it to the people, who distribute and *divide the same amongst themselves*, according to our Savior Christ’s commandment, *and in likewise* giveth *the cup *(Works of John Knox, [Bannatyne Club: Edinburgh] 1855, 4:196, emphases added).

"Our Lord having commanded his disciples to eat the bread sanctified in his body, when he comes to *the cup*, does not say simply, “drink,” but he adds expressly, that all are to drink. Would we have any thing clearer than this? He says that we are to eat the bread without using an universal term. He says that we are all to drink of *the cup*."

Calvin, *Harmony of the Gospels*. Here he is speaking to the subject of the Passover (and His participation in Holy Supper, or not), but the singularity of a common cup still remains. Note,

"As Luke mentions that *the cup* was twice presented by Christ, we must inquire, in the first place, if it be a repetition, (as the Evangelists are wont frequently to say the same thing twice,) or if Christ, after having tasted *the cup*, repeated the same thing a second time. This latter conjecture appears to me to be probable; for we know that the holy fathers, during sacrifices, observed the solemn rite of tasting *the cup*; and hence the words of the Psalmist, _‘I will take the cup of salvation, and will call on the name of the Lord_,’ (Ps. 116:13.) I have no doubt, therefore, that Christ, according to the ancient custom, tasted* the cup* in the holy feast, which otherwise could not have been correctly observed; and Luke expressly mentions this, before coming to give an account of the new mystery, which was a totally different institution from the paschal lamb".

Calvin's Vomments on 1 Cor 11:25,

"*The cup*, when he had supped The Apostle seems to intimate, that there was some interval of time between the distribution of the bread and that of *the cup*, and it does not quite appear from the Evangelists whether the whole of the transaction was continuous. This, however, is of no great moment, for it may be that the Lord delivered in the meantime some address, after distributing the bread, and before giving* the cup*. As, however, he did or said nothing that was not in harmony with the sacrament, we need not say that the administration of it was disturbed or interrupted. I would not, however, render it as Erasmus does — supper, being ended, for, in a matter of so great importance, ambiguity ought to be avoided". 

That Calvin employed the use of the _Common Cup _has never been disputed. 

Kindly,


----------



## a mere housewife (May 11, 2012)

I will not be the first to dispute Calvin's practice!  (I don't question the historical prevalence of the practice: I can well believe that even just for matters of convenience and lack of modern ideas about hygiene, the practice would have largely held throughout history, except where it crossed people's understanding of disease, as in the plague) -- I was simply wondering if there were anywhere in his writings that you could point me to where he specifically addresses using a common cup as on the same level of institution with communion in both kinds? (For some of the quotes you provided seem more directed at communion in both kinds? And I notice Calvin speaks of 'the cup' as a metonymy for the wine in the cup in his Harmony as well? As he also cites ancient customs, would Edersheim not throw some light on various senses in which our own understanding of 'the cup' might legitimately be taken?) Again, I'm afraid the questions will sound impertinent when I would like to better understand the exact grounds of this position. Thank you sincerely.


----------



## JOwen (May 11, 2012)

The short answer to your question is no. 

The longer answer is ,I think the evidence for what you are asking for is impossible to find (In Calvin's writings), due to the universality of the practice itself. But the universality points to the exegetical framework from which it rises. There was no need for polemics on the subject of the common cup because the practice was without question. And this should not go without notice; for when the Lord instituted the Lord's Supper, He knew full well of the potential of germ transmission. A subtle change in phraseology would have rendered the mode moot if He wold have pointed to the wine and not the cup in the institution. Because the Holy Spirit unequivocally uses the word_ cup _(as opposed to just the wine in the cup, which is surely represents), we have little reason to question mode. This leaves only one exegetical conclusion resting on perspicuity; that the Lord intended the meal to consist of a communal cup. I would say that newly discovered circumstances can not be the tool by which exegetical establishment is removed. 

Hope this helps.
Your thinking process is commendable!

Kind regards,


----------



## Constantlyreforming (May 11, 2012)

yeutter said:


> When did this modern innovation of individual cups start?



History of Plastic Cups | eHow.com


----------



## a mere housewife (May 11, 2012)

Rev. Lewis, you've been so kind and patient with me. Thank you. I'm afraid I'm a perpetual elephant child and have yet more, always more, questions but will leave it with those; certainly my thinking process can only reflect the small understanding of a curious housewife. I pray God will bless you and your church.


----------



## Beau Michel (May 11, 2012)

I prefer the common cup.I believe it is more faithful to idea of communion as opposed to the individualism that has saturated the culture (and in many cases the modern Evangelical church.)Beau Michel-Taylor Mi.1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith


----------



## Beau Michel (May 13, 2012)

While I prefer the common cup,it is certainly not a basis for splitting a church.


----------

