Intinction?

[Pilgrim72]

There was actually a study to determine the increased risk of disease transmission from using a common cup. The conclusion was that communicant members of the congregation were no more likely to get sick than non-communicant attenders. Other experts have opined that you are far more likely to get sick from eating bread that others have touched than from drinking wine from a common cup.

Probably true. But I still don't want to do it. Just the thought of the wine touching everyone's mouths, and then you're up next... Not sure I could bring myself to do it.

 

[py3ak]

Ruben, my purpose in even mentioning it was that I have heard (here and elsewhere) PCA members say "I never heard of it in my church/presbytery, it must have just started".

Of course, Kevin: my point was merely that your evidence on the matter hardly showed that the PCA consciously decided to receive known intinctionists and refused to speak against them.

Right.

Had I wanted to make that point I would have referred to the practice of our church celebrating the Lord's Supper at General Assembly.

And, in fairness, that one off experience, it only happened once, set off a firestorm of debate, and division the likes of which the denomination had never experienced over the Lord's Supper.

It provoked an overture that was not adopted. (Does anyone know the history of how that overture was dealt with procedurally at General Assembly)?

But the invention has not since been repeated.

Good points, Scott. While it is useful evidence, it seems to primarily show that surprised people sometimes go along with an innovation.

 

[Romans922]

(Does anyone know the history of how that overture was dealt with procedurally at General Assembly)?

GA Minutes state the grounds for their turning down the overture: "Directions concerning administration of the Lord’s Supper at future General Assemblies should be addressed through changes to the Rules of Assembly Operations. Moreover, the administration of the Lord’s Supper is adequately governed by the Scriptures and the Book of Church Order."

---------- Post added at 10:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 AM ----------

There was actually a study to determine the increased risk of disease transmission from using a common cup. The conclusion was that communicant members of the congregation were no more likely to get sick than non-communicant attenders. Other experts have opined that you are far more likely to get sick from eating bread that others have touched than from drinking wine from a common cup.

Probably true. But I still don't want to do it. Just the thought of the wine touching everyone's mouths, and then you're up next... Not sure I could bring myself to do it.

I would like to add a reminder to you Alex. I already said it above, and so you need to address something far more important than germs. Is the one cup what is called for by Jesus?

Here is what I stated above,

*Also, in any of these things if Jesus is commanding us to do something, then germs (or the possibility of 'catching' germs) can't stop us from obeying. The question would then be "Do I obey God or man (my own germiphobia which has been heightened in the last 20 years because of other germiphobes which has killed my immune system so I'd rather think upon gross things and what diseases I could contract than the great blessing of obeying the Lord in all things)?"*

* = stepping on/off soapbox

 

[Scott1]

Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
(Does anyone know the history of how that overture was dealt with procedurally at General Assembly)?
GA Minutes state the grounds for their turning down the overture: "Directions concerning administration of the Lord’s Supper at future General Assemblies should be addressed through changes to the Rules of Assembly Operations. Moreover, the administration of the Lord’s Supper is adequately governed by the Scriptures and the Book of Church Order."

So, the invention was not addressed at all in that context. It did not affirm or deny the practice of that one time occurrence.

Since the Book of Church Order is explicit, adopted on constitutional authority, with a general prescribed liturgy on this as to separate distribution and reflection on the elements, what is the mechanism for discipline?

 

[Romans922]

Quote Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
(Does anyone know the history of how that overture was dealt with procedurally at General Assembly)?
GA Minutes state the grounds for their turning down the overture: "Directions concerning administration of the Lord’s Supper at future General Assemblies should be addressed through changes to the Rules of Assembly Operations. Moreover, the administration of the Lord’s Supper is adequately governed by the Scriptures and the Book of Church Order."

So, the invention was not addressed at all in that context. It did not affirm or deny the practice of that one time occurrence.

Since the Book of Church Order is explicit, adopted on constitutional authority, with a general prescribed liturgy on this as to separate distribution and reflection on the elements, what is the mechanism for discipline?

Scott,

They did address it as much as they could. The overture did not seek to change RAO or BCO. The GA can't condemn a past practice (like file a complaint or anything). They can only change the rules for future. So the grounds state that if anything is to be done it must come as an overture to change the RAO or BCO (that has happened this year with Savannah River's overture to change BCO 58). So they addressed it as much as they could, and stated that the BCO and Scripture is clear (it is adequate).

Those who practice intinction would say the BCO is not explicit... (I believe, I'm willing to be correct obviously).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

If a common cup is required, how is not a table and table posture, as originally argued by the Scots commissioners to the Westminster Assmbly (contra the Independents who partook sitting in the pews), and practiced by Presbyterians well into the mid 19th century and still is in some corners of Presbyterianism? How does one answer the retort, against any seemingly too strict application of the institution, that "well, then, are we required to partake only at night, in an upper room", etc.?

I think we need a well crafted thread topic to afford discussing what in the institution of the Lord's supper is circumstantial that we need not follow (e.g. partaking at night), what is circumstantial that we should follow (e.g. table posture, common cup), what is essentially prescribed to have the supper at all (the elements and actions). Gillespie in discussing things supposedly indifferent in nature, gives a general rule in his English Popish Ceremonies, that we are bound to imitate Christ, and the commendable example of his apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us. Is that sufficient to apply and determine the legitimacy of every conceivable addition/subtraction from the observance of the Lord's supper?

 

[Pilgrim72]

I would like to add a reminder to you Alex. I already said it above, and so you need to address something far more important than germs. Is the one cup what is called for by Jesus?

I don't think God is asking me to commit unsanitary acts -- ie. common cup/loaf. I think others have given plenty of good biblical reasons not to do this. I'm just adding my own personal reasons not to.
I would also like to add that this is an area that I take into consideration when choosing a church as well.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

*If we've beaten intinction to death, take the other issues like common cup to new threads; and if anyone is game to take the challenge of crafting a general thread as I proposed; have at it.

*Apparently we have. Closed.