Intinction?

[Romans922]

Perhaps minor if we don't care about what Christ told us to do, or Paul's view of what Christ told us to do.

 

[Scottish Lass]

Intinction is the practice during the Lord's Supper, where in the partaking of the elements, one takes the bread and dips it into the cup filled with wine and then sticks the bread (after dipping) in their mouth consuming it (that is the informal description so you understand all the actions).

Seems like a minor detail to worry about.

Why do it differently than Christ did?

 

[J. Dean]

Perhaps minor if we don't care about what Christ told us to do, or Paul's view of what Christ told us to do.

Sorry. Just seems like theological nitpicking to worry about whether or not the elements happen to contact each other prior to entering the mouth.

 

[he beholds]

Perhaps minor if we don't care about what Christ told us to do, or Paul's view of what Christ told us to do.

Sorry. Just seems like theological nitpicking to worry about whether or not the elements happen to contact each other prior to entering the mouth.

I definitely don't want to argue for something that I have no idea about, so I won't even "thumbs up" this post to show support, but I do want to add a question to it: WHY is it important that we eat then drink? I've no experience with intinction, but my uninformed head does not recognize any reason why it would be a sin to do it that way. Which is where you all come in...

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

Nevermind...reading this was helpful.

I defend why intinction is out of accord with Scripture.

 

[Phil D.]

I would also remind people of this excellent article by Rev. Barnes that explains some of the scriptural issues involved. I know it was previously linked here, but it may have been overlooked by some reading this thread.

 

[Kevin]

Wayne,

I am speaking only from the perspective of a member of a presbytery that is made up of a few former RP, BP,and RPC-ES congregations.

My comment was only meant to point out to those in the "Southern Synod" of the PCA that we have in our church those that practiced Intinction prior the joining and receiving and that the practice was not considered by either side to be an issue that required a change of practice. Neither has it been an issue until very recently.

I have done no research as to its prevalence. however I have been told that in some churches did practice it, and that as one retired TE said "we did know that anyone thought it was a big deal".

 

[Wayne]

Kevin:

It's my job to search out the history of things, and I've never seen or heard of the practice among the BP, RP or RPC,ES.
(here I'll have to admit I haven't even had time to slow down to read the Ohio Presbytery report, which I understand opens
with an historical section)

I'll admit there was a element among the RPC,ES that was prone to innovation and exploration, and those men might have
picked up the practice in a few locations, but I would be highly skeptical of it having ever been practiced among the RP, General Synod
or BPC churches. The pre-1965 ecclesiastical setting among fundamentalist churches was simply far too traditional for something like that.

Without denying what you are saying, my suspicion is that any such practice among the churches up there began somewhere in the 1970s.

(Here's where I wish I had the staffing here to commit to digitizing the Presbyterian Journal. If the subject had come up, it probably would
have been discussed on that magazine.)

 

[KMK]

Sorry. Just seems like theological nitpicking to worry about whether or not the elements happen to contact each other prior to entering the mouth.

The issue is not over whether the elements 'happen' to come into contact, but whether the 'purposeful' mingling of the two is instituted in the Word of God. 'Theological nitpicking' is at the very heart of the Reformation.

 

[Scott1]

Presbyterian Church in America

DIRECTORY FOR WORSHIP 58-1

CHAPTER 58
The Administration of the Lord's Supper

58-1. The Communion, or Supper of the Lord, is to be observed
frequently; the stated times to be determined by the Session of each
congregation, as it may judge most for edification.

58-2. The ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's
Supper.

58-3. It is proper that public notice should be given to the congregation, at
least the Sabbath before the administration of this ordinance, and that, either
then, or on some day of the week, the people be instructed in its nature, and a
due preparation for it, that all may come in a suitable manner to this holy
feast.

58-4. On the day of the observance of the Lord's Supper, when the sermon
is ended, the minister shall show:
a. That this is an ordinance of Christ; by reading the words of
institution, either from one of the Evangelists, or from 1 Corinthians
11, which, as to him may appear expedient, he may
explain and apply;
b. That it is to be observed in remembrance of Christ, to show forth
His death till He come; that it is of inestimable benefit, to
strengthen His people against sin; to support them under
troubles; to encourage and quicken them in duty; to inspire them
with love and zeal; to increase their faith, and holy resolution;
and to beget peace of conscience, and comfortable hopes of
eternal life.
Since, by our Lord's appointment, this Sacrament sets forth the
Communion of Saints, the minister, at the discretion of the Session, before
the observance begins, may either invite all those who profess the true
religion, and are communicants in good standing in any evangelical church,
to participate in the ordinance; or may invite those who have been approved
by the Session, after having given indication of their desire to participate. It
is proper also to give a special invitation to non-communicants to remain
during the service.

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.

58-6. Since believers are to act personally in all their covenanting with the
Lord, it is proper that a part of the time occupied in the distribution of the
elements should be spent by all in silent communion, thanksgiving,
intercession and prayer.

58-7. The minister may, in a few words, put the communicants in mind:
Of the grace of God, in Jesus Christ, held forth in this
sacrament; and of their obligation to be the Lord's; and may
exhort them to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are
called; and, as they have professedly received Christ Jesus the
Lord, that they be careful so to walk in him, and to maintain
good works.

It may not be improper for the minister to give a word of exhortation
also to those who have been only spectators, reminding them:
Of their duty, stating their sin and danger, by living in
disobedience to Christ, in neglecting this holy ordinance; and
calling upon them to be earnest in making preparation for
attending upon it at the next time of its celebration.
Then the minister is to pray and give thanks to God,
For His rich mercy, and invaluable goodness, vouchsafed
to them in that Sacred Communion; to implore pardon for the
defects of the whole service; and to pray for the acceptance of
their persons and performances; for the gracious assistance of
the Holy Spirit to enable them, as they have received Christ
Jesus the Lord, so to walk in Him; that they may hold fast that
which they have received, that no man take their crown; that
their conversation may be as becomes the Gospel; that they may
bear about with them, continually, the dying of the Lord Jesus,
that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in their mortal
body; that their light may so shine before men, that others,
seeing their good works, may glorify their Father who is in
heaven.
An offering for the poor or other sacred purpose is appropriate in
connection with this service, and may be made at such time as shall be
ordered by the Session.
Now let a psalm or hymn be sung, and the congregation dismissed,
with the following or some other Gospel benediction:
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead
our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the
blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every
good work to do His will, working in you that which is well
pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for
ever and ever. Amen.

58-8. As past custom has been found in many parts of the Presbyterian
Church, our congregations are urged to have a service of spiritual preparation
for the Lord’s Supper during the week previous to the celebration of the
Sacrament.

.

 

[Kevin]

To be clear Wayne, the oldest congregations here were of the more "fundy" type and I don't know what their practices were. I have heard some of the guys that came in with the J&R cite the practice as being part of the "culture", of at least some, in RPC-ES.

 

[Pilgrim72]

Unfortunately, I'm somewhat of a germaphobe. So, on that basis alone, I would not take part in this practice. (Although, I did do it once when visiting a church, because I didn't know what I was about to do.)
It is a very unsanitary practice. I don't know why anyone would agree to something like this.

(I would disagree with it on a biblical basis as well, but others have done a good job already in that regard.)

 

[KMK]

I have heard some of the guys that came in with the J&R cite the practice as being part of the "culture"

Which guys?

 

[Scottish Lass]

Unfortunately, I'm somewhat of a germaphobe. So, on that basis alone, I would not take part in this practice. (Although, I did do it once when visiting a church, because I didn't know what I was about to do.)
It is a very unsanitary practice. I don't know why anyone would agree to something like this.

(I would disagree with it on a biblical basis as well, but others have done a good job already in that regard.)

So you would disagree with a common cup, too?

 

[py3ak]

Wayne,

I am speaking only from the perspective of a member of a presbytery that is made up of a few former RP, BP,and RPC-ES congregations.

My comment was only meant to point out to those in the "Southern Synod" of the PCA that we have in our church those that practiced Intinction prior the joining and receiving and that the practice was not considered by either side to be an issue that required a change of practice. Neither has it been an issue until very recently.

I have done no research as to its prevalence. however I have been told that in some churches did practice it, and that as one retired TE said "we did know that anyone thought it was a big deal".

It seems quite possible according to this account:
1. That the practice was minimal and not publicly encouraged or even reported on;
2. That no one mentioned it due to, on the one hand, an assumption that of course it wasn't happening, and on the other hand, ignorance about it being a problem.
Which would seem to mean that no conclusion regarding its acceptance could be drawn from this hearsay testimony.

 

[thbslawson]

Not necessarily defending intinction, but why are certain other practices of communion in Reformed churches not also seen as being out of accord with Scripture? For instance, using grape juice instead of wine, using multiple cups instead of one, or using precut little cracker-like bread bites, rather than one large pieces that is broken. I could see where possibly using grape juice could perhaps be defended, but there was a picture of unity given when Christ gave one cup, and broke pieces from one loaf of bread. How is it that these practices are not out of accord and intinction is?

 

[J. Dean]

I actually like the breaking from a common loaf. Not only is it more symbolic of unity, but frankly it just tastes better than those little styrofoam excuses for food!

 

[SRoper]

Not necessarily defending intinction, but why are certain other practices of communion in Reformed churches not also seen as being out of accord with Scripture? For instance, using grape juice instead of wine, using multiple cups instead of one, or using precut little cracker-like bread bites, rather than one large pieces that is broken. I could see where possibly using grape juice could perhaps be defended, but there was a picture of unity given when Christ gave one cup, and broke pieces from one loaf of bread. How is it that these practices are not out of accord and intinction is?

I support using wine, drinking from a common cup, and breaking from a common loaf of bread (although of these practices, I think wine is the only thing strictly required). I think Rae was right to bring this up in the minority report, and Andrew, in his article, was only partially right in saying it was a distraction. Yes, it is not the issue at hand, but it seems that Andrew's position would cut against practices that are widespread in the PCA.

 

[Kevin]

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".

 

[Romans922]

Not necessarily defending intinction, but why are certain other practices of communion in Reformed churches not also seen as being out of accord with Scripture? For instance, using grape juice instead of wine, using multiple cups instead of one, or using precut little cracker-like bread bites, rather than one large pieces that is broken. I could see where possibly using grape juice could perhaps be defended, but there was a picture of unity given when Christ gave one cup, and broke pieces from one loaf of bread. How is it that these practices are not out of accord and intinction is?

I support using wine, drinking from a common cup, and breaking from a common loaf of bread (although of these practices, I think wine is the only thing strictly required). I think Rae was right to bring this up in the minority report, and Andrew, in his article, was only partially right in saying it was a distraction. Yes, it is not the issue at hand, but it seems that Andrew's position would cut against practices that are widespread in the PCA.

To clarify my position, I believe we need to study more about the one cup, one loaf, issue of wine, and feast meal. But we need to take all of these issues by themselves.

*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

 

[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.

 

[SolaGratia]

Rev. Andrew Barnes,

Did Mr. Whitlock give any examples of "Intinction" from Reformed Churches during the 16th and 17th century?

 

[thbslawson]

*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

Interesting, most of the churches we worked with while in Russia observed common cup, common loaf communion. I remember distinctly being with a small congregation that met in a house where about 15 mostly elderly congregants coughed and wheezed the entire service. I have to confess, I was looking with dread and suspicion upon the single cup of grape juice that I knew was about to be passed around. In some of the rural parts of Russia tuberculosis is a real problem. When it came time to take the cup the pastor actually gave it to me first! Thinking I had dodged a bullet, the cup was passed around to everyone, then the pastor looked at me, handed me the cup, still half-full and said "please finish this brother," which I did. I never got sick in the least. While telling this story to another missionary who had served in Russia a long time he testified to similar experiences. He commented to me "If the Lord intends to kill you through communion there's nothing you can do to stop it." To be sure though, I do get an annual TB test, and have always tested negative =).

All that to say, I agree that perhaps all of these issues (one cup, one loaf, using wine) need to be reviewed in light of the intinction issue being brought to the surface. I've only visited one PCA church once where intinction was practiced. I was unfamiliar with, but at the time didn't necessarily see a problem. I don't know enough yet about the issue to definitively say where I stand, still working on that. But what did strike me as interesting was that they actually did use a common cup, a common loaf, and real wine, which I considered to be more consistent with Scripture. Not understanding the intinction controversy, dipping the bread seemed circumstantial to me, perhaps not wanting 250 people to drink from the same cup. I don't know what their motives were, and haven't had a chance to ask since.

 

[Romans922]

Rev. Andrew Barnes,

Did Mr. Whitlock give any examples of "Intinction" from Reformed Churches during the 16th and 17th century?

Gil,

I believe he merely stated of the Ohio Presbytery's report on intinction, "that intinction was practiced in some early Reformed churches".

Yet I don't see that in the actual report. Rae doesn't give specific examples.

As I look at the committee report, I see the following quote,

"In a study by the Dutch scholar, W.F. Dankbaar, "Communion Practices in the Century of the Reformation" (Communiegebruiken in de eeuw der Reformatie), Dankbaar does “a precise and detailed study of how each congregation and refugee congregation celebrated the Lord's Supper, which indicates that not one of these congregations that he studied practiced intinction.”"

The second quote starts out referring to the wine being re-given to the communicants after Roman Catholicism's withholding it,

"By the time of the Protestant Reformation, when communion under both kinds was reinstituted, the command to have both bread and wine was a gift to the communicants. The idea that some may have preferred to intinct, having been recently admitted to freely, by faith, feed on Christ, and passed the privilege to drink, seems highly unlikely. They had been withheld the privilege of drinking from the cup of the Lord, but communicants could now freely feed upon Christ completely. Thus the practice of intinction was not generally practiced in the Reformed churches."

However, I don't see any specific examples given by Mr. Whitlock or the committee on churches that practiced intinction during this time. Rae, could correct me, I just don't see it in the articles (I may have glanced over it).

 

[SolaGratia]

Thank you Rev. Barnes.

 

[Pilgrim72]

Quote Originally Posted by Pilgrim72 View Post
Unfortunately, I'm somewhat of a germaphobe. So, on that basis alone, I would not take part in this practice. (Although, I did do it once when visiting a church, because I didn't know what I was about to do.)
It is a very unsanitary practice. I don't know why anyone would agree to something like this.

(I would disagree with it on a biblical basis as well, but others have done a good job already in that regard.)
So you would disagree with a common cup, too?

Oh yeah. I would definitely not drink from a common cup. I don't even like the common loaf of bread... with everyone grabbing, pinching and manhandling it. I prefer it to be precut by someone unknown and unseen. What I don't know can't hurt me...

 

[Kevin]

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.

 

[py3ak]

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 that is a good example of usable evidence: publicly available, subject to confirmation, and documented.

 

[SRoper]

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.

 

[Scott1]

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.

 

[Andres]

Oh yeah. I would definitely not drink from a common cup. I don't even like the common loaf of bread... with everyone grabbing, pinching and manhandling it. I prefer it to be precut by someone unknown and unseen. What I don't know can't hurt me...