The Common Cup, a Command

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brian Withnell

Puritan Board Junior
And what about the common loaf.

The best way to serve the bread that I have seen is to choose a soft loaf and cut slices at right angles to each other about an inch to an inch and a half down. It is easy to brake off a substantial morsel/mouthful as the one loaf signifying the one body is passed round.

It is much better than these - often minuscule - pre-cut squares or crutons that we are often presented with. I try not to let these kind of things diminish my enjoyment of the Sacrament.

I'll guarantee that the original was a wafer of unleavened bread that would have been at the passover. While the context is different, 1 co 5:8 could be read to require unleavened bread.

Ultimately this is a question of circumstance or of essence. And while I don't believe it is essence, I certainly wouldn't object to a common cup (or leavened bread).
 

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
Thanks Richard for your response. I don't necessarily disagree that it is an acceptable way to celebrate communion. However, there still remains no biblical support for this practice. In my lesser moments I have referred to them as holy days.
I guess my main issue is that I favor a weekly celebration of communion.

Re Communion Tokens
There really is no purpose to them nowadays.

Common Cup
The insistence on one cup to share among all would that not then preclude multiple common cups or refilling the common cup?
There is the idea that the common cup promotes or symbolizes the unity of the church. Can we not show our unity by all partaking at the same time? In the old Scottish tradition of physically going and sitting around a table required back in the day that multiple tables be served one after the other. Apart from lengthening the service it always seemed strange to me that not everyone would partake together.

I would argue that both multiple common cups, and refilling them holds to the spirit and symbolism of the common cup directive.
 

Thomas2007

Puritan Board Sophomore
I would argue that both multiple common cups, and refilling them holds to the spirit and symbolism of the common cup directive.

The issue the gentlemen raises concerning drinking simultaneously is in concert with my thoughts. I interpret "this cup" as a principle and not with this rigid woodenness that somehow multiple cups are outside the spirit of the Scripture. To me, the singularity of common partaking fulfills the spirit and the intent of the Scripture.

I believe the commonality is in the sharing, of partaking of bread and wine in communion, not how one may drink of the cup, or possibly even chew the bread. It just seems to me that once one sets out on this type of emphasis, then another can claim we have to have the actual cup to fulfill the real intent of "this cup" - I believe there is Christian liberty here. When I read the good pastor's initial post it seemed to hinge upon the singular of "cup" and "it" - but he has here acquiesced to a "multiple" common cups.

How many cups does it take to violate the singular cup directive and how is not drinking after another from the same cup uncommon? It just seems to me the moment you say there can be multiple common cups and be within the spirit of the Scripture's intent, then there can be a cup for each individual too. It's the same wine, from the same bottle, at the same communion, with the same congregation - I don't see how this violates Scripture - to simply not drink after one another.
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
common cup and active TB

I have church members who have active TB.

Isn't there ANYONE who can refute this. I really don't want to do this, though I do have a commitment to biblicism. Aaargh, someone prove this post wrong....PLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!
If a person has a communicable disease like active TB and are contagious should they be attending the worship service?
In Anglican Churches the common cup is silver. Their is no command that the cup be silver, but this does reduce the possibility of an infection being spread by the common cup.
 
Last edited:

CharlieJ

Puritan Board Junior
I would argue that both multiple common cups, and refilling them holds to the spirit and symbolism of the common cup directive.

The issue the gentlemen raises concerning drinking simultaneously is in concert with my thoughts. I interpret "this cup" as a principle and not with this rigid woodenness that somehow multiple cups are outside the spirit of the Scripture. To me, the singularity of common partaking fulfills the spirit and the intent of the Scripture.

I believe the commonality is in the sharing, of partaking of bread and wine in communion, not how one may drink of the cup, or possibly even chew the bread. It just seems to me that once one sets out on this type of emphasis, then another can claim we have to have the actual cup to fulfill the real intent of "this cup" - I believe there is Christian liberty here. When I read the good pastor's initial post it seemed to hinge upon the singular of "cup" and "it" - but he has here acquiesced to a "multiple" common cups.

How many cups does it take to violate the singular cup directive and how is not drinking after another from the same cup uncommon? It just seems to me the moment you say there can be multiple common cups and be within the spirit of the Scripture's intent, then there can be a cup for each individual too. It's the same wine, from the same bottle, at the same communion, with the same congregation - I don't see how this violates Scripture - to simply not drink after one another.

I agree. I'm glad the same level of wooden literalism isn't being applied to "This is my body."
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
communion tokens

Re Communion Tokens
There really is no purpose to them nowadays.
Communion tokens are not essential. What is essential that the table be fenced. Churches should encourage all that have a lively faith to come to the Lord's table. Those who do not have such a testimony in their heart should warned about coming to the table, for if they partke of the Lord's Supper they do not partake of Christ but rather do and eat and drink the sacrament to their condemnation.
 

BertMulder

Puritan Board Junior
if individual cups are not permissible in celebrating the Holy Supper of our Lord, then also special gluten free bread is not allowed.... perhaps we should all then be eating gluten free bread?

also, better make sure that all the wine is from the same vine, and not some kind of mixed vintage...

Besides,that we by this same Spirit may also be united as members of one body in true brotherly love, as the holy Apostle saith, "For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." For as out of many grains one meal is ground, and one bread baked, and out of many berries being pressed together, one wine floweth, and mixeth itself together; so shall we all, who by a true faith are ingrafted into Christ, be altogether one body, through brotherly love, for Christ's sake, our beloved Savior, who hath so exceedingly loved us, and not only showed this in word, but also in very deed towards one another.

Let us not make the symbol more important than the Thing signified, lest we fall into the popish, and into Luther's error....
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
The leavened bread vs unleavened bread debate has been around for a long time. How recent an innovation is the use of indivual cups rather then a common cup?
 

Grillsy

Puritan Board Junior
I was in a church service once in which a common loaf and cup were used, but instead of everyone drinking from the chalice they simply dipped their bread in it.

Has anyone else seen this practiced?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top