Visiting a church that practices intinction

[Deleted member 6112]

So by "strengthening the lang." you intended to ban intinction and...mini cups?...grape juice?

I must disagree. Those that spoke to the substitution were to a man opposed to intinction. The only reference to other sacramental innovations were from those brothers that practiced intinction. Or defended their right to do so.

Also I consider it "churlish" of you to call me rude for offering an explanation of how a practitioner of intinction deals with the process of our courts.

I only intended to explain my own practice, not to debate the issue.

Rev. Rogers,

Will you give an argument for intinction from the Scriptures?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Knowing what I now know,
would peaceably abstain and look for opportunity to give reason to someone at that church.

Observing the Lord's Supper carefully is of highest importance. As is unity over it.

If it were a PCA church, knowing its constitution, and being an officer myself, I would respectfully and peaceably communicate to church authority there (because it is unconstitutional, and therefore a violation of elder vows).

Were it my own PCA church, would communicate through the steps up to the point of lodging petition with Session.

I believe Rev. Winzer's comment on my blog here is very appropriate here.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/time-new-reformed-confession-537/


Someone in advocating a new Confessional Standard wanted to cut out some the sticky points of contention that seem to plague the Reformed Church. His position was that minimalizing the standards a bit would bring more Unity.


http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/time-new-reformed-confession-62902/index4.html#post811544

Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?

Reverend Matthew Winzer responded splendidly in my opinion. His last statement is spot on as usual.

In what universe could it have that effect? While there are men who conscientiously act with the vows of God upon them there is obviously going to be a group of people who maintain, assert, and defend every article of the confession which they have subscribed with their own hand in the sight of God and men. And why shouldn't they? Afterall, they not only promised to the church that they would do so, but the church also promised her support and nurture in the process.


The modern reformed church is in trouble, not because of her traditional forms, but because her traditional forms are being maintained without traditional values of integrity, respect, and trust.

 

[J. Dean]

Would you care to elaborate? I'm not sure what the connection would be. I understand the sacrament to be a means of grace conferred by the Spirit and received by faith. I certainly don't have a Memorialist view. (Whether Zwingli is properly considered a Memorialist is a discussion for another time!)

No need to elaborate. I was just curious to see whether or not the tie-in to an opposition to intinction had any coincidence with a Zwinglian or Calvinist understanding of communion. As I said, I'm not crazy about the practice, but I was simply wondering the baseline stance of those who are more staunchly opposed to it. That's all.

 

[VictorBravo]

I was just curious to see whether or not the tie-in to an opposition to intinction had any coincidence with a Zwinglian or Calvinist understanding of communion. As I said, I'm not crazy about the practice, but I was simply wondering the baseline stance of those who are more staunchly opposed to it.

It does seem like a strange indicator for you to seize on, though. As Lane's paper in the other intinction thread makes clear, even Roman Catholics historically have been opposed to inctinction, and their view of the Lord's supper is about as far from Zwingli as you can get.

 

[Kevin]

So by "strengthening the lang." you intended to ban intinction and...mini cups?...grape juice?

I must disagree. Those that spoke to the substitution were to a man opposed to intinction. The only reference to other sacramental innovations were from those brothers that practiced intinction. Or defended their right to do so.

Also I consider it "churlish" of you to call me rude for offering an explanation of how a practitioner of intinction deals with the process of our courts.

I only intended to explain my own practice, not to debate the issue.

Rev. Rogers,

Will you give an argument for intinction from the Scriptures?

Not here.

 

[Zach]

Thanks for the replies so far! For those who would or do abstain, how would you reply to Jack's position (which, incidentally, is similar mine at present)? I hold that intinction is an error, but not one that invalidates the sacrament. It seems if this is the case, those in attendance can partake in good conscience while still working for the peace and purity of the church.

Though I am not as educated as others who have responded, I would respond by saying that intinction is not the sacrement of the Lord's supper. I don't think that those who partake are sinning while doing so, but I don't believe that they have actually received the Lord's supper because of WSC 96:

Q. 96. What is the Lord's supper?
A. The Lord's supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to Christ's appointment, his death is showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.

 

[SRoper]

Thanks, Zack. So would you take issue with Rev. Keister's statement in his intinction paper, "Nor would anyone claim that the Lord's
Supper becomes null and void through the use of intinction"? This was actually the statement (combined with my travel plans in the next week) that drove me to start this thread. Are those who are abstaining indeed declaring the sacrament null and void?

 

[Zach]

Thanks, Zack. So would you take issue with Rev. Keister's statement in his intinction paper, "Nor would anyone claim that the Lord's
Supper becomes null and void through the use of intinction"? This was actually the statement (combined with my travel plans in the next week) that drove me to start this thread. Are those who are abstaining indeed declaring the sacrament null and void?

Scott, I haven't read Rev. Keister's paper but from what I have read on the Board from Rev. Keister I would hesitate to take issue with what he has to say. I would be interested in his reasoning (maybe I will read his paper now that I am done with finals!) but from my uneducated perspective it seems that the Shorter Catechism teaches that the Lord's Supper is receiving bread and wine according to Christ's appointment. I believe Scripture teaches that he appointed the bread and wine to be received as separate elements. I would be interested in hearing the scriptural arguments from Pastor Rogers, but I respect his desire to not discuss it here.

Currently, I am not facing a scenario where I would be faced with this decision. Were I faced with it, I would ask my Pastor what he would recommend I do. However, at my present understanding I would presently abstain.

 

[greenbaggins]

This raises a very interesting point. It seems to me that there would be a way of saying that the Sacrament is not null and void (if administered by intinction), even if one decides to abstain. Abstaining is a matter of conscience. If I were to attend a church, and they practiced intinction, I would have to abstain, because I would believe that the sacramental symbolism is obscured by the practice of intinction. In my paper, I try to make the point that what is at stake is the clarity of the sign of the sacrament, not the actual existence of the sacrament. So, if one compares intinction to the Mass, one can see that the Mass is not the Lord's Supper at all. Intinction, on the other hand, does not negate the actuality of the Lord's Supper, even if it does obscure the sacrificial death of Christ as blood poured out from the body.

 

[Scott1]

For the PCA, it's a matter of the clear reading of the constitution regarding a separate contemplation of the elements, reflection on the part of each by the PCA BCO which is constitutional authority. Intentionally, the confession of the denomination is bound this way by oath.

Scott1... I mentioned earlier that my vote (if I had one) would be against intinction. And I agree that the PCA BCO at least strongly suggests that intinction is not the right way to administer the Supper.

Thanks, Jack. I understand your post to say you are opposed to the invention on the Lord's Supper and that there is strong evidence to suggest it is prohibited by the PCA's BCO. I would only add that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the language of the BCO, supported by history of its adoption, prescribes the invention. Laws (of God and men) state things positively, negatively, explicitly and implicitly- and they are all just as valid asserting the truth they intend.

For example, the Scripture does not mention the word "trinity." But more to your point, it does not explicitly say one cannot teach something other than the Trinity.

But it does.
Tthe Trinity is a holy attribute of our one God in three persons. It's not merely there being a strong case for it as if there is a weak case a Christian can assert against it because it is not explicitly prohibited.


But that said, allow me to challenge you on two matters...

1. Since you typically are a supporter of the need to submit to the church's constitutional documents, as enforced by the church's courts, why do you say so strongly that administering the Supper by intinction is a clear violation of an officer's vows?

Because the officer takes vows to receive, teach and obey the doctrine and polity of the denomination. It's a sacred oath, he asks God and the people to witness and seal.

Hasn't that very question come up recently in the PCA's highest court?

Someone may have other information, but I don't believe it has arisen to highest court enforcement [yet].

And isn't the church still in the process of deciding whether or not intinction is a violation of those vows? It would only do that if it were to change the constitutionally binding Chapter 58 which very intentionally binds the practice to orthodox presbyterian understanding of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

It seems that a spirit of submission to the church courts would dictate that we reserve judgment on the matter of oath-breaking (a serious charge) until the issue is decided. Don't you agree that the question of what the constitutional documents allow is for the church courts to decide, not for individuals to declare as they see fit?

If words had no meaning, I would agree. But they do.

Do you see that it's hard to make the charge of vow-breaking stick when the church courts have considered the issue and not yet acted to stop intinction (no matter what we may guess the majority of voters at GA were thinking)?

One of the wise things in presbyterian practice is that it moves slowly and deliberately. It can be corrupted if men lose their will for godly discipline as happened to the mainline denomination.

When one Presbytery in the PCA declared that they could nominate, elect, train, and install women deacons the same arguments were made. Interesting, not so much that the BCO allowed it (and by derivation their vows to God and the people), but really the emphasis was that they just believed they had liberty to decide their own doctrine and practice within self-determined (imagined) parameters.

Of course, that's not what a constitution is for,
not what an oath is for,
not presbyterian,
not what confessional means,

but the argument went on for about four years.

In the meantime there were absolutely absurd arguments, some that placed church polity in a false light (yes, that happened, we are all sinners) saying things like...

Deacons are not really officers
Deacons are optional for presbyterian church government
Deacons are an office but have no authority
The PCA allows ordination without laying on of hands
Ordination is merely a technicality
The head of the Diaconate can be a non-deacon
There is no possibility for women to do mercy unless they are Deacons

There was even one congregation taking vows to submit to the authority of a woman deacon, with none of the officers and no one in the congregation noticing (except a visitor who published it on YouTube). Meanwhile the church publically argued Deacons have no authority.

On and on the absurdity and false light went,
and by some really smart people, too.

Finally, the utter untenability of the argument came back to the Presbytery and they repented, said they understood AND agreed with the Book of Church Order.

Same thing needs to happen here for the peace and purity of the church.

One of the truths Scripture tells us is that open defiance (sin) left unchecked tends to get worse, spread more disunity and confusion. It cause more harm the more it is allowed to go unchallenged.

(That's also a part of the officer's vow to God).


2. Only a fraction of churches in this world are PCA.

Yes, that's true. And a small number of true believers are reformed, too. And while we can't know for sure, there is substantial reason in Scripture to believe true Christians are relatively few in number in the world generally, too. And that doesn't make the rest right. It certainly didn't in the days of Noah, Lot, Abraham, Israel, the Apostles, etc.

In many cases of visiting another church where intinction is practiced, the pastor has taken no oath to uphold any document that even suggests intinction is wrong. In such a case, would you say it's okay to partake? Or would you still refrain and, if so, does that mean you think it is a matter that goes beyond officer vows after all?

That's why the case of the PCA is distinguished in the question because I know what the constitution, vows and confession are.

So, let's say one was visiting another church. The priority is to be obey God, so that's the lens we look at for all of life.
Part of that might be to do due diligence in preparing for Lord's Day worship and planning, inasmuch as it is within your power, to know the beliefs and seek out those you know to be true. That's first, above seeking mere convenience, accommodation in the submitted life of a believer.

And that doesn't mean the other church does not have any believers in it, or that it cannot charitably be called a Christian communion. It just means they are wrong biblically- whether by ignorance, lack of diligence to biblical doctrine or wilfull disobedience, still wrong in our Lord's sight and misrepresenting something very central to Christian worship and practice.

Knowing what I now know, I would probably peaceably abstain and look for opportunity to mention it to someone there at the church. Wouldn't file a complaint, obviously because it was not contrary to their doctrine (it is in the PCA, but possibly not in another communion).

Certainly would not continue on in fellowship there week-by-week.

And it's not because the sacrament would be rendered "invalid," it's about not countenancing something wrong done to something precious.

Make sense?

.

 

[Jack K]

Scott1, the reason I asked is because I'm one of those those guys who (if I had a vote, which I don't) would be likely to vote in favor of the amendment to the BCO making it more clear that intinction is not how we administer the Supper. I think that position is biblical, and I tend to like added clarity. But... I would want to be very careful to take that action in a spirit of gentle correction and respect, taking pains to avoid combativeness and accusations wherever possible.

So, I would be a theoretical ally of your cause on this issue. But the moment you started asserting that the issue was how some church officers were being oath-breakers, a red flag would go up. That's an allegation of serious, removal-worthy sin. That sounds combative. I'd like to think better, but it makes me suspect the effort to stop intinction is not marked by a spirit of gentle correction but rather by an attitude more like "We found another bunch of bad guys in our denomination—let's get 'em!" And it makes me fear that past battles regarding other issues are carrying forward in grudges, so that there's an eagerness to be combative and to make the strongest possible accusations from the start.

You see, if I start to suspect your true cause is a larger battle—to win a victory for a particular wing of the denomination by making harsh accusations—I cease to be an ally. I favor correction, but I'm not a big fan of winners and losers. And whether or not you mean to take that combative tone (I will assume you don't), to me it sounds like you're taking that tone when you assert that oath-breaking is the issue.

I'm not convinced that the handful of PCA churches practicing intinction need to be accused that strongly. I suspect some of those pastors are very consciencious about their PCA oaths. Accusing them from the start of being otherwise, especially when the denomination is still in the process of ironing this out, does not make for a healthy process. Nor (to get back to the opening question) is the particular error of intinction one that would cause me to refuse to join in the fellowship-in-Christ meal at any PCA church.

 

[Scott1]

Jack,

If you don't sense the gravity of the issue, perhaps it is difficult to discern the passion to protect it.

On the one hand you say you believe it is biblically wrong, very likely unconstitutional, and therefore violative of oath, but you would participate and imply you would not say anything.

That seems inconsistent.

Nor is it morally superior to have it both ways though our flesh would have us believe it is.

 

[Jack K]

Not all errors are equally grievous. Nor am I equally sure that all things I suspect to be error truly are error. It this case I think intinction likely is an error but I'm not 100% certain it is. And assuming it is, I don't consider it so grievous as to mean I should not partake of the Supper while visiting a church that practices it.

So you're right. I don't think the gravity is of that level, which essentially is what Scott was asking in his opening post. Is that being inconsistent? I rather think it's recognizing the difference between various levels and types of error.

As for whether I would say anything... if I was just visiting and not connected in some way to the church in question, I probably would not. Do you go visiting churches and then find an elder afterwards so you can tell him all the things they did wrong? I notice things I disagree with nearly every time a visit a church. But my purpose in visiting a church, flawed as that church my be, is to worship God, not to uncover and point out errors.

 

[Scott1]

I Corinthians 11
[emphasis added]

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 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.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 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.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

Serious indeed.

 

[Scott1]

Presbyterian Church in America

DIRECTORY FOR WORSHIP
CHAPTER 58
The Administration of the Lord's Supper

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.

.

 

[Scott1]

Presbyterian Church in America

PREFACE TO
THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER

II. Preliminary Principles

.... 4. Godliness is founded on truth. A test of truth is its power to promote holiness according to our Saviour's rule, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same level.

On the contrary, there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.

 

[Scott1]

Matthew 26

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

.

 

[SRoper]

This raises a very interesting point. It seems to me that there would be a way of saying that the Sacrament is not null and void (if administered by intinction), even if one decides to abstain. Abstaining is a matter of conscience. If I were to attend a church, and they practiced intinction, I would have to abstain, because I would believe that the sacramental symbolism is obscured by the practice of intinction. In my paper, I try to make the point that what is at stake is the clarity of the sign of the sacrament, not the actual existence of the sacrament. So, if one compares intinction to the Mass, one can see that the Mass is not the Lord's Supper at all. Intinction, on the other hand, does not negate the actuality of the Lord's Supper, even if it does obscure the sacrificial death of Christ as blood poured out from the body.

Do you see three degrees of error: 1. error that is not so serious as to warrant abstention, 2. error that warrants abstention but does not make the sacrament null and void, and 3. error that is so serious that it makes the sacrament null and void? Or does the first kind of error not exist?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I would dare say that it's rather the middle category (#2) that does not exist. An error that warrants abstention must logically make the sacrament null and void. If the sacrament is not null and void I see no grounds for abstention.

 

[Scottish Lass]

I agree with Mr. Cornell--on its face, I can't see how #2 can exist. Can someone in the discussion provide an example to clarify it?

 

[greenbaggins]

Do you see three degrees of error: 1. error that is not so serious as to warrant abstention, 2. error that warrants abstention but does not make the sacrament null and void, and 3. error that is so serious that it makes the sacrament null and void? Or does the first kind of error not exist?

I really don't think that intinction nullifies the sacrament. However, it obscures the clarity of the sign. I have a conscience issue with taking it that way, because I know that the Lord's sacrificial death is portrayed by blood being poured out, being separated from the body. Therefore, I only want to celebrate the sacrament in a way that honors this theological point. But I don't feel comfortable saying that someone who holds that intinction is valid would get no benefit from the sacrament when partaken of in that way. Maybe I am being inconsistent here. It seems to me that differences in understanding and conscience should be taken into consideration. I could, therefore, agree with all three categories. An example of 1 would be a failure of the minister to fence the table. An example of 2 would be intinction, and an example of 3 would be the Roman Catholic Mass.

 

[Kevin]

Of the 3 categories mentioned above into what category would taking communion in a pew from tiny cups fall?

Would it obscure the clarity of the sign to such a degree that it should be avoided by those whose consciences would scruple at intinction?

 

[Covenant Joel]

Of the 3 categories mentioned above into what category would taking communion in a pew from tiny cups fall?

Would it obscure the clarity of the sign to such a degree that it should be avoided by those whose consciences would scruple at intinction?

One would have to make the case that it was error first, but assuming it was, I am not sure how it could be regarded as anything other than #1, though I' be happy to hear a case for something different.

 

[Scott1]

Do you see three degrees of error: 1. error that is not so serious as to warrant abstention, 2. error that warrants abstention but does not make the sacrament null and void, and 3. error that is so serious that it makes the sacrament null and void? Or does the first kind of error not exist?

I don't think it makes the sacrament null and void,
nor is that really the issue.

It's about following the Lord's command for something that is precious and to be handled especially carefully. To cooperate in its wrongness is not only a matter of conscience, but a matter of causing harm to others and to the reputation of our Lord. Scripture speaks to this and it is very real.

In the PCA, it's also cooperating in an unlawful administration of the sacrament, contrary to vows taken. That compounds it.

But in neither case does it invalidate the sacrament.

We don't view it exclusively as about protecting one's conscience, but rather also from the standpoint of duty to God.
And duty to man.

 

[Scottish Lass]

Do you see three degrees of error: 1. error that is not so serious as to warrant abstention, 2. error that warrants abstention but does not make the sacrament null and void, and 3. error that is so serious that it makes the sacrament null and void? Or does the first kind of error not exist?

I really don't think that intinction nullifies the sacrament. However, it obscures the clarity of the sign. I have a conscience issue with taking it that way, because I know that the Lord's sacrificial death is portrayed by blood being poured out, being separated from the body. Therefore, I only want to celebrate the sacrament in a way that honors this theological point. But I don't feel comfortable saying that someone who holds that intinction is valid would get no benefit from the sacrament when partaken of in that way. Maybe I am being inconsistent here. It seems to me that differences in understanding and conscience should be taken into consideration. I could, therefore, agree with all three categories. An example of 1 would be a failure of the minister to fence the table. An example of 2 would be intinction, and an example of 3 would be the Roman Catholic Mass.

Thanks!

 

[greenbaggins]

Of the 3 categories mentioned above into what category would taking communion in a pew from tiny cups fall?

Would it obscure the clarity of the sign to such a degree that it should be avoided by those whose consciences would scruple at intinction?

My paper disputes the common cup interpretation of the Lord's Supper, especially exegetically from Luke's Gospel, where Jesus says, "take this and distribute it among yourselves." If my exegesis is correct, then having the wine distributed is not an obscurity of the sign at all. How would it be?

 

[Jack K]

Jack,
If you don't sense the gravity of the issue, perhaps it is difficult to discern the passion to protect it.

You know, Scott, I think with me it's more than just that I don't think the error is among the most grievous.

It's also that I think a decision to refuse the fellowship of the Lord's Supper is a big deal. What method has Christ given us to show that we consider another believer our brother or sister in the Lord? Well, one of the main things he's given us for that purpose is the Supper we eat together. So if I consider a church to be a true church (and its members, presumably, to be fellow believers so far as I can discern) and they invite me to eat the Supper with them, then one way I show this spiritual unity is to accept. So my default inclination is to participate any time I believe I'm in a true church that proclaims the gospel... even though they may proclaim it imperfectly.

This doesn't mean I condemn those whose consciences would have them choose otherwise. But I fear that if I were to start eating the Supper only with those believers who, I think, get everything right about its administration... well, soon I would find myself in a position where I'm refusing Christ-instituted fellowship with a majority of those whom I suspect are true Christians. That feels wrongheaded. So I come down on the side of going ahead and participating—not just because of the nature of the error, but also because I see non-participation as a quite serious matter.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Is there a grace that would go unfulfilled or obscured by the method of intinction? Is there a teaching or significant understanding that is being skewed by the practice of intinction? Those are two questions that a person would need to discover and deal with.

I also take the business of fellowship very seriously as Jack does. The command to sing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs is very important to me as God commands it. Some people that hold to different views of the Regulative Principle of Worship might be forced to attend a church that doesn't hold to the same practice of worship that they adhere to. They might be forced to participate in worship that violates their understanding of the Regulative Principle of Worship. While they still worship and fellowship with those people they might abstain during certain parts of the worship for conscience sake. I see no problem with that nor do I see that as being contentious. It can be done in a contentious way and I think that should be avoided.

Concerning the intinction issue I think I would have to abstain. And I have before. I see it as a regulative principle issue but it wouldn't mean that I forsake fellowship with those who hold to the practice. If asked I would also instruct them on why. But I wouldn't forsake the assembling of myself with them or cause a incident by trying to draw attention to the issue on purpose. I also take fellowship and caring for the body of Christ very seriously. I care deeply about the grace that is imparted by partaking at the Lord's Table. To me it is a serious issue. Just because I don't participate with them in some of their practices doesn't mean I am hard to live with or don't love them. I do believe when one violates the Regulative Principle of Worship there is a loss of gracious influence and blessing from God. Especially for those who have tasted the of the Lord's goodness and have knowledge of the truth. To violate it would be violating conscience and taking a step backwards. It would be violating the truth as one knows it and that is not a safe practice.

As I have noted many times in the past I have friends in all kinds of denominations and I fellowship with them and love them. I am very easy to get along with in person and I care deeply for others. I have friends who are Independent Fundamentalists, Roman Catholic, Islamic, Atheistic, etc.... There are just some issues that are important and don't need to be compromised. That doesn't mean I love others less or become ungracious to them.

 

[Mushroom]

So, if twinkies and grape soda are used as elements, do we participate? The elements I read of are wine and bread, not a single element of wine-soaked bread. The sop was given to the betrayer.

But I can only define things from within my own station. I am a layman. If my Elders are telling me intinction is acceptable, then I can participate with the knowledge that it is they who will be held accountable for introducing novelties. I am submitting. They have to bear the higher standard. Being only an armorbearer rather than a knight does have its advantages...

 

[MW]

I would argue along the following lines:

Sacraments should be administered purely. It is a mark of the church. This means they should be both valid and lawful. "Valid" means they include all the necessary elements according to Christ's appointment. "Lawful" means the valid sacrament is administered according to the rule of the Word and without the unnecessary additions of men. Roman Catholic baptism would be considered valid but unlawful. Roman Catholic communion in one kind would be considered neither valid nor lawful. That which is valid but not lawful can be accepted as true but not pure. Roman Catholic baptism is true baptism and therefore should not be repeated. However, the addition of human rites makes it unlawful, which means one should be dissuaded from receiving baptism by the Church of Rome. Likewise, intinction includes the addition of human rites and the confusion of the sacramental actions. It is valid but it is unlawful. One can accept it as a valid communion but individuals should be dissuaded from receiving communion in such churches.