Thread: Intinction
View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 01:25 PM
tcalbrecht's Avatar
tcalbrecht tcalbrecht is offline.
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 1,467
Thanks: 14
Thanked 107 Times in 71 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by raekwon View Post
See, I just don't know that it fails at either. The only one I can actually see any legitimate contention with is whether or not you're "drinking" the wine, and whenever I see the word "drinking" defined, it's something like "to take liquid into the mouth and swallow". Even if that liquid's been absorbed by another substance, it still seems to fall under that definition. As far as "eating" goes, I think it's pretty obvious that the bread is being eaten.

Still, I understand and appreciate your conviction.
I don't believe it is just my conviction.

Do you honestly believe that if you took some soggy mass to the Westminster divines and argued that ingesting that soggy mass encompassed eating the bread and drinking the wine ala what they stated in the Confession? I think they would see it as a Romish fad.

The bread is a solid and the wine is a liquid. The bread represents Christ body broken and the blood His blood shed (that is, released from the body). The soggy mass is neither solid not liquid and so cannot adequately convey the spiritual significance of the sacrament.
__________________
Tom Albrecht
Member, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"I'm not a famous man. I'm just a simple country doctor with horse sense."