What Kind of Elements Should We Use?

[SueS]

By the way, Dipping the bread into the Wine is also not biblical as it mixes the elements...




The pastor of our former church (not the man who is now in control of it) always dipped his bread into the juice - I always thought it was just a personal thing with him and never thought about it as mixing the elements. Interesting....so, what would be the theological ramifications of that?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Hi Y'all, These are all good posts. Now, some have said that I was majoring on the minors. I spoke about if I could change one thing, it would be to change the heretical grape juice instead of the Christian contemporary music or the therapeutic, moralistic deistic sermons I have to hear each week. The reason is that communion is a sacrament. The others are how we, well, they worship (so-called). But they are all related. I call it heretical because Jesus used unleavened bread in the passover and wine. Nobody can doubt that because according to the Torah, they had to get the leavening out of the house during passover to symbolize their hasty exodus from Egypt. We have such a don't drink booze culture that we want to make God's word fit our wants and desires. Which is how all these things are related. If I, as a non-seminary trained, non-ordained person can read the Bible, and the church's early history on the subject, and they say unleavened bread and wine, why is this even being debated? You all can call me names and say I'm nuts, but unless you can make a case from scripture and evident reason, The church should stand firm on this matter. Because that is what makes the visible church the visible church. Where the Word of God is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered.

Brother

A heresy is a major doctrinal aberration; some believers consider grape juice to be legitimate because they think alcoholic wine was circumstantial and not a principle. I disagree because the use of alcoholic wine is necessary to also using one cup; the use of grape juice is irregular, but it is not heretical. You need to remember that a visible church is a church which administers the sacraments more or less purely, not absolutely purely. I believe Baptists are wrong to deny the sacrament of baptism to infants, however, I do not consider them to be heretics because of this error.

Moreover, on the one hand you say that a visible church is where the word of God is properly preached, yet, you are more concerned about a minor error concerning the administration of the sacrament than you seem to be about men preaching another gospel.

 

[Coram Deo]

Daniel,

Grymir is not the first to call it the Grape Juice Heresy... I have heard it plenty of times and I can understand where they are coming from... Of course there are Greater Heresies and Lesser Heresies, The greater being ones like Christological Aspects of Christ. Of Course there are matters that are secondary that would not be heresy but erroneous error, i.e. Tribulationalism, Millennialism, etc.. But I can understand why those who call it Grape Juice Heresy, because the Sacrament is no small matter... Even Jeremiah Burroughs said in Gospel Worship that even the Gestures of how we partake of the Supper is No Small Matter and is Not a thing "InDifferent". Now I agree that the issue should be moot, the answer is Wine and Red Wine because of color of Blood. Do I call it a heresy, even a lesser Heresy? I am undecided right now but could lean that way... Let me quote from the Belgic Confession...

"The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church."

Hi Y'all, These are all good posts. Now, some have said that I was majoring on the minors. I spoke about if I could change one thing, it would be to change the heretical grape juice instead of the Christian contemporary music or the therapeutic, moralistic deistic sermons I have to hear each week. The reason is that communion is a sacrament. The others are how we, well, they worship (so-called). But they are all related. I call it heretical because Jesus used unleavened bread in the passover and wine. Nobody can doubt that because according to the Torah, they had to get the leavening out of the house during passover to symbolize their hasty exodus from Egypt. We have such a don't drink booze culture that we want to make God's word fit our wants and desires. Which is how all these things are related. If I, as a non-seminary trained, non-ordained person can read the Bible, and the church's early history on the subject, and they say unleavened bread and wine, why is this even being debated? You all can call me names and say I'm nuts, but unless you can make a case from scripture and evident reason, The church should stand firm on this matter. Because that is what makes the visible church the visible church. Where the Word of God is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered.

Brother

A heresy is a major doctrinal aberration; some believers consider grape juice to be legitimate because they think alcoholic wine was circumstantial and not a principle. I disagree because the use of alcoholic wine is necessary to also using one cup; the use of grape juice is irregular, but it is not heretical. You need to remember that a visible church is a church which administers the sacraments more or less purely, not absolutely purely. I believe Baptists are wrong to deny the sacrament of baptism to infants, however, I do not consider them to be heretics because of this error.

Moreover, on the one hand you say that a visible church is where the word of God is properly preached, yet, you are more concerned about a minor error concerning the administration of the sacrament than you seem to be about men preaching another gospel.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel,

Grymir is not the first to call it the Grape Juice Heresy... I have heard it plenty of times and I can understand where they are coming from... Of course there are Greater Heresies and Lesser Heresies, The greater being ones like Christological Aspects of Christ. Of Course there are matters that are secondary that would not be heresy but erroneous error, i.e. Tribulationalism, Millennialism, etc.. But I can understand why those who call it Grape Juice Heresy, because the Sacrament is no small matter... Even Jeremiah Burroughs said in Gospel Worship that even the Gestures of how we partake of the Supper is No Small Matter and is Not a thing "InDifferent". Now I agree that the issue should be moot, the answer is Wine and Red Wine because of color of Blood. Do I call it a heresy, even a lesser Heresy? I am undecided right now but could lean that way... Let me quote from the Belgic Confession...

"The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church."

Michael

He may not be the first to call it heresy, but the position is extreme to say the least. While the use of grape juice may be a product of the total abstinence error, to deem it heretical is going over-board. Nobody is saying that the due administration of the sacraments is a matter of no consequence - though I think this discussion is about a small error (not something indifferent, as I do not believe in adiaphora) - but things need to be kept in proportion. The words "heretic" and "heresy" are thrown around far too lightly these days. Remember we have a duty to protect the good name of others even when they are in error.

 

[Coram Deo]

Wine kills Germs, But Dipping the Bread into the Wine which a Finger or two could touch the Wine would allow Dirt and "Unhealthy Matter" to touch the Wine and Float.. (Remember, Some people do not wash their hands after visiting a certain Room), The Wine still kills the Germs, but the matter that floats is still present in the Wine...

I also have heard that Mixing the Elements would be like mixing the body and the blood together which are suppose to be seperate.. (Need to find more info on this one)

Then... Our Dearly Beloved WebMaster, Pastor McMahon quoted in a previous post on this matter by the following:

"If the the bread was broken and given, and then AFTER the wine was drunk [drink ye all of you] by direct example at the Supper, and direct pedagogic exploanation and application by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, then to do otherwise is a break in manner in which God has revelaed to us how the supper shoudl be taken. That woudl be a break in the RPW. I'm not sure if there could be a more clear break with it.

1) Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."

2) Matthew 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,

2 steps.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed...

He is teaching us something directly.

1) ... took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

2) In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Reiteration: For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.

Again, I can't see how intiction is not a break, or in direct opposition to the didactic teaching of Paul and the expressed example of Christ. What does it take to make it a break in RPW?

If we go with the Lutherans - whatever is not forbidden is allowed, then we have the doors open to disregard the key texts on it.

If we go with Rome, then, well, no holds barred.

The confession does not mix them on purpose:

III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]

5. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Cor. 10:16-17; 11:23-27
6. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:20

All of the confession, though, make the distinction between "eat and drink". I don't think any of them meant intinction, or left that up for debate."

By the way, Dipping the bread into the Wine is also not biblical as it mixes the elements...




The pastor of our former church (not the man who is now in control of it) always dipped his bread into the juice - I always thought it was just a personal thing with him and never thought about it as mixing the elements. Interesting....so, what would be the theological ramifications of that?

 

[Grymir]

Goodmorning Peramum! Don't worry, no offence taken. I'm in the PCUSA because it's the most legit church around here. I'm also a reformer. I'm not gonna change the denomination, but who knows about my local church? I'm stuck with it and they are stuck with me. If there was a good Presbyterian church like y'all have, I'd be there! But I cannot forsake the assembling of ourselves as we see the day grow closer either. Anyway, just wanted to say a little before I have to goto work. I have to get out the w-2's.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderator. Call it the grape juice error and I think misunderstandings and needless offense can be avoided.

 

[SIXDAYZ]

"Fruit of the Vine"

Hi Y'all, These are all good posts. Now, some have said that I was majoring on the minors. I spoke about if I could change one thing, it would be to change the heretical grape juice instead of the Christian contemporary music or the therapeutic, moralistic deistic sermons I have to hear each week. The reason is that communion is a sacrament. The others are how we, well, they worship (so-called). But they are all related. I call it heretical because Jesus used unleavened bread in the passover and wine. Nobody can doubt that because according to the Torah, they had to get the leavening out of the house during passover to symbolize their hasty exodus from Egypt. We have such a don't drink booze culture that we want to make God's word fit our wants and desires. Which is how all these things are related. If I, as a non-seminary trained, non-ordained person can read the Bible, and the church's early history on the subject, and they say unleavened bread and wine, why is this even being debated? You all can call me names and say I'm nuts, but unless you can make a case from scripture and evident reason, The church should stand firm on this matter. Because that is what makes the visible church the visible church. Where the Word of God is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered.

Brother

A heresy is a major doctrinal aberration; some believers consider grape juice to be legitimate because they think alcoholic wine was circumstantial and not a principle. I disagree because the use of alcoholic wine is necessary to also using one cup; the use of grape juice is irregular, but it is not heretical. You need to remember that a visible church is a church which administers the sacraments more or less purely, not absolutely purely. I believe Baptists are wrong to deny the sacrament of baptism to infants, however, I do not consider them to be heretics because of this error.

Moreover, on the one hand you say that a visible church is where the word of God is properly preached, yet, you are more concerned about a minor error concerning the administration of the sacrament than you seem to be about men preaching another gospel.

Brothers... this kind of heresy-hunting is why so many reformed Christians have segregated themselves from the rest of the church. Of course we cannot accept ESSENTIAL errors, but we MUST BE CHARITABLE with those NON-ESSENTIAL issues and those who have not been given the grace that we have. We must not impose LAWS upon other Christians, or call each other heretics when the Bible is silent. "Heresy" should be reserved for those doctrines that "deny" the faith. I just can't imagine grape-juice qualifying for this...

Colossians 3:12-14

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Goodmorning Peramum!

Who is Peramum?

 

[Grymir]

O.k. Sorry Pergamum for mis-typing your name. I had just woken up and had no coffee yet.

 

[Coram Deo]

SixDayz,

I agree with your Principle, that we "MUST BE CHARITABLE with those NON-ESSENTIAL issues". But I disagree with your conclusion.... Worship is the Chief End of Man and is Quasi-Total-Essential to the Christian Faith including what goes on and how worship is conducted.

I am in agreement with John Calvin who said that Worship is Totally Essential and is EVEN more important then the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone which was a major battle cry of the Reformation. I am not belittling Justification by Faith Alone and I view it as just as Essential, but as John Calvin said, "The act of Justification is for the purpose of Worship of God." In other words, we are saved for the direct purpose of Worship, and Who we Worship, How we Worship, The Name we worship, and the Day we Worship are all totally essential to the Christian Faith. It is in fact the First Table of the Law.

Grace is given by the Spirit, and the Spirit Directs us to read what God will have for us in the Scriptures. There is no excuse for a Christian not to find the truth in the Scriptures. I have an Aunt who has been caught up in the Evangeljellyism and when I show something from the scripture she will say "Well, the Spirit as not led me to that", That is wrong thinking, the Spirit directs us to the Scriptures and he will never led us contrary to Scriptures. A Christian who is directed by the Spirit, will be directed to the Scriptures to which the Truth is contained... It is not imposing man laws, it is imposing the Word of God which contains God's Laws.

Just my

Hi Y'all, These are all good posts. Now, some have said that I was majoring on the minors. I spoke about if I could change one thing, it would be to change the heretical grape juice instead of the Christian contemporary music or the therapeutic, moralistic deistic sermons I have to hear each week. The reason is that communion is a sacrament. The others are how we, well, they worship (so-called). But they are all related. I call it heretical because Jesus used unleavened bread in the passover and wine. Nobody can doubt that because according to the Torah, they had to get the leavening out of the house during passover to symbolize their hasty exodus from Egypt. We have such a don't drink booze culture that we want to make God's word fit our wants and desires. Which is how all these things are related. If I, as a non-seminary trained, non-ordained person can read the Bible, and the church's early history on the subject, and they say unleavened bread and wine, why is this even being debated? You all can call me names and say I'm nuts, but unless you can make a case from scripture and evident reason, The church should stand firm on this matter. Because that is what makes the visible church the visible church. Where the Word of God is properly preached and the sacraments properly administered.

Brother

A heresy is a major doctrinal aberration; some believers consider grape juice to be legitimate because they think alcoholic wine was circumstantial and not a principle. I disagree because the use of alcoholic wine is necessary to also using one cup; the use of grape juice is irregular, but it is not heretical. You need to remember that a visible church is a church which administers the sacraments more or less purely, not absolutely purely. I believe Baptists are wrong to deny the sacrament of baptism to infants, however, I do not consider them to be heretics because of this error.

Moreover, on the one hand you say that a visible church is where the word of God is properly preached, yet, you are more concerned about a minor error concerning the administration of the sacrament than you seem to be about men preaching another gospel.

Brothers... this kind of heresy-hunting is why so many reformed Christians have segregated themselves from the rest of the church. Of course we cannot accept ESSENTIAL errors, but we MUST BE CHARITABLE with those NON-ESSENTIAL issues and those who have not been given the grace that we have. We must not impose LAWS upon other Christians, or call each other heretics when the Bible is silent. "Heresy" should be reserved for those doctrines that "deny" the faith. I just can't imagine grape-juice qualifying for this...

Colossians 3:12-14

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Wine kills Germs, But Dipping the Bread into the Wine which a Finger or two could touch the Wine would allow Dirt and "Unhealthy Matter" to touch the Wine and Float.. (Remember, Some people do not wash their hands after visiting a certain Room), The Wine still kills the Germs, but the matter that floats is still present in the Wine...

I also have heard that Mixing the Elements would be like mixing the body and the blood together which are suppose to be seperate.. (Need to find more info on this one)

Then... Our Dearly Beloved WebMaster, Pastor McMahon quoted in a previous post on this matter by the following:

"If the the bread was broken and given, and then AFTER the wine was drunk [drink ye all of you] by direct example at the Supper, and direct pedagogic exploanation and application by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, then to do otherwise is a break in manner in which God has revelaed to us how the supper shoudl be taken. That woudl be a break in the RPW. I'm not sure if there could be a more clear break with it.

1) Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."

2) Matthew 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,

2 steps.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed...

He is teaching us something directly.

1) ... took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

2) In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Reiteration: For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.

Again, I can't see how intiction is not a break, or in direct opposition to the didactic teaching of Paul and the expressed example of Christ. What does it take to make it a break in RPW?

If we go with the Lutherans - whatever is not forbidden is allowed, then we have the doors open to disregard the key texts on it.

If we go with Rome, then, well, no holds barred.

The confession does not mix them on purpose:

III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]

5. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Cor. 10:16-17; 11:23-27
6. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:20

All of the confession, though, make the distinction between "eat and drink". I don't think any of them meant intinction, or left that up for debate."

By the way, Dipping the bread into the Wine is also not biblical as it mixes the elements...




The pastor of our former church (not the man who is now in control of it) always dipped his bread into the juice - I always thought it was just a personal thing with him and never thought about it as mixing the elements. Interesting....so, what would be the theological ramifications of that?

Michael, this is going a tad to far in my humble opinion. Like someone said above, they were actually sitting or lounging while the supper was eaten, so should we do that? Perhaps ill lay on my pastors shoulder too.

What way is acceptable then? Portion controled 1'' x 1'' pieces and shot glasses of wine?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Michael

I think by essential he means things that are essential to a credible profession of the Christian faith (JbFA etc). Of course, there is a sense in which we may speak of worshipping God in His prescribe manner as essential , but we are using the word in a somewhat different context. Moreover, while Christ commended people for tithing mint, He also reproved them for forgetting about the weighter matters of the law. So there is an objective difference between things of primary and secondary importance.

SixDayz,

I agree with your Principle, that we "MUST BE CHARITABLE with those NON-ESSENTIAL issues". But I disagree with your conclusion.... Worship is the Chief End of Man and is Quasi-Total-Essential to the Christian Faith including what goes on and how worship is conducted.

I am in agreement with John Calvin who said that Worship is Totally Essential and is EVEN more important then the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone which was a major battle cry of the Reformation. I am not belittling Justification by Faith Alone and I view it as just as Essential, but as John Calvin said, "The act of Justification is for the purpose of Worship of God." In other words, we are saved for the direct purpose of Worship, and Who we Worship, How we Worship, The Name we worship, and the Day we Worship are all totally essential to the Christian Faith. It is in fact the First Table of the Law.

Grace is given by the Spirit, and the Spirit Directs us to read what God will have for us in the Scriptures. There is no excuse for a Christian not to find the truth in the Scriptures. I have an Aunt who has been caught up in the Evangeljellyism and when I show something from the scripture she will say "Well, the Spirit as not led me to that", That is wrong thinking, the Spirit directs us to the Scriptures and he will never led us contrary to Scriptures. A Christian who is directed by the Spirit, will be directed to the Scriptures to which the Truth is contained... It is not imposing man laws, it is imposing the Word of God which contains God's Laws.

Just my

Brother

A heresy is a major doctrinal aberration; some believers consider grape juice to be legitimate because they think alcoholic wine was circumstantial and not a principle. I disagree because the use of alcoholic wine is necessary to also using one cup; the use of grape juice is irregular, but it is not heretical. You need to remember that a visible church is a church which administers the sacraments more or less purely, not absolutely purely. I believe Baptists are wrong to deny the sacrament of baptism to infants, however, I do not consider them to be heretics because of this error.

Moreover, on the one hand you say that a visible church is where the word of God is properly preached, yet, you are more concerned about a minor error concerning the administration of the sacrament than you seem to be about men preaching another gospel.

Brothers... this kind of heresy-hunting is why so many reformed Christians have segregated themselves from the rest of the church. Of course we cannot accept ESSENTIAL errors, but we MUST BE CHARITABLE with those NON-ESSENTIAL issues and those who have not been given the grace that we have. We must not impose LAWS upon other Christians, or call each other heretics when the Bible is silent. "Heresy" should be reserved for those doctrines that "deny" the faith. I just can't imagine grape-juice qualifying for this...

Colossians 3:12-14

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

 

[moral necessity]

The point that was made, and which I tried to make explicit with a Scripture text of my own, is that "leaven" as a symbol in the Bible isn't equatable to "sin" or "malice." And the proof of that is that the Kingdom of Heaven is like leaven. The Kingdom of Heaven promotes neither sin or malice, but the very opposite of those traits.

The "leaven of the Pharisees" (Mt. 16:6) was their pernicious influence. THEY made their "leavening" bad. THEY made their leaven sinful. So, In my humble opinion, you might want to adjust your thought about "leaven" in the Bible being a particular (sinful?) thing, because I think its getting you off in one particular direction. You'd have then to overcompensate in the case of Mt 13:33.

If, in 1 Cor 5:8, Paul uses the term "old leaven" which he then describes epexegetically as "leaven of malice", it doesn't follow to say that Paul means for us to think sylogictically: A) Leaven is bad in Scripture, b) Malice is bad, :. C) Malice and leaven are both Scripture-evils. The first premise (A) is neither to be assumed nor is it necessary to his point, which is entirely based on Passover ritual, Ex.13:7.

I'm just saying that Mt. 13:33 thoroughly explodes the idea that leaven in the Bible is an exclusively negative symbol, and so we need to adjust our hermeneutic to accommodate that fact.

Here is another: Lev 23:17 "Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD." Leaven was forbidden on the altar of burnt offering (Lev. 2:11), but clearly it was not excluded from all OT ceremony.

Peace.

Brother Bruce,

With all respect, I think that you might have accidentally read beyond what I wrote, as I might have done with you as well. I didn't realize your only point was that leven was not equitable to sin or malice, of which I agree. I thought your point was that leven had to do with the act of growing rather than the object of influence.

I agree that leven is not equatable to sin or malace, or is always a negative term. I never said it was, nor did I try to limit it to such. My only point originally was that unlevened bread represented to the Jews the sinlessness of the Messiah that would come. And my original question was regarding whether or not this was an important idea to include in the partaking of the bread and wine. My only point to Jacob was that leven represented sin in the instance of the passover bread, that it represented a thing or an object, not just growth. It is not limited to the idea of growth, but refers also to the object growing, whether it be good or bad. Leven truly describes the Kingdom of God, for the Kingdom of God is a thing/object that has the ability to grow and overtake within those who it is among. If leven only refers to the act of growing or influencing, then what did unleavened bread represent to the Jews during the Passover?

I hope I clarified my statements better this time.

Blessings!

 

[DavidCPorter]

The wife of one of our elders bakes the bread for the Lord's Supper. It is very different to normal bread and more like shortbread. We also use grape juice rather than wine. I do not find this a problem as the elements while important only serve to help us feed upon Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit. If we did use wine I would not have a problem with that but I do not think it would be an improvement on the present elements. In this matter as in most things the important thing is the Lord and our hearts.

 

[Coram Deo]

I do know of a church that serves the Wine in Shot Glasses, which I was more leaning that way before I came to the Single Cup....

I also know that In Gospel Worship, Burrough believes that people should sit around the table and partake in much the same way that you described like it was done with Christ... I am still studying the Table Idea. So I will get back to you on that one...

I heard once that Charles Wesley went to Scotland and visited a Scottish Covenanter's church during Communion Season, They had a long table set up for people to come up and partake of the supper sitting around the table, Groups taking their turn and when it was not someone's turn they were either preparing with meditation on the Lord's Death, or in Prayer Thanking the Lord.. He came back to America and wrote that he was so relieved to be back in America because the Scottish Covenanter's Communion took for hours, to have everybody served.....

Wine kills Germs, But Dipping the Bread into the Wine which a Finger or two could touch the Wine would allow Dirt and "Unhealthy Matter" to touch the Wine and Float.. (Remember, Some people do not wash their hands after visiting a certain Room), The Wine still kills the Germs, but the matter that floats is still present in the Wine...

I also have heard that Mixing the Elements would be like mixing the body and the blood together which are suppose to be seperate.. (Need to find more info on this one)

Then... Our Dearly Beloved WebMaster, Pastor McMahon quoted in a previous post on this matter by the following:

"If the the bread was broken and given, and then AFTER the wine was drunk [drink ye all of you] by direct example at the Supper, and direct pedagogic exploanation and application by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, then to do otherwise is a break in manner in which God has revelaed to us how the supper shoudl be taken. That woudl be a break in the RPW. I'm not sure if there could be a more clear break with it.

1) Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."

2) Matthew 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,

2 steps.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed...

He is teaching us something directly.

1) ... took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

2) In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Reiteration: For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.

Again, I can't see how intiction is not a break, or in direct opposition to the didactic teaching of Paul and the expressed example of Christ. What does it take to make it a break in RPW?

If we go with the Lutherans - whatever is not forbidden is allowed, then we have the doors open to disregard the key texts on it.

If we go with Rome, then, well, no holds barred.

The confession does not mix them on purpose:

III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]

5. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Cor. 10:16-17; 11:23-27
6. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:20

All of the confession, though, make the distinction between "eat and drink". I don't think any of them meant intinction, or left that up for debate."

By the way, Dipping the bread into the Wine is also not biblical as it mixes the elements...




The pastor of our former church (not the man who is now in control of it) always dipped his bread into the juice - I always thought it was just a personal thing with him and never thought about it as mixing the elements. Interesting....so, what would be the theological ramifications of that?

Michael, this is going a tad to far in my humble opinion. Like someone said above, they were actually sitting or lounging while the supper was eaten, so should we do that? Perhaps ill lay on my pastors shoulder too.

What way is acceptable then? Portion controled 1'' x 1'' pieces and shot glasses of wine?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Brother Bruce,

With all respect, I think that you might have accidentally read beyond what I wrote, as I might have done with you as well. I didn't realize your only point was that leven was not equitable to sin or malice, of which I agree. I thought your point was that leven had to do with the act of growing rather than the object of influence.

I agree that leven is not equatable to sin or malace, or is always a negative term. I never said it was, nor did I try to limit it to such. My only point originally was that unlevened bread represented to the Jews the sinlessness of the Messiah that would come. And my original question was regarding whether or not this was an important idea to include in the partaking of the bread and wine. My only point to Jacob was that leven represented sin in the instance of the passover bread, that it represented a thing or an object, not just growth. It is not limited to the idea of growth, but refers also to the object growing, whether it be good or bad. Leven truly describes the Kingdom of God, for the Kingdom of God is a thing/object that has the ability to grow and overtake within those who it is among. If leven only refers to the act of growing or influencing, then what did unleavened bread represent to the Jews during the Passover?

I hope I clarified my statements better this time.

Blessings!

OK. Cool. I don't want to mistake your question either.

Here's what I think the Passover and leaven were about: Getting rid of leaven at the ritual, remembrance Passover was to remind them of getting rid of the leaven of Egypt at the first Passover. Leaving Egypt behind meant leaving everything about Egypt behind. "Leaven" is "starter" dough, you keep making bread with a lump from the last batch. That's how the yeast was "kept" ordinarily, no little foil packs in the fridge, just leftover dough from yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before...

Passover wasn't just a "national" ritual (any more than circumcision was). It was a sacrament of the Old Covenant, the sacrament associated with Salvation. It was to be "prepared for." And part of that preparation was repentance, just like coming to the Lord's Supper. Israel was to make an annual "fresh start," as their parents had, by eliminating vestiges of the "old life." Leaven symbolized bondage to sin, the "influence" of Egypt, WRT the Passover.

Passover was a lesson in Salvation, in making that clean break with sin. So each year, when the household "purged" leaven, they should have been thinking of the spiritual significance of the act: "God wants me without the influence of my past life of sin, without last year's sins!" God is saying to his people: "Time to start fresh."

Yes, it was repetitive, it was easy to get jaded, its so... childish, to "start over" once a year. And I'm sure that like many modern NewYear's resolutions, people fell right back into the same sins of the previous year. But that was the nature of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:24f, Gal. 4:1ff).

When you think about it, this is a great argument for more frequent (even weekly maybe?) communion. We don't wait a year to start thinking seriously about repentance, keeping short accounts with God, self-examination as with the Old Covenant celebration. Self-examination is demanded on a far shorter time-scale, because now we are in the "grown-up" age of the church. far less indulgence is to be expected from our Heavenly Father.

You want to know why I think we don't see more people "ill" from Lord's Supper abuse? For 1) we don't know how many people actually ARE ill for that reason, and 2) because we don't have Communion enough to make a good correlation. But that's just my thoughts.​

Anyway, I hope this is more along the lines of what you were thinking. To sum up, WRT the Passover, leaven did have an association with sin, with the "leaven" of the past, in bondage to sin in Egypt.

BTW, I don't think it matters what bread we use in the Lord's Supper. We use what is readily available, because "purging leaven" was a part of the Old Testament Passover, and a once-a-year thing, part of being "under age". Now, if we want to have Lord's Supper only once a year, maybe then...

 

[moral necessity]

Thanks for your thoughts, Bruce! Any books you could direct me to that elaborate on this position?

Blessings!

 

[KMK]

Brother Bruce,

With all respect, I think that you might have accidentally read beyond what I wrote, as I might have done with you as well. I didn't realize your only point was that leven was not equitable to sin or malice, of which I agree. I thought your point was that leven had to do with the act of growing rather than the object of influence.

I agree that leven is not equatable to sin or malace, or is always a negative term. I never said it was, nor did I try to limit it to such. My only point originally was that unlevened bread represented to the Jews the sinlessness of the Messiah that would come. And my original question was regarding whether or not this was an important idea to include in the partaking of the bread and wine. My only point to Jacob was that leven represented sin in the instance of the passover bread, that it represented a thing or an object, not just growth. It is not limited to the idea of growth, but refers also to the object growing, whether it be good or bad. Leven truly describes the Kingdom of God, for the Kingdom of God is a thing/object that has the ability to grow and overtake within those who it is among. If leven only refers to the act of growing or influencing, then what did unleavened bread represent to the Jews during the Passover?

I hope I clarified my statements better this time.

Blessings!

OK. Cool. I don't want to mistake your question either.

Here's what I think the Passover and leaven were about: Getting rid of leaven at the ritual, remembrance Passover was to remind them of getting rid of the leaven of Egypt at the first Passover. Leaving Egypt behind meant leaving everything about Egypt behind. "Leaven" is "starter" dough, you keep making bread with a lump from the last batch. That's how the yeast was "kept" ordinarily, no little foil packs in the fridge, just leftover dough from yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before...

Passover wasn't just a "national" ritual (any more than circumcision was). It was a sacrament of the Old Covenant, the sacrament associated with Salvation. It was to be "prepared for." And part of that preparation was repentance, just like coming to the Lord's Supper. Israel was to make an annual "fresh start," as their parents had, by eliminating vestiges of the "old life." Leaven symbolized bondage to sin, the "influence" of Egypt, WRT the Passover.

Passover was a lesson in Salvation, in making that clean break with sin. So each year, when the household "purged" leaven, they should have been thinking of the spiritual significance of the act: "God wants me without the influence of my past life of sin, without last year's sins!" God is saying to his people: "Time to start fresh."

Yes, it was repetitive, it was easy to get jaded, its so... childish, to "start over" once a year. And I'm sure that like many modern NewYear's resolutions, people fell right back into the same sins of the previous year. But that was the nature of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:24f, Gal. 4:1ff).

When you think about it, this is a great argument for more frequent (even weekly maybe?) communion. We don't wait a year to start thinking seriously about repentance, keeping short accounts with God, self-examination as with the Old Covenant celebration. Self-examination is demanded on a far shorter time-scale, because now we are in the "grown-up" age of the church. far less indulgence is to be expected from our Heavenly Father.

You want to know why I think we don't see more people "ill" from Lord's Supper abuse? For 1) we don't know how many people actually ARE ill for that reason, and 2) because we don't have Communion enough to make a good correlation. But that's just my thoughts.​

Anyway, I hope this is more along the lines of what you were thinking. To sum up, WRT the Passover, leaven did have an association with sin, with the "leaven" of the past, in bondage to sin in Egypt.

BTW, I don't think it matters what bread we use in the Lord's Supper. We use what is readily available, because "purging leaven" was a part of the Old Testament Passover, and a once-a-year thing, part of being "under age". Now, if we want to have Lord's Supper only once a year, maybe then...

Excellent post, Rev Buchanon. Do you see any connection between forbidding leaven and the fact that on the original Passover, the COI were to be ready to flee at a moment's notice?

Exd 12:11 And thus shall ye eat it; [with] your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it [is] the LORD'S passover.

There was not time to let bread rise when they were redeemed from slavery on that night.

Just thinking out loud...

 

[Grymir]

Hi Naphtali, I'm a little slow today. I thought you were asking a moderator to come in and call grape juice communion an error. I just read all the posts again, and you were a moderator telling me to call it the grape juice error instead of heresy. O.K. Here it goes:

The unbiblical, world pleasing grape juice error.

yea! I feel better already. I can feel the love. I'm reaching out in brotherly kindness.

I don't mean to be disrespectful either. Now I'm not talking to you Naphtali here, but others who are watching. I'm illustrating absurdity here. An internet theologian I'm not. I've gone up against the best (or worst because they were arminians or modernists). This is a sacrement we are talking about. If there are parts of the world were they don't have bread and wine, they ought not be using whatever they can get their hands on! Just a little compromise here, just a little there, and there goes the gospel. Denominationalism is not a bad thing. And I would never push someone I consider a heretic off the bridge. Where's the fun in that?? I would tell him the error of his ways. And those who would listen to him.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do you see any connection between forbidding leaven and the fact that on the original Passover, the COI were to be ready to flee at a moment's notice?

Exd 12:11 And thus shall ye eat it; [with] your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it [is] the LORD'S passover.

There was not time to let bread rise when they were redeemed from slavery on that night.

Just thinking out loud...

KMK,
I think thinking of time to rise or bake may come close to the focus, but doesn't really hit the nail. They had no opportunity to get any new yeast or leaven, period. No time to knead. They had time roast a lamb. If they had had dough with yeast, they could have cooked that while roasting the meat; I don't see why not--if the wives already had dough ready for the day, baking a standard batch would not have required more time.

God told them to get ready for the event at least a week or two in advance of it. They were commanded to purge leaven from their midst as part of the preparation for Passover. They ate at dusk. They left in the middle of the night. I doubt if many wives would have been kneading/baking bread at that hour regardless. If they had leavened dough, they would have simply taken it with them.

Here's one of the relevant texts: Exo 12:34 "And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneadingtroughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders." The idea seems to be that having performed the purging ritual in the last week, there was no time to start a new batch--from scratch or borrowing from the neighbor-lady. The people threw their kitchen on their backs and ran out the door. God wanted to enforce his ban on Egyptian leaven. They had no opportunity to knead fresh yeast into dough, nor (I suspect) while they were taking "backpay" from their slavers were they asking the Egyptian neighbors for a little "starter" lump.

They did leave in a hurry, but I don't think that waiting for the dough to set or bread to rise was in God's view a potential "delay".

 

[puritanpilgrim]

I like Piper's quote "It is not ment for pizza and Dr. Pepper on the beach."

I wrote that jokingly, because I thought it was funny when he said this. However, I did use saltines and Grape soda in a prision. Those were my only options. And wine is just plain not in the question in a state prision.