Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Anyone else think there is something wrong with Intinction? After supper I'll come back and tell y'all why I am not in favor of it theologically.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sorry for all those looking for a Thesis on intinction. I am not going to be able to do that in the next hour or so but if you wait I'll get it to you
Suffice to say here is the gist:
The Lord's Supper is clearly two separate acts with two elements. The Body and The Blood. Intinction necessarily is a singular act with two elements. However this is not an argument based on the "amount" of each element but the separation of the elements into two acts is necessary.
In anecdotal side argument intinction is nothing more than in most cases a "pragmatic" solution to time issues not a theological one and pragmatism should never be a primary reason for anything done in Worship.
Q. 169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?
A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.
Sorry for all those looking for a Thesis on intinction. I am not going to be able to do that in the next hour or so but if you wait I'll get it to you
Suffice to say here is the gist:
The Lord's Supper is clearly two separate acts with two elements. The Body and The Blood. Intinction necessarily is a singular act with two elements. However this is not an argument based on the "amount" of each element but the separation of the elements into two acts is necessary.
In anecdotal side argument intinction is nothing more than in most cases a "pragmatic" solution to time issues not a theological one and pragmatism should never be a primary reason for anything done in Worship.
I appreciate your obvious desire to be as true to the origins of the Supper as is practicable, Benjamin. I guess I'm just having trouble seeing intinction (or rather, taking the Body and Blood together as opposed to separately) as a theological consideration.
Here's what the WLC says about how the bread and wine are to be taken . . .
Q. 169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?
A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.
It seems to me that taking the bread and wine by intinction falls within the bounds of the Westminster Standards, the necessary elements being the words of institution, thanksgiving/prayer, bread, and wine.
As far as doing so for reasons of pragmatism or convenience, again, I don't know that we can say that those are the primary concern. The primary concern is faithfulness to Christ's command. He said to take Communion, with the words of institution, bread and wine, thanksgiving, and prayer. After that, I would think that the elders of the church are free to choose the mode in which the Supper is administered.
It seems to me that taking the bread and wine by intinction falls within the bounds of the Westminster Standards, the necessary elements being the words of institution, thanksgiving/prayer, bread, and wine.
It seems to me that taking the bread and wine by intinction falls within the bounds of the Westminster Standards, the necessary elements being the words of institution, thanksgiving/prayer, bread, and wine.
The confessional position is eating bread and drinking wine. I would argue that intinction fails at both.
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
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 also doubt that Jesus and the apostles communed with little plastic cups containing thimble-sized amounts of wine (make that grape juice), and a tiny piece of bread, at best, a fake plastic wafer, at worst.
I also doubt that Jesus and the apostles communed with little plastic cups containing thimble-sized amounts of wine (make that grape juice), and a tiny piece of bread, at best, a fake plastic wafer, at worst.
Very true. And the early church even had an entire meal, with each family bringing their own food. There are many different minor variants in the way the Lord's Supper has been taken over the centuries. I tend to agree with raekwon, this is a sprinkling/submersion type of debate...
I also doubt that Jesus and the apostles communed with little plastic cups containing thimble-sized amounts of wine (make that grape juice), and a tiny piece of bread, at best, a fake plastic wafer, at worst.
Very true. And the early church even had an entire meal, with each family bringing their own food. There are many different minor variants in the way the Lord's Supper has been taken over the centuries. I tend to agree with raekwon, this is a sprinkling/submersion type of debate...
It just amazes me that some will argue vehemently against one position which has "no scriptural warrant" while advancing in theory, or at least practicing, another position which, as far as anyone can tell, has as little to do with scriptural practice as the first one.
I also doubt that Jesus and the apostles communed with little plastic cups containing thimble-sized amounts of wine (make that grape juice), and a tiny piece of bread, at best, a fake plastic wafer, at worst.
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.
I also doubt that Jesus and the apostles communed with little plastic cups containing thimble-sized amounts of wine (make that grape juice), and a tiny piece of bread, at best, a fake plastic wafer, at worst.
I also doubt that Jesus and the apostles communed with little plastic cups containing thimble-sized amounts of wine (make that grape juice), and a tiny piece of bread, at best, a fake plastic wafer, at worst.