Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I wanted to give this its own thread and not take up space in the PCA GA thread.
What say you? Is Intinction supportable by Scripture?
What say you? Is Intinction supportable by Scripture?
Appropriatness of Intinction, Regarding the Lord's Supper
- Thread starter Backwoods Presbyterian
- Start date
- Status
I was introduced to it in the late 80's and just compared it to Judas dipping sop. But that might have been a bit overboard. I don't find it to be scriptural in that the cup and the bread seem to be separate when they were taken and that different things were to be thought about when partaking. This is my body... broken for you.... Likewise the cup... after the supper.
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
Mark 14:23 ... there is one cup used and not many individual cups
Matthew 26:27 ... the "all" is not "all of it (the cup)" but, modifies the understood you in the imperative (e.g., in the southern vernacular - "y'all drink it")
Matthew 26:27 ... the "all" is not "all of it (the cup)" but, modifies the understood you in the imperative (e.g., in the southern vernacular - "y'all drink it")
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I would say 'no'. How exactly was it done? Was the Sacrament administered in a manner contrary to the WCF?
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
What do you see the WCF saying as to the mode of delivering the wine and bread?
Webservant
Puritan Board Sophomore
If the "blood' is still in the "body", to me that brings on a completely different connotation. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but it seems to me this fits those sects who believe that the body of Christ is physically present in the elements. your mileage may vary.
Well since Christ distributed the elements separately and they were consumed separately when instituting the Lord's Supper I think it fails to align properly with the example He set.
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
And what impact does the fact that Jesus used a single cup to distribute the wine portion of the elements, say about how we should distribute the elements?
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
That's why I'm asking the question as to how it was done in this circumstance. I want to have a clear understanding of what occurred before I condemn it. I don't want to make rash assumptions that we all have the same understanding of 'intinction'.
The WCF itself is quite clear on how the elements are to be received by the communicants.
I'm all for it actually however in a crowd of 500 a "single" cup would be a challenge but I support several common cups.
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
I don't blame you. All I'm trying to do with my questions is to remind those who immediately reject intinction as improper that they best look carefully at their own practices. If one says, well Jesus didn't use intinction, then one better be ready to answer the question, "how did Jesus actually do it?" It was a single cup for all those partaking. I don't see a tray with small individual cups being used either. I'm not advocating intinction as the way we should celebrate the Lord's Supper, but I do want those who reject intinction as something less than proper, to look carefully at the justification for how they celebrate the Lord's Supper.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
My rejection of intinction as anti-Biblical and anti-Confessional stems directly from the fact that Christ and Paul both are very clear in the fact we are to discern both the body and the blood separately and also take the elements separately.
I have always seen intinction done for two reasons. 1) Pragmatics. 2) "Mystical Relation" (in other words it heightens the "experience" by using a common cup and common bread).
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
Fair enough, and that is a personal decision of yours. I wonder, though, do you also reject multiple individual cups as anti-Biblical and anti-Confessional because Jesus and Paul are very clear that the wine is to be distributed singularly?
(1) Matt. 26:27 the "of it" (the cup) is singular
(2) Mark 14:23 clearly only one cup is used
(3) 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 uses singular "cup"
(4) WCF XXIX.3 uses singular "cup"
If you do then I congratulate you on you consistency.
You may not be interested in this, but the body and blood are discerned separately in intinction. When the communicant breaks off a piece of bread there is a statement made concerning the body, and when the communicant dips the bread into the cup, there is a statement concerning the blood. The rub seems to be that the two elements are joined about 2 feet above the stomach.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
What you present is a false dilemma, an either-or fallacy. Sure we use a common cup, which is then poured into individual receptacles. Our bread likewise comes from a common loaf, which is then torn into individual pieces.
But that hardly is the point in question given that Paul in 1 Cor 11:23-25 posits two distinct and time separate actions:
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
Where do we find the authority for or example of separating the wine into separate cups before distribution? Bread is a collective noun so singularity or plurality in receiving is difficult to deduce from Scripture, but the singularity of the cup at reception is quite clear.
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
And in intinction the bread is broken off from a single loaf, accompanied with words signifying the body broken for you.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
and with such words spoken, in some PCA congregations I've been in, by women. But that's a different
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
You keep stating this. How does this defend intinction?
Can someone explain why intinction is being done in Reformed churches at all? Why do it; it is not a circumstance like wheat bread versus white (maybe in some medical case where one has problem swallowing?). Why do it?
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Good question. I have only ever heard the following kind of arguments - 1) it's quicker 2) it's a way to have a common cup without spreading germs
Of course I think both of these are poor reasons, and both are incorrect. It's no faster, if you want people to come forward for the supper, to have them dip the bread, than it is to go forward and drink from the common cup. It's also no less a health risk, either, and both of those risks are trumped by the risk of shaking anyone's hand, or, may it never be, shaking a hand or giving a hug.
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
One of the reasons some use it is to return to partaking from one cup.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
But that is not a valid reason to do intinction. You can do that and still eat the bread separately.
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
It's a valid reason to them.
Sven
Puritan Board Sophomore
The Reformed have always recognized that the Lord's Supper is more than just bread and wine. There is also a ceremonial aspect to it. There are several ceremonial things that go on: there is the blessing, the breaking, the distributing, and the eating of the bread, and there is the pouring, the blessing, the distributing, and the drinking of the cup of wine. These ceremonial parts are not to be lightly passed over. They are an important part of the Lord's Supper. What reason would we have to alterate these in even the slightest degree. Surely the reason can't be a good one. I see no need for intinction.
Well, if intinction is an added ceremony, case closed. You get far more germs handling the bread then you would from a common cup I'm told, though I would have a gag reflex drinking from the same cup as someone.
- Status
