retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Sometimes a little silliness can help lighten the load in a world loaded down with sin and other burdens. I also don't think anyone here is trying to make light of the Lord's Supper.
Last edited:
What do you use in church?
- Thread starter PointyHaired Calvinist
- Start date
- Status
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Since I originally asked the port question, perhaps I can summarize what I take to be the import of the replies:
1) Port's higher alcohol may be considered safer for a common cup because it kills more germs. This might still be a factor even in a church that uses individual cups if they have historically used port and see no reason to change.
2) Port may keep better, enabling leftovers to be stored for the next communion. This is not a factor if you have weekly communion (especially if you use kosher wine in a screwtop bottle), but may be a consideration if communion is rarer. This assumes, of course, that you keep the leftovers rather than consuming them. Since we are not Catholics, there is nothing particularly sacred about the leftover elements, so they don't need to be reserved. I seem to recall John Murray encouraging children to eat leftover communion bread after the service, but I could be mistaken about that. In the same way, maybe the pastor could take the leftovers of communion wine home to enjoy with lunch?
Neither of these seem to me compelling reasons. I doubt any microbiologist with health concerns about a common cup is going to have their fears alleviated by port, and the cost of an extra half bottle of wine leftover is unlikely to break the church budget of anyone celebrating rarer communion. Port, as a fortified wine, only dates back to the second half of the 18th century, so it would be interesting to know when it became regularly used and if there is any historical data reflecting the change.
I'm also still waiting for an explanation of the use of shortbread. Whereas port in communion seems to have a clear Scottish heritage, shortbread (ironically) seems to me to be a purely American innovation (like "kirking of the tartans" services). Any thoughts?
1) Port's higher alcohol may be considered safer for a common cup because it kills more germs. This might still be a factor even in a church that uses individual cups if they have historically used port and see no reason to change.
2) Port may keep better, enabling leftovers to be stored for the next communion. This is not a factor if you have weekly communion (especially if you use kosher wine in a screwtop bottle), but may be a consideration if communion is rarer. This assumes, of course, that you keep the leftovers rather than consuming them. Since we are not Catholics, there is nothing particularly sacred about the leftover elements, so they don't need to be reserved. I seem to recall John Murray encouraging children to eat leftover communion bread after the service, but I could be mistaken about that. In the same way, maybe the pastor could take the leftovers of communion wine home to enjoy with lunch?
Neither of these seem to me compelling reasons. I doubt any microbiologist with health concerns about a common cup is going to have their fears alleviated by port, and the cost of an extra half bottle of wine leftover is unlikely to break the church budget of anyone celebrating rarer communion. Port, as a fortified wine, only dates back to the second half of the 18th century, so it would be interesting to know when it became regularly used and if there is any historical data reflecting the change.
I'm also still waiting for an explanation of the use of shortbread. Whereas port in communion seems to have a clear Scottish heritage, shortbread (ironically) seems to me to be a purely American innovation (like "kirking of the tartans" services). Any thoughts?
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Thanks for clarification, the CDC actually studied this question partially as it has to do with common cup:
CDC-On-Common-Cup.pdf
drive.google.com
The hazard of infection from the shared communion cup - PubMed
Interest and concern that the shared communion cup may act as a vehicle for indirectly transmitting infectious disease was reawakened when the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was detected in the saliva of infected persons. Bacteriological experiments have shown that the occasional...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Junior
Every church I have attended and partaken of communion has used grape juice, Welch's to be exact. I have zero problem with wine being used, and to be brutally honest, I think that is the best way to partake of it. But here where I live our churches are running rampant with the teetotalism stance, so no wine is allowed in the communion. One lady told me that what the Lord turned to wine was 100% grape juice. I kid ye not!!
pmachapman
Puritan Board Freshman
A Seventh Day Adventist once tried to argue with my grandfather that wine in the New Testament was non-alcoholic grape juice.
My grandfather's answer was to say: "Let's leave a bottle of freshly squeezed grape juice out in the sun and see what happens."
The Adventist who knew well what would happen just walked away.
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
We have both wine and grape juice offered in our communion service. You pick from one area or the other.
hammondjones
Puritan Board Junior
Interesting on the port question. I have actually no idea what we drink in my current congregation, except that it is red, but when we lived in S. America it certainly was "Oporto". As to why, I do not know.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
What's the rationale for serving communion from a common cup?
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Secondarily, you could also ask the question, "When was the first time the Church used individual cups?" The vast majority of Church history shows the common cup was used.
FivePointSpurgeonist
Puritan Board Freshman
Would there be anyone today who would actually prefer a common cup?
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Not me. Germs. Ick.
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, we use a common cup in our congregation and our congregation prefers it - most of them do not want to use anything else.
I preached a sermon on the common cup (and common table, and common loaf) if anyone is interested in learning more.
www.sermonaudio.com
Whether you favor it or not, to say, "Germs. Ick" is to say that to the Lord Jesus Christ who used a common cup at the Supper with His beloved disciples.
I preached a sermon on the common cup (and common table, and common loaf) if anyone is interested in learning more.
Lord's Supper: Joint participation
Romesh Prakashpalan | Dallas Presbyterian Church
www.sermonaudio.com
Whether you favor it or not, to say, "Germs. Ick" is to say that to the Lord Jesus Christ who used a common cup at the Supper with His beloved disciples.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Paper on Common Cup: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BhgWmFV8V2ZXRTS3e887FXZsqOtRQPrEh7I1ey33Wk8/edit?usp=sharing
Links on Common Cup: https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/the-lords-supper/the-common-cup/
Sermons on Common Cup: @kodos just posted his excellent sermon, and in post #41 I posted a sermon that I preached on it.
Our congregation also prefers common cup because it is what is required by the Lord in the institution of the Supper.
If germs are an issue, put yourself in 1 of 2 places - 1) Jesus drank of the cup, his disciples, and then it comes to you...are you going to say, "Not me. Germs. Ick."? 2) At the marriage supper of the Lamb and the cup is passed by Jesus the Bridegroom, are you going to say then, "Not me. Germs. Ick."?
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
That's what I thought as well. Perhaps the logistics of bigger churches made the small cups a practical matter...? Or even germ theory.
Secondarily, you could also ask the question, "When was the first time the Church used individual cups?" The vast majority of Church history shows the common cup was used.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
The common cup is not a problem in large churches.
Small individual cups came about because of the switch to grape juice in the late 19th century after grape juice began to be used in the supper. And the sinful tendency then to fear germs. Grape juice is not a natural antiseptic. So I suppose I'd be concerned about germs too if I were using grape juice. Along with wine being a natural antispetic working with the metal of the cup which is also a natural antiseptic, Christ's institution is based on the promise of not getting sick from drinking if the people examine themselves in proper preparation. Nor would Christ be guilty of commanding a breaking of the 6th commandment (be careful in accusing Him of this).
Rebellion against the common cup because it is icky or because of germs is a modern creation of man based on the attacks of the devil. Most of you are understanding that wine is the appropriate element, but elders are fearful of man to institute wine in the churches as Christ so instituted. If wine is to be used, faithful elders would use it. So when one continues in grape juice it is understandable that a common cup is germ-infested and icky. But does the common cup pass germs or diseases? The CDC in the 90's proved this is not the case (before the CDC went rogue). Why did elders of the churches turn from the common cup? Because they had already turned being unfaithful to the Lord in using grape juice, and this was a necessary step then...
Finally, here on the PB, it is ironic that anyone on this board would call the common cup icky...
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
I looked into this a bit, since it's somewhat common in ARP churches. I've heard of some RPCNA and PCA churches that use it as well. I remember hearing from an RPCNA pastor say about the practice when he found it the church he came to something along the lines of, "RP worship is already strange enough for some without using cookies in communion."
I passed some along to Travis Fentiman who compiled a page here: https://reformedbooksonline.com/top...per/common-bread-in-the-lords-supper/#novelty
It seems there was limited use of shortbread in some places in Scotland, either due to considering it the "best" bread and suitable for a holy occasion or because of practicality in that shortbread lasts longer, but it was never common.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
That is a fascinating resource. It's intriguing that the use of shortbread seems to have been largely an older custom (from a 19th century perspective) and limited to more rural areas, where the "ordinary bread" may have been more like oatcakes. In one of the sources, the desire to use shortbread is indeed linked with the idea of serving the "best" bread, and the shift from claret to port is attributed to the same desire. Yet port seems viewed as an innovation in the 19th century, whereas shortbread was seen as old-fashioned, so they aren't exactly parallel. It's certainly a plausible desire, alongside the unleavened nature of shortbread.
In another source the rarity of communion in 16th-17th century Scottish churches (annually in each parish, though communicants might travel to have communion more often) is attributed in part to cost factors, especially due to the laity taking long draughts on the wine in reaction to the withholding of the cup from the laity in the Medieval tradition! That was a factor in the frequency of communion I hadn't considered, and seems plausible as explaining part of the disjunct between the Westminster Directory of Public Worship's encouragement toward "frequent" administration of the sacrament and its historical infrequency in Scottish Presbyterian churches.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Sorry to be "that guy" but wine is NOT a "natural antiseptic". The alcohol content of wine is far too low to be an effective antiseptic.
That said, it seems that there is no evidence that there's ever been any spread of disease by use of the common cup, and the "health authorities" think it's unlikely to be much of a disease vector.
I am just curious as to why the common cup is preferred by some.
That said, it seems that there is no evidence that there's ever been any spread of disease by use of the common cup, and the "health authorities" think it's unlikely to be much of a disease vector.
I am just curious as to why the common cup is preferred by some.
If you believe a common cup is "required," would you also say any other usage invalidates the institution?
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
The same as using grape juice, it veils. It is still the supper, still the sacrament, but it is veiled or not as clear as Christ instituted it to be. So communicants will not benefit as well from it...
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Sorry, wine has antiseptic properties due to its alcohol content. No one said it completely kills all germs. Why is it preferred? The easy answer is it is commanded. It isn't a preference though, it's obedience.
Fair enough, although this would seem to fall short of the commonly accepted meaning of "required."
I would respectfully disagree. I realize the physical and spiritual aspects of the sacraments are interrelated, and the temporal means are indeed significant. Yet I would tend to see the primary benefit from either sacrament, though its outward observance ostensibly be flawed, as spiritual, in the case of the Supper being derived from inwardly discerning the body of the Lord, self examination, and reception by faith.
In other words, one who receives a sacrament in faith and with a good conscience, surly receives greater benefit than one lacking these inward, graces though they have all the outward t's crossed and I's dotted.
Last edited:
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
(1) Is it possible that Jesus was germ-free? There are no accounts of His being sick anywhere in the New Testament.
(2) It's a good bet that there are no germs in the eternal state.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Were the disciples who drank after the other disciples?
Jake, I appreciate that you jumped in. I was curious about the shortbread used in your congregation. Seems like I asked and received a rather baffled what-else-would-we-use? If a church favors unleavened bread it has a practical benefit. You can easily make a shortbread on Saturday and have it perfectly presentable Sunday morning. Most truly unleavened pita breads will be somewhat dry and perhaps hard the following day, characteristics I've tried for years to work around.
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Although I believe this has been answered in some of the material posted, I have always believed the fermented vs. unfermented argument might be missing the point. Yes, there are references to "the fruit of the vine" in Scripture, but not when Christ instituted His Supper. Was there only one cup in the upper room that they had to share out of necessity (very unlikely - Christ instructed His disciples to find a room prepared for observing the Passover which they did - see, for example, Matt. 26.17-19), or was Christ purposefully using a common cup as an essential part of the meaning and mode of His sacrament (very likely - see references below)? Scripture states: "Also He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it them, saying, Drink ye all of it." (Matt. 26.27, see also the same Mark and Luke's accounts below). Is it not the cup that is the symbol accompanying the broken bread, and not necessarily what is in the cup? (although I prefer naturally fermented wine because it is what Christ used and "wine" is what my confession repeatedly states - also there was no unfermented grape juice commonly available until the teetotaling Wesleyan Welch discovered pasteurizing grape juice kills the natural process of fermentation). Consider Christ's many uses of a singular cup in His ministry:
- And Jesus answered, and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I shall be baptized with? (Matt. 20.22)
- Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. (Matt. 23.26)
- He went a little further, and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt. (26.39)
- Again he went away the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup cannot pass away from me, but that I must drink it, thy will be done. (26.42)
- And He said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee: take away this cup from me: nevertheless not that I will, but that Thou wilt, be done. (Mark 14.36)
- And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you (Luke 22.17)
- Likewise also after supper He took the cup, saying, This cup is that new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22.20)
- Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: shall I not drink of the cup which my Father hath given me? (John 18.11)
Paul continues this language:
- The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (I Cor. 10.16)
- Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the devils. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of the devils. (I Cor. 10.21)
- 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 as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show the Lord’s death till He come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let every man therefore examine himself, and so let them eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. (I Cor. 11.25-28)
What is lost when the common cup is abandoned? Quite a bit, I would say. Having worshipped for years in a congregation that used a common cup, I now worship in a congregation that uses unfermented grape juice in individual shot glasses. I feel the loss every time.
I would also hold that a "split cup" (letting people choose from various options) is also not what Christ instituted. If the Church would humble itself and simply follow Christ's directive instead of trying to accommodate every individual desire (not all of which may not all be spiritual) with a manmade solution, perhaps the use of the common cup would solve many issues associated with instituting the Lord's Supper in different cultures.
(I do not believe the parallel argument can be made for the bread - Biblically, "common cup" should refer to the use of one cup, not that the liquid inside is "common." I believe the wine used in the upper room on the night Christ was betrayed would have been a special wine for Passover, but this opinion is based on historical sources, not Biblical ones. Thus I do not believe the "common cup/common bread" argument is completely valid (although I agree with much of it). Just as using a single cup has meaning in Scripture, so does leaven have meaning as a symbol of sin. Although I am aware of the varying arguments as to what type of bread Christ was actually using in the upper room on the night He was betrayed, I believe the strongest evidence suggests He and the others would have been breaking the unleavened Passover bread. This belief about the type of bread is not just based on historical sources, but on the connection to Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but I admit there is some debate as to the Biblical evidence for what bread would have present on night Christ was betrayed.)
May we all be blessed however imperfectly we try to follow Christ and His commands.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
