Ralph Erskine on Fly Fishing

O.K, perhaps not fly fishing, but the same principle applies.

Let me tell you, in order to the further clearing of this method or manner of their becoming actually the children of promise, the ministry of the gospel is a kind of fishery; ministers are called Fishers of men, and so men and women are the fish. Now, God hath hung a bundle of promises together- as so many hooks upon a line, for taking all sorts of fishes, to take them ashore to himself; here are large hooks for taking large fishes, were they as large as a leviathan: here are little hooks for taking little fishes, were they as little as a mennon. "Oh!" says one, "I am a great sinner, and my sins are mountainous"; well there is a hook for you; " Who art thou, O great mountain, before our Zerubbabel? Thou shalt become a plain; and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shouting, crying, Grace, grace unto it," Zech. iv. 7.

"Oh!" says another, "I am a poor insignificant worm, a worthless, mean, impotent creature: well, there is a hook for you; "Fear not, worm Jacob, 1 will help thee," Isa. xiv. 14. Are you poor and needy? There is a hook for you; " When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongues fail for thirst, I the Lord will hear them, I the God of Jacob will not forsake them," Isa. xli. 17,18.—. Are you a poor blind creature, that knows not what way to go ? There is a hook;for you. Isa. xlii. 16. " I will bring the blind by a way they- know not, I will lead them in paths that they have not known."—Are you a piece of parched ground, like a parched wilderness? There is a hook for you, Isa. xliv. 3. " I will pour water en him that is thirsty, arid floods upon the dry ground."

Are you troubled that you cannot get a heart to pray? Well, there is a hook for taking you, Zech. xii. 1O- "I will pour out upon the house of David, the Spirit of Grace and supplication." Are you unable to believe and repent? There is a hook for catching you, in the following words, "They shall look on him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him" where both faith and repentance are promised. Are you a lost and undone creature? There is hook for you; "Jesus Christ came to seek and save that which was lost," Luke xix; 10. Are you a plagued wretch, oppressed with the plague of atheism and unbelief, with the plague of blasphemy and enmity, saying, O! there are devilish plagues, and hellish diseases in my heart ? Well, there is a hook for you, Rev. xxii. 2. " The leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of all nations ; and Mai. iv. 2. " To you that fear my name, shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing under his wings." "Oh!" but say you, "there is a conditional promise, it is to them that fear his name". I will tell you, man, there is no conditional form put upon any promise in the Bible, to keep back a soul from applying and taking hold of the promise, but to draw it in to embrace the condition, either by taking Christ for the condition, or running to an absolute promise, where that condition is promised: for instance, are you apprehensive that you are destitute of that fear, of God ? Then there is a hook for you to swallow down, that you may be taken by it, Jer. xxxii. 40. ." I will put my fear in your hearts, that you shall not depart from me." And thus you are to do with all the promises that seem to run in a conditional form. Let not the condition fright you from opening your mouth wide, to catch the hook of the promise; or, if still you dare not meddle with it, then run to the absolute promise, where the condition itself is promised; if you cannot find out that, then run to Christ himself in whom all fullness is, and in whom all the promises are yea and amen: having him, you will have the condition of all the promises. If you stand aback from the promise, and will not open your mouth to receive it, or if you reject it for want of this condition or qualification, you mistake the nature of the gospel, and are ignorant of the free covenant of promise. There is no evil you would have removed, no want you would have supplied, but you may get a promise for it; and if one cannot make for you (as none of them but will, if rightly understood) go to another: if one hook be too large for you to swallow down, you may get another, more meet for you: therefore, go about, and seek thy meat, and take fast hold of the promise that makes best for thee. And, O happy soul, if you be taken! For the hook will not hurt you, but only hale you to the same happy shore with all the children of promise.

Works of Ralph Erskine. The Pregnant Promise

Fisherman, or Fisher Of Men?

Once there was a group called fishermen. And lo, there were many fish in the waters all around. In fact the whole area was surrounded by streams and lakes filled with fish and the fish were hungry.

Week after week, month after month, and year after year these who called themselves fishermen met in meetings and talked about their call to fish, the abundance of fish, and how they might go about fishing. Year after year they carefully defined what fishing means, defended fishing as an occupation, and declared that fishing is always to be a primary task of fishermen.

Continually they searched for new and better methods of fishing and for new and better definitions of fishing.

These fishermen built large, beautiful buildings called "Fishing Headquarters." The plea was that everyone should be a fisherman and every fisherman should fish. One thing they didn't do, however; they didn't fish.

In addition to meeting regularly, they organized a school to send out fishermen to other places where there were many fish. All the fishermen seemed to agree that what is needed is a place which could challenge fishermen to be faithful in fishing. The school was formed by those who had the great vision and courage to speak about fishing, to define fishing, and to promote the idea of fishing in faraway streams and lakes where many other fish of different colors lived.

Some spent much study and travel to learn the history of fishing and to see faraway places where the founding fathers did great fishing in the centuries past. They lauded the faithful fishermen of years before who handed down the idea of fishing.

Further the fishermen built large printing houses to publish fishing guides. Presses were kept busy day and night to produce materials solely devoted to fishing methods, equipment, and programs to arrange and to encourage meetings or talk about fishing. A speakers' bureau was also provided to schedule special speakers on the subject of fishing.

Imagine how hurt some were when one day a person suggested that those who didn't catch fish were really not fishermen, no matter how much they claimed to be. Yet it did sound correct. Is a person a fisherman if year after year he never catches a fish? Is one to be considered a fisherman if he isn't fishing?[1]

Mar 1:17 "And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men."

The Fishing Guide

Every good fisherman has, at one point or another, been the student of a better fisherman. Many today pay top dollar to be taken out by a guide, to show them the best technique and places to fish. Our Lord was the best Guide for man catching. He was saying, in essence, “Follow me, and I will teach you how to catch men for the kingdom."

What does it meant to follow Christ in this way? Many books have been written on evangelism. The question is often asked, "How can we become better soul winners?" Some have answered, "Become a good debater". Others have said, "Go to seminary". Christ says, "Follow me. Come after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men."

But reader, if we are followers, true followers of Christ, we will become what He is. He was the the greatest man catcher there was. He still is. Has His desire to catch men rubbed off on you? Spurgeon once said on this passage, "If you are saved yourself, the work is but half done until you are employed to bring others to Christ. You are as yet but half formed in the image of your Lord. You have not attained to the full development of the Christ-life in you unless you have commenced in some feeble way to tell to others of the grace of God: and I trust that you will find no rest to the sole of your foot till you have been the means of leading many to that blessed Savior who is your confidence and your hope. "

What does it meant to follow Christ here?

First, it means to be separated unto Christ.

What were Peter and Andrew, James & John to do with these words “Come after me”? They were to leave their former attachments to the world and be sanctified, set apart to the Lord. To follow Christ, first and foremost, means to “quit the world”. The disciples did this.

Mat 4:18-22 says, "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him. And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him."

Our passage says the same thing,

Mar 1:16-20 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him. And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him.

If we are to follow Christ, we must be those that forsake the world. Not everyone is called to the public ministry like a pastor or missionary, but this truth is no less true for everyone who calls himself or herself a believer. This is true for us all. That if we are caught by the gospel, we will catch with the same.

The truth is, we cannot be fishers of men if we remain in the water. To fish, you must be, above the water, separate from it, though connected to it. Fish will never be fishers. The sinner will not convert the sinner. The ungodly man will not convert the ungodly man; and, what's more to the point, the worldly Christian will not convert the world. If you are of the world, no doubt, you love the world. It means much to your heart. You see no real need to win souls, because your own soul has not been won. You see not great danger for others, because you see no great danger yourself. One reason why the church of Christ today has so small an impact in this world is because the world has so greatly impacted the church. All to often, we swim with the fishes.

But the Lord calls his people, to “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you”2 Cor 6:17.

Another meaning of these words, “come after me” is obviously to abide with Christ.
I have seen it so often. So have you. A son becomes an engineer because his father loves his craft. Some love farming, because they have been born within a house, which loves farming. Some are tradesman because their father was also a tradesman, and there was a love for it. Some of you love to fish because your father instilled in you the love for it. We often love things that people we love, love! When we abide with Christ, truly abide, we will love the things He loves. He loves, to save sinners. That was his reason for coming to this earth. To seek and to save that which was lost.

The disciples whom Christ called, came to live with Christ. They were with him every day. They did not say, “O.K, Lord, see you on the Sabbath. Be well.” No, they lived with him, ate with him, walked with him, hung on his every word. To learn how to fish, they watched him fish (for men). I know of one youngster in my congregation who has watched so many men fly fish, that when he picked up the rod for the first time, he had almost perfect technique (and it is not one of my sons). It came, by observation. They fulfilled Ruth's words to Naomi, "for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God". They were with him in his afflictions and persecutions. In his healings and preaching, in his mighty miracles. They witnessed his secret pain; saw his many tears; marked His passion and the compassion of his soul, and so they learned Christ. If I can say it like this, they caught his love for souls, and so they learned to to love fishing for men.

And so must we. At Christ's feet, we must learn his love for soul-winning; the art and mystery of catching souls. As Christ the Guide, the disciples learned His technique. No wonder they did so much for the kingdom of God after he departed to the Father. Yet even Peter, who spent so much time by the Lord's side says in 2Pe 1:19 “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:” That more sure word of prophesy that Peter is speaking about, is the Bible itself. And we have this more sure word with us today. And will we not win souls with this word? What will it take to be less theoretical fisherman and more fishers of men?

A third meaning can be understood by the words, "Come after me" and it is this: "Obey me, and then you shall know how be a fisher of men."

We must not talk about our fellowship with Christ, or our being separated from the world unto him, until we make him our Master and Guide. “Come after me; Follow me”, means, “obey me”. And how short do we all fall in this way? Our Churchs become more worldly each year, we give away much of our heritage that belongs to our children and exchange it for the things of this world. “What do we give?” you ask? You know the very things. We, leave, as it were, the road with Christ, who asks us for full obediance, and say, “I part with you here good master. I will not give up all for thee. I will meet you again up the road.” And we forget the words of the great fisherman, Luk 9:23 “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.”

The Lord said to his disciples, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" and he promised them that great signs would follow them, and they did. If we wnat this kind of sucess in evangelism, we must get back to the old paths and the old ways: we must lay aside the commandments of men and the flighty novelties of our own hearts. Stop trying to invent new techniques, and copy Christ. We must do what Christ tells us, as Christ tells us, because Christ tells us.

To be a Church of fishermen, let us do the works of the Great Fishermen. Not the crowd inspiring features of the megachurches who broaden their tents by removing obediance and doctrine, faith and repentance. Today the cry goes up, “I am not going to preach that old gospel, that musty Puritan doctrine.” And men forget, or have never been taught of the Master Fisher, Jesus Christ.

But if we go our own way, with our own pole and bate, we will make nothing of real fishing (even if a Church id filled to the rafters). The Lord's directions make himself our leader and example. It is, "Come after me. Preach my gospel. Preach what I preached. Teach what I taught, and keep to that." Let us not be original, let us copy Him. Copy Christ even in the little things, as well as the big. Do this, and he will make us fishers of men; but if we do not do this, we will fish in vain, or never fish at all.

Conclusion

Let me close by saying this; we will never be fishers of men unless we follow Christ in one other way and that is to imitate his holiness. Purists are always the most inspiring of all fisherman. Likewise, holiness is the most real power that can be possessed by pure fishers. We may preach orthodoxy, but we must also live orthodoxy. God forbid that we should preach anything else; but it will be all in vain, unless there is a life of holiness to back it up.

Real power lies in these words, "Come after me." Be Jesus-like. In all things endeavour to think, and speak, and act as Jesus did, and he will make you and I fishers of men. This will require self-denial. We must daily take up the cross. This may require willingness to give up our reputation, friends, even family; a readiness to be thought fools, as men always call those who are keeping close to their Master. Fanatics! Oh, may we be so blessed by the world calling us such as we cast our lines.

To be continued...

_____________
Endnotes
[1] Adapted from John M. Drescher's article.

Old, Resting, Reformed

The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness

from Sword & Trowel 2009, No. 1 by Dr Peter Masters

When I was a youngster and newly saved, it seemed as if the chief goal of all zealous Christians, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, was consecration. Sermons, books and conferences stressed this in the spirit of Romans 12.1-2, where the beseeching apostle calls believers to present their bodies a living sacrifice, and not to be conformed to this world. The heart was challenged and stirred. Christ was to be Lord of one’s life, and self must be surrendered on the altar of service for him.

But now, it appears, there is a new Calvinism, with new Calvinists, which has swept the old objectives aside. A recent book, Young, Restless, Reformed, by Collin Hansen tells the story of how a so-called Calvinistic resurgence has captured the imaginations of thousands of young people in the USA, and this book has been reviewed with great enthusiasm in well-known magazines in the UK, such as Banner of Truth, Evangelical Times, and Reformation Today.

This writer, however, was very deeply saddened to read it, because it describes a seriously distorted Calvinism falling far, far short of an authentic life of obedience to a sovereign God. If this kind of Calvinism prospers, then genuine biblical piety will be under attack as never before.

The author of the book is a young man (around 26 when he wrote it) who grew up in a Christian family and trained in secular journalism. We are indebted to him for the readable and wide-reaching survey he gives of this new phenomenon, but the scene is certainly not a happy one.

The author begins by describing the Passion, conference at Atlanta in 2007, where 21,000 young people revelled in contemporary music, and listened to speakers such as John Piper proclaiming Calvinistic sentiments. And this picture is repeated many times through the book – large conferences being described at which the syncretism of worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic music, is mixed with Calvinistic doctrine.

We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.

Collin Hansen contends that American Calvinism collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century and was maintained by only a handful of people until this great youth revival, but his historical scenario is, frankly, preposterous. As one who regularly visited American seminaries to speak from the early 1970s, I constantly met many preachers and students who loved the doctrines of grace, preaching also in churches of solid Calvinistic persuasion. But firmer evidence of the extensive presence of Calvinism is seen from the fact that very large firms of publishers sent out a stream of reformed literature post-war and through the 1980s. The mighty Eerdmans was solidly reformed in times past, not to mention Baker Book House, and Kregel and others. Where did all these books go – thousands upon thousands of them, including frequently reprinted sets of Calvin’s commentaries and a host of other classic works?

In the 1970s and 80s there were also smaller Calvinistic publishers in the USA, and at that time the phenomenon of Calvinistic discount Christian bookshops began, with bulging catalogue lists and a considerable following. The claim that Calvinism virtually disappeared is hopelessly mistaken.

Indeed, a far better quality Calvinism still flourishes in very many churches, where souls are won and lives sanctified, and where Truth and practice are both under the rule of Scripture. Such churches have no sympathy at all with reporter Collin Hansen’s worldly-worship variety, who seek to build churches using exactly the same entertainment methods as most charismatics and the Arminian Calvary Chapel movement.

The new Calvinists constantly extol the Puritans, but they do not want to worship or live as they did. One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings). But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian.

Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere. At the same time they reflect on predestination and election. Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. (Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, showbusiness atmosphere created by the organisers.)

In times of disobedience the Jews of old syncretised by going to the Temple or the synagogue on the sabbath, and to idol temples on weekdays, but the new Calvinism has found a way of uniting spiritually incompatible things at the same time, in the same meeting.

C J Mahaney is a preacher highly applauded in this book. Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.

It was a protégé of this preacher named Joshua Harris who started the New Attitude conference for young people. We learn that when a secular rapper named Curtis Allen was converted, his new-born Christian instinct led him to give up his past life and his singing style. But Pastor Joshua Harris evidently persuaded him not to, so that he could sing for the Lord. New Calvinists do not hesitate to override the instinctual Christian conscience, counselling people to become friends of the world.

One of the mega-churches admired in the book is the six-thousand strong Mars Hill Church at Seattle, founded and pastored by Mark Driscoll, who blends emerging church ideas (that Christians should utilise worldly culture) with Calvinistic theology [see endnote 1].

This preacher is also much admired by some reformed men in the UK, but his church has been described (by a sympathiser) as having the most ear-splitting music of any, and he has been rebuked by other preachers for the use of very ‘edgy’ language and gravely improper humour (even on television). He is to be seen in videos preaching in a Jesus teeshirt, symbolising the new compromise with culture, while at the same time propounding Calvinistic teaching. So much for the embracing of Puritan doctrine divested of Puritan lifestyle and worship.

Most of the well-known preachers who promote and encourage this ‘revival’ of Calvinism have in common the following positions that contradict a genuine Calvinistic (or Puritan) outlook:

1. They have no problem with contemporary charismatic-ethos worship, including extreme, heavy-metal forms.

2. They are soft on separation from worldliness [see endnote 2].

3. They reject the concern for the personal guidance of God in the major decisions of Christians (true sovereignty), thereby striking a death-blow to wholehearted consecration.

4. They hold anti-fourth-commandment views, taking a low view of the Lord’s Day, and so inflicting another blow at a consecrated lifestyle.

Whatever their strengths and achievements (and some of them are brilliant men by any human standard), or whatever their theoretical Calvinism, the poor stand of these preachers on these crucial issues will only encourage a fatally flawed version of Calvinism that will lead people to be increasingly wedded to the world, and to a self-seeking lifestyle.

Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world.

You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait. We hope that young people in this movement will grasp the implications of the doctrines better than their teachers, and come away from the compromises. But there is a looming disaster in promoting this new form of Calvinism.

Why do some British Christians who hold the doctrines of grace give enthusiastic reviews to a book like this? There have been times in the past when large numbers of young people have suddenly become intellectually enthusiastic about solid Christian doctrine, only to abandon it almost as quickly. One thinks of the tremendous response the unique oratory of Francis Schaeffer secured on university campuses in the 1960s, and no doubt some young people were truly saved and established, but very many more turned aside. Gripped by the superiority of a biblical worldview, they momentarily despised the illogical, flaccid ideas of this world, but the impression in numerous cases was natural rather than spiritual. The present new, heady Calvinism, shorn of practical obedience will certainly prove to be ephemeral, leaving the cause compromised and scarred.

Has this form of Calvinism come to Britain yet? Alas, yes; one only has to look at the ‘blogs’ of some younger reformed pastors who put themselves forward as mentors and advisers of others. When you look at their ‘favourite films’, and ‘favourite music’ you find them unashamedly naming the leading groups, tracks and entertainment of debased culture, and it is clear that the world is still in their hearts. Years ago, such brethren would not have been baptised until they were clear of the world, but now you can go to seminary, no questions asked, and take up a pastorate, with unfought and unsurrendered idols in the throne room of your life. What hope is there for churches that have under-shepherds whose loyalties are so divided and distorted?

Aside from pastors, we know some ‘new’ young Calvinists who will never settle in a dedicated, working church, because their views live only in their heads and not their hearts. We know of some whose lives are not clean. We know of others who go clubbing. The greater their doctrinal prowess, the greater their hypocrisy.

These are harsh words, but they lead me to say that where biblical, evangelical Calvinism shapes conduct, and especially worship, it is a very humbling, beautiful system of Truth, but where it is confined to the head, it inflates pride and self-determination.

The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.

Why have the leading preachers servicing this movement compromised so readily? They have not been threatened by a Soviet regime. No one has held a gun to their heads. This is a shameful capitulation, and we must earnestly pray that what they have encouraged will not take over Calvinism and ruin a generation of reachable Christian young people.

A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.

True Calvinism and worldliness are opposites. Preparation of heart is needed if we would search the wonders and plumb the depths of sovereign grace. We find it in the challenging, convicting call of Joshua:

‘Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.’

Endnotes

1 His resolution of the question of divine sovereignty versus human free will, however, is much nearer to the Arminian view.

2 A recent book entitled Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World by C J Mahaney and others, hopelessly under-equips young believers for separation from the world, especially in the area of music, where, apparently, the Lord loves every genre, and acceptability is reduced to two misleading and subjective questions.

The Common Cup, a Command

We live in a world of constant change. Should this change enter our Church? Paul says in 2Th 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Paul wrote these words, in part, because there were those who wanted to change the way things were done in the Church, even in Paul's day. This will always be the case so long as we are here on earth. Our duty as a Church of Christ is to keep those biblical traditions handed down to us throughout the ages, and not waver from them no matter how unpopular they might seem.

The Lord's Supper is one area where change has taken place. Not only has the sacrament itself gone through many changes, but the way in which we administer the elements has also changed. In many Reformed Churches, people no longer come forward to a table. Instead, the elements of wine and bread are passed out row by row. Because of this new idea of people sitting in the pew, and having the elements come to them (instead of going forward to a table), one cup has been replaced by many individual cups (an American fundamentalist invention[1]). Even 50 years ago, the practice of individual cups was never found in our Churches. However, more and more congregations are switching to personal cups and leaving off the use of common cup.

Some will say, “So what? Is this really a big deal? Does it matter to the Lord if we have many cups instead of one common cup?” This short paper will attempt to answer this question, “Yes, the Lord does care.”2

The Common Cup in Scripture

The first thing we should take notice of is the fact that at the institution of The Lord's Supper, Christ did not give each of the disciples their own cup. These are the words we find in Luke 22:17, “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come” .

When Christ instituted the sacramental meal of the New Covenant, it came at the end of the supper of the Passover. (Mark 14:18; 1 Corinthians 11:25). Yet our Lord did not give the disciples their own cups as He instituted Holy Supper for the first time, but took one cup and blessed it. Now some would say that Christ would not have used individual cups because the Passover meal had a common cup [3]. Exactly. There is a continuum in the institution of Holy Supper with that of the Passover [4], though it superseded it. On the basis of the old Passover, and the new Lord's Supper, the disciples then each drank from the single cup and passed it to the next disciple until everyone had partaken.

In fact, every time the Lord's Supper is mentioned in the New Testament, the single cup is also mentioned.

Notice,

“And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it” (Matthew 26:27).

“And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it” (Mark 14:23).

“And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come” (Luke 22:17).

“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).

“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” (1 Cor. 10:16)?

“Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils” (1Cor 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 ye, as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:25).

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26).

“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).

“But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28).

By quoting these texts, we find that in every case the singular article is used when referencing the cup. The same is found in the original Greek. Never do we find the Greek using the plural noun or the plural article in reference to the wine of the Lord's Supper. By doing this, the Holy Spirit has made it very clear as to how He expects the element of wine to be distributed. The emphasis is on one cup (singular), not personal cups (plural). In fact, there is far more biblical data to prove a common cup than there is to prove a common table or sprinkling in baptism. All three doctrines however, are biblical.

The command given by Christ is simple, and its conclusion, unavoidable. "Take this, and divide it among yourselves" is the command of Luke 22:17. Further, our Lord says in Matthew 26:27 "Drink ye all of it". In both instances the Lord's emphasis is on the single word "it". We are to divine “it” (one cup), among the many, and drink, everyone, from “it” (one cup.) Let us remind ourselves of Paul's words in Col 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Individual cups are not found anywhere in scripture, or the confessions, and has crept in by “the rudiments” (the thoughts), of this world.

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it" (Deut. 12:32).

One In Christ

The common cup represents in its second place, the oneness all believers have in Christ. 1Cor 12:12 says, "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ." Gal 3:28 says the same thing, "...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

What message does the common cup signify, if not a unity in Christ and oneness in Him? The symbolism of this unity is completely lost in the use of individual cups by asserting the individual over the collective body. It is, by symbolism, both independent and baptistic [5] in nature and spoils the symmetry of the body by focusing on the parts. Listen to the apostle Paul once more in 1 Corinthians 10:16, “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?” The word “communion” in this text means, “joint fellowship, or community”. The common cup is a visible demonstration of oneness in Christ, and singularity of the body.

The Common Cup In History

Pro 22:28 says, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” Do our fathers have anything to say in this regard? Yes indeed.

We run the risk of doing great harm to our children by being the generation that removes the landmarks of our fathers. Often, the first generation to take liberty on a subject is followed by a generation which takes license. We must be very careful that we are not the generation known as the one who removed the landmark of the common cup. Briefly, let us examine our own confession of faith on the subject of the common cup.

First, let us examine closely the wording of the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 28,
question and answer 75:

Question 75. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord's Supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits?

Answer: Thus: That Christ has commanded me and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of him, adding these promises: (a) first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes, the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ .

Our Instructor, in this answer, makes it abundantly clear that the single cup was used during the time of this writing. In fact, the Heidelberg Catechism goes so far as to affirm that the common cup is a command. The next question and answer (76), quotes many of the passages we spoke of earlier as proofs of the institution of the Supper as well as demonstrating its proper administration.

Hear Dr. Zacharias Ursinus in his book, Of The Lord's Supper, And the True Doctrine and Pure Administration thereof; With a Refutation of both Transubstantiation & Consubstantiation.

“The rites which Christ has instituted are, that the Lord's bread be broken, distributed, and received, and the Lord's cup be given to all the communicants, in remembrance of his death”.


Second, our form for the Administration of the Lord's Supper is also quite revealing. In it, when the minister takes up the element of wine to bless it it says, “The cup of blessing which we bless is the communion of the blood of Christ.” Notice the singular cup that is blessed? It is good at this point to remind ourselves that at the table of the Lord, only one cup is blessed. How could a minister say, “The cup of blessing which we bless” to 60 or 70 individual cups? That would require the minister to bless all the cups individually, or changing the form by saying “these cups” instead of “this cup” (It would also require changing 1 Cor. 10:16!). In most congregations that use individual cups, the wine was poured into them before the service began and thus, remain unblessed. It goes without saying then that the only cup blessed is the one prayed over during the Lord's Supper. Do we then bless the pitcher instead of the cup? The problem still remains as the wine poured out during Holy Supper is only that of the minsters, not the congregation. Do we remove the problem by lifting the whole tray or stack of trays and blessing the individual cups that way? To remedy this obvious theological problem, we would need to institute a whole new series of man made inventions. The simple answer is the biblical one, we bless the same cup that all partake of just as Christ intended.

And finally, in our Church Order, Article 62, we read, “Every Church shall administer the Lord's Supper in such a manner as it shall judge most conducive to edification; provided, however, that the outward ceremonies as prescribed in God's Word be not changed and all superstition be avoided...” If what we have tried to establish previously is indeed the prescription of the Word of God, and if our fathers testify to this truth, it would be hard to argue for the use of individual cups and remain faithful to the Word of God and our Church Order.

The Dutch Reformed Fathers

In 1618, the Synod of Dordt commissioned a group of ministers to write an commentary on the whole Bible. These annotations remain one of the great contributions to the Reformed world by commenting on most passages of the Bible. Here is what our forefathers say regarding the common cup as found in Matthew 26:27, “And took the cup, and having given thanks, gave (it) to them; and they all drank of the same [cup]: [Namely, as Christ had commanded them, Matthew. 26.27].”

Wilhelmus à Brakel (2 January 1635, Leeuwarden – 30 October 1711, Rotterdam), one of the ablest of all Dutch Divines says on this subject,

Even if the world, as their enemy, hates, despises, persecutes, and oppresses them, there is yet no reason for concern; they can readily miss its love, for they have better company and they refresh themselves in a sweet manner in the exercise of mutual love. They confess this unity in the Lord’s Supper by eating of the same bread and by drinking of the same cup. “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor.10:17) (Wilhelmus a Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Bartel Elshout, trans., [Morgan, Pennsylvania: Soli Deo Gloria], 1992, 1995 [1700], 2:577).

Likewise, another well loved Dutch divine Herman Witsius (1636-1708) says, "The third action of the guests is, to drink the consecrated wine out of the cup. It is remarkable, that our Lord said concerning the cup, not only “take this, and divide it among yourselves,” Luke xxii. 17, but likewise added a mark of universality, “drink ye all of it” , Matt. xxvi. 27. And we are told how they complied with this command, Mark xiv. 24, “and they all drank of it” [i.e. they all drank from it- LFRC] (Herman Witsius, The Economy Of The Covenants Between God And Man, [Phillipsburg: Pennsylvania], 1990 [1693], 2:455, 456,).

For the sake of time, we have only given to you a small sampling of the record of our History. We could take several more pages and detail the absolute unity of the practice of the common cup from our fathers (Early Church Fathers, The Magisterial Reformers, Puritans, Westminster Divines, etc), but brevity prevents us. Suffice it to say that we are in great peril of removing the “ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set”, when it comes to the common cup, should individual cups be used.

Objections Answered

There can be no mistaking that the dawn of the individual cup came about for 2 reasons. The first is the individualism of our age, the “me” gospel of independentism. This, we hope has been answered as an objection, namely, that unity and oneness must take precedence over individuality. The second objection is more general, and it has to do with the concern of sanitation.

The Yuck Factor

Many who do not wish to use the common cup have only one objection- “the yuck factor”. It is believed that drinking from one cup will greatly increase the risk of contracting illness. This is a very real concern for many serious Christians.

Does this objection then remove the command to use a common cup? We think not. The reasons are :

1.The common cup has been used for over 2000 years. Are the dangers of illness any more pressing today than they were in Christ's day? Do we have better or worse methods of sanitation today than ever before? The answer is obvious. The risk of contracting a disease has always been a factor in any public setting. Yet the Lord, who knew full well the potential of illness, still commanded a common cup.

2.Many diseases can also be contracted by handling the communion tray, or the communion loaf. The doorknobs of the Church building, a hand shake, a cough, a sneeze, a bathroom sink, are all more unsanitary than the sterilized cup used at Holy Supper. If illness is in view first and foremost, many would not attend Church at all.

3.It is more likely that one will contract illness through the neglect of hand washing and then making physical contact with a carrier (door, hand, etc). You are more likely to contract illness eating out of a communal vegetable dip at a fellowship meeting than you are from using the common cup.

4.Strong wine (even fortified wine 12% or higher) is often used as communion wine to to kill bacteria on the edge of the cup.

In understanding the potential of contracting illness with the common cup, we must bear in mind one thing, “the cup of blessing which we bless”, is just that, blessed. Many old ministers have given testimony that in all the years they have been administering the common cup, no one has been made sick by it. This is the general understanding and experience of most congregations.

The “yuck factor” is not new to the Church. It has always been with us. Should we then use it to erase all biblical doctrines on this subject and 2000 years of Church tradition? Are we wiser than our fathers? Are we wiser than God?

On this point we leave you with God's words to Peter, who argued the uncleanness of what God had sent down from heaven, in Act 10:15, "And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

A last objection often offered is one of pragmatism. If one cup is commanded, why is it that some congregations use two cups? For this we would remind the reader of article 62 of our Church Order, “Every Church shall administer the Lord's Supper in such a manner as it shall judge most conducive to edification; provided, however, that the outward ceremonies as prescribed in God's Word be not changed and all superstition be avoided...” The use of one cup at one table (to the left), and another table (to the right) still carries with it the symbolism of the one cup for many people. The emphasis is still on the sharing of a cup between believers as a demonstration of unity. In some congregations, multiple tables are needed for Holy Supper. It is for expediency that more than one cup is used. This accommodation, for time constraints, is not a sound reason however for each communicant to have their own cup, and act contrary to the Word and Church history. Two cups at the table does not remove the symbolism of unity as individual cups do, and is in keeping with article 62 of the Church Order. In light of the material here presented in this paper, this objection argues to little.

A Plea to Return to the Common Cup

Unless the Lord does a work of reformation in His Church, each generation will take a step to the left. History has borne this truth. We will, because of our corrupt human nature, have the natural tendency to leave off the things that should be done in order to make accommodation. Some have argued that this is a “tempest in a teapot” issue, that it is not all that important to the wellbeing of the Church. If so, then why change to individual cups at all? While we would admit that one's salvation does not hang on whether or not a common cup is used, it is still important to God, and subsequently to His Church. As a Church, we are to take heed to ourselves and to our doctrine, not just in the main, but also in the detail.

Holy Supper is no small thing. It is a means of grace for every believer that takes part by faith. By faith we are fed by the true heavenly bread and drink, Jesus Christ. Do we then not wish to walk with Him in obedience to His revealed will concerning it? Is there any biblical reason to use individual cups? No. Are there biblical reasons to use a common cup? We hope we have demonstrated that there are indeed.

______________
1. See, Material History of American Religion Project The Individual Communion Cup at http://www.materialreligion.org/documents/may98doc.htm. This is a reprint of the 1906 article in the United Brethren periodical.
2. All bold words are the emphasis of the the author.
3. Alfred Edersheim .The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. Chapter 12, "The Paschal Feast and the Lord's Supper." In fact, each section of the Passover had a cup associated with it, four in fact. This does not detract however from the fact that the Lord used one cup for Holy Supper.
4. To this day, Orthodox Jews still use the symbolism of the common cup at Passover.
5. We note that several Reformed Baptists also use a common cup.

Piper confused on the gospel?

Those of us who are familiar with the dangers of the Federal Vision should take note of what Piper has to say on the subject of "The Federal Vision & the Gospel." Disturbing to say the least. Here he is with Mark Driscol.

John Piper & Doug Wilson

Most who read my blog will know that I have several concerns about John Piper. Here is one more.

I'm looking forward to this book which takes a look at images of Christ in the means of grace as it relates to the 2nd commandment. Rev. Hyde is an articulate and compelling author. Read his books, especially if you have come to the Reformed Faith from the broader evangelical world.

Hyde Full Interview from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.