EDITORS NOTE: The following debate between brethren Ronny Wade and Elmer Moore, was arranged by Mike Willis, editor and publisher of the Guardian of Truth and Don King, publisher of Old Paths Advocate. The debate is here published in its entirety. It will also run in the March issue of Guardian of Truth. We encourage all to read and study the following exchange with an open mind in order to learn the truth on this vital subject.

Resolved: The Scriptures teach that a congregation may use a plurality of containers in the distribution of the fruit of the vine in partaking of the Lord's Supper.

Elmer Moore - First Affirmative

Passages That Discuss The Lords Supper

(Matt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:17-21; Acts 2:42; 20:7-11; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:23-24)

Because of limited space I will not write out these passages. However, I urge the reader to note them where the particular point of issue will be considered.

The Real Issue

Many times side issues cloud the real issue in a discussion. I hope to avoid this by stating what I believe to be the real issue. The issue actually involves two basic questions. First, is the number of drinking vessels significant or is the number essential or merely incidental? Secondly, does the drinking vessel signify anything pertaining to the design or purpose of the Lords Supper?

The Design or Purpose of the Lords Supper

The New Testament declares that the purpose of the Lords Supper is that of a memorial. Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me" (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24). The Lords Supper is a memorial, a remembrance of the death of our Lord till He comes again. Allow me to state what I believe is a fundamental principle that I don't believe my brother will deny. Whatever is essential to the keeping of this memorial must have some specific bearing on the design or purpose of that memorial. Thus the "bread" which is a fair representation of the body of our Lord, and the "cup the fruit of the vine" which is a fair representation of the blood of the Lord, have a definite bearing on the design of that memorial, and are thus essential. However, the drinking vessel has no significance whatever to the death of our Lord any more than the "table" upon which the elements were placed and the plate used to serve the bread.

Further Arguments on the Design or Purpose of the Supper

Lets look more closely at the purpose of the supper and its relationship to the drinking vessels. Remember that Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me" (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24). W. E. Vine, in his word studies (p. 956), states, "not in 'memory of but in an affectionate calling of the Person Himself to mind." Hence, those things that are essential to the proper eating of the Lords Supper must accomplish this design or purpose. I can readily see how the bread, representing His body, and the fruit of the vine, representing His blood, do in fact accomplish the "affectionate calling of the Person Himself to mind." But, ladies and gentlemen, I fail to see how a drinking vessel can in any way accomplish "an affectionate calling of the Person Himself to mind." The drinking vessel no more does this than does the "table," the "plate," or the "place" where the supper was instituted.

How Many Elements of Significance?

The Bible indicates that there are only two elements of significance in the Lords Supper. The record declares, "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom" (Matt 26:26-29). First allow me to give a brief explanation of this statement. Jesus declared that the bread was a fair representation of His body, and the cup, which He identified as the fruit of the vine (v. 29), was a fair representation of His blood that served to ratify the New Testament.

Our Lord used metaphorical language, declaring that "one thing is another" (see Dungan's Hermeneutics, p. 253, and Bullinger's Figures of Speech, pp. 738-741). Note the language; He took bread and said, "Take eat; this (bread) is my body." He took a cup and said take and drink, for "this (cup) is my blood of the covenant" represented by the fruit of the vine. Friends, if you can see that the word "this" in v. 26 refers back to "bread" in the same passage, why do you have difficulty in seeing that the word "this" in v. 28 refers back to "cup" in v. 27? Note also how Jesus explained His own metaphor by declaring what the "cup" was. He said, "I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine (my emp.). . . "(v. 29). Our Lord identified the cup. He said it was the fruit of the vine, and that it was a fair representation of His blood. Please note the following chart:

He took and said eat - This bread is my body.
He took and said drink - This cup is my blood.

Friends, read the passage! Jesus, in this and parallel passages in Mark and Luke, identifies two elements of emphasis: One, the bread which He declares is a fair representation of His body; and two, the cup (the fruit of the vine), which He declares was a fair representation of His blood. In 1 Corinthians 10:16 the writer declares, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?" Dear reader how many elements do you see emphasized in this passage? You see the "cup of blessing" which is "a communion of the blood of Christ" and the "bread" which is "a communion of the body of Christ." The rhetorical expression "is it not" in the text is the equivalent of saying that it is! Hence, the inspired writer identifies two elements of significance, which are the bread which represents His body and the cup, the fruit of the vine, which represents His blood.

The Drinking Vessel Signifies Nothing

That a vessel or container is necessary to contain liquid is not denied. However, the number is immaterial. The drinking vessel has no greater significance than does "the table" (Lk 22:21) upon which the elements were placed, or the upper room where the supper was instituted and later observed (Lk 22:12; Acts 20:8). We must exercise caution that we do not emphasize a matter that the Lord does not emphasize. This is just as bad as failing to make a matter important that the Lord had made important! Brethren, we must realize that it is as bad to bind where the Lord has not bound as it is to loose where He has not loosed. Either extreme is wrong, and the one as bad as the other.

Bible Authority for A Plurality of Drinking Vessels

In establishing authority for a plurality of drinking vessels in serving the fruit of the vine, let me preface my argument by suggesting a fundamental principle recognized by Bible students, that: when the Lord authorizes an act to be performed, whatever is necessary to carry out that direction, and whatever is expedient, is contained in the authorized action, unless what we do violates other principles of Bible teaching. The Lord does not detail every incidental in carrying out His directions. Let me illustrate what I mean. The Lord authorizes us to sing praises. In order to do this there is the necessity of using words. However, whether these words are in a book or memorized by those singing is a matter of judgment. I don't know of any place in the New Testament where the Lord has mentioned a song book; however I believe such is authorized. In exactly the same way, then, the Lord directed that we drink the fruit of the vine and eat the bread. Since fruit of the vine is a liquid, we must have some kind of container for it. However, the particular kind or number of container(s) is a matter of judgment. The drinking vessel is implicit in the command to drink. The number is incidental. Hence, every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine is a passage that authorizes a plurality of drinking vessels (Lk 22:19).

Essentials and Incidentals

Brethren, we must avoid making an incidental into an essential. Gods people must exercise caution not to bind where the Lord has not bound or loose where He has not loosed. Concerning incidentals, I call attention to Matthew 28:18-20, where the Lord authorizes us to baptize. There are certain things that are essential to scriptural baptism that my brother will not fault; hence, there must be a proper subject, action, element, and purpose. However, it is incidental whether we baptize in running water or a baptistry. In the same way that a baptistry is included in baptism, a plurality of drinking vessels is included in the command to drink the fruit of the vine.

Ronny Wade - 1st Negative

The Real Issue

The real issue in this discussion is whether or not the New Testament authorizes the use of a plurality of cups (containers) to distribute the fruit of the vine in the Lords supper. For such a practice to be authorized it must either be exemplified, commanded, or necessarily inferred. The affirmant has already admitted that "cups" are not exemplified, i.e. he cannot read verbatim about them being used. Thus he must either find a command demanding their use or some passage that necessarily infers their usage. By his own admission he believes the church of the first century used them (GOT, 1-2-86). What causes him to reach this conclusion? Nothing in the first affirmative pointed to the fact that they were used, by the Lord at the institution of the supper or that the early church employed their use. On what basis then may we assert the first century church used them?

Assertions of the Affirmative

The two main arguments used in the preceding article were: (1) The cup is the fruit of the vine, hence a container is never under consideration when the word cup is used in the Lords supper accounts. (2) The container has no significance, therefore the number used is incidental. Both assertions are false.

First of all it should be pointed out that the New Testament never says, "This cup is my blood," or "This cup is the fruit of the vine." What the record does say is this, "He took the cup" (Mt 26:27). The word translated cup is poterion in the Greek. The scholars say that in Matthew 26:27 the word is used literally and means "a drinking vessel" (cf. Robinson; "a drinking vessel," Vine; "a cup, a drinking vessel," Thayer; "drinking vessel," Young).

What Did Jesus Do?

"He took the cup." Took ("to take with the hand," Thayer p. 870), thus Jesus took something with His hand. What? A cup, "a drinking vessel" (Thayer p. 533). He then gave ("reach out, extend, present," Thayer p. 145) what He took, to His disciples and commanded them to drink from it, "drink ye all of it" or "from it" or "out of it." It is obvious then that the cup He took and gave was not empty, but contained something which Jesus identifies as the fruit of the vine. The disciples had no difficulty understanding what Jesus wanted them to do for Mark records, "They all drank of it" (Mk 14:23), i.e., they all drank "from or out of" it.

Parallel

The following parallel will help us grasp the teaching of Matthew 26:27-28.
"And He took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, but I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom."

He picked up the cup (container) and drank it (contents) and sighed gustily saying, "this is good coffee."

Notice (1) cup is literal in both places. (2) This and it both refer back to cup (literal) but the pronouns (this, it) refer by metonymy to the contents of the cup. (Cup is still literal and cup does not become the contents). (3) The fruit of the vine was not the cup. The coffee was not the cup.

The fact that Jesus refers to the contents of the cup by saying, "this is my blood," does not in any way negate the fact that He took a literal cup and commanded His disciples to drink from it.

Bible Commands

Christ commanded the disciples to drink of one cup. "And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, drink ye all of it" (Mt 26:27). The disciples understood the command and "they all drank of it" (Mk 14:23).

Paul commands us to keep the communion as he delivered it. "Now I praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor 11:2). "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, . . . after the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood" (1 Cor 11:23-25). Paul also commands an assembly to "drink of that cup." He delivers instructions applying "when ye come together to eat" (1 Cor 11:33). The command is, "but let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup" (1 Cor 11:28). Thus an assembly of the church which has "come together to eat" (v. 33) should "drink of" (out of, from) that cup (v. 28). A congregation that drinks from cups fails to obey the commands of both Jesus and Paul.

The contention of the affirmative that "every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine, is a passage that authorizes a plurality of drinking vessels (Lk 22:19)," is ridiculous and totally without biblical foundation. I had just as well contend that every passage that teaches the obligation to support gospel preachers, authorizes an indirect plan of support or that every passage that teaches the obligation to support the needy, authorizes the support of non-saints as well as saints. The truth of the matter is this; every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine, also teaches that we are to "drink of (or out of) that cup." When cups are used, the command is disobeyed and the example disregarded. The entire energy of the affirmatives first argument was designed to prove that the Bible doesn't mean what it says, i.e. cup is not a cup. Remember, had the Bible said, "He took the cups," or "He took the fruit of the vine," this discussion would be unnecessary. What the Bible could have said that would have allowed the use of a plurality of containers, it did not say. On the other hand, what it did say, excludes a plurality and that is why it becomes necessary for the affirmative in this discussion to try to explain it away.

Spiritual Significance

Any matter or thing which has been designated by Gods word to be a part of Christian worship, is spiritually significant. Examples: (1) The first day of the week is spiritually significant because God designated it to be the day of worship (Acts 20:7). (2) Fruit of the vine is spiritually significant because God designated it to be an emblem of Christ's blood (Mt 26:28). We have no right to demand that a matter lacking spiritual significance be preserved. But by the same token we can not deny a matter or thing the spiritual significance given it by God in His word. When we demand the spiritual significance be preserved, we have made no law; we are merely contending for what has been revealed in the Bible.

The significance of the cup may be seen in at least two ways: (1) Jesus took a cup containing the fruit of the vine and commanded the disciples to drink out of it. Whatever else He might have done, this is what He did and that cannot be overlooked in preference for what I might like to do. (2) The following parallel demonstrates the significance of the cup:

This (bread) is my body (Lk 22:19)
This (fruit of vine) is my blood (Mk 14:24)
This cup is the New Testament in my blood (Lk 22:20)

(1) These three statements are contextual, analogical, syntactical and grammatical parallels in their essential particulars.

(2) Each has a subject and a predicate joined by the copula "is."

(3) Each embraces a metaphor which is a figure of comparison and which is suggested by "is" in which usage "is" carries with it the idea "represents."

(4) Each also embraces a prolepsis, "is given," "is shed," anticipatory language, in which a future event is spoken of as an accomplished fact.

(5) The subject of each is a literal something.

(6) If bread is literal and the fruit of the vine is literal, then the cup is literal.

(7) If after Christ made these statements, the bread was still literal bread but with a spiritual significance, and the fruit of the vine was still literal fruit of the vine but with a spiritual significance, then the cup was still a literal cup but with a spiritual significance.

(8) If when Christ said of the bread, "This is my body, which is given for you," the bread and the body of Christ were two different things but with a spiritual relationship; and if when Christ said of the fruit of the vine, "This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many," the fruit of the vine and the shed blood were two different things but with a spiritual relationship; then when Christ said, "This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you," the cup and the new testament were two different things but with a spiritual relationship.

(9) If the bread Christ took was literal bread before, when, and after He took it, and if the fruit of the vine He took was literal fruit of the vine before, when, and after He took it, then the cup He took was a literal cup before, when, and after He took it.

(10) Jesus was no more defining "cup" than He was defining "bread" and "fruit of the vine." Bread was still bread. Fruit of the vine was still fruit of the vine. Cup was still a cup.

To deny the above is to deny what Jesus taught. There is a tremendous difference between: (1) this is my blood of the new testament and (2) this cup is the new testament in my blood.

The former teaches that the fruit of the vine represents the blood that ratified or sealed the new covenant. The latter teaches that the cup is emblematic of the new testament that was ratified by the blood. They are not the same at all. If we can understand the difference between the blood that ratified the covenant and the covenant itself, we should be able to see the difference in the symbols used by Christ to represent both.

1. His Body was sacrificed
2. His Blood was shed
3. The New Covenant was ratified

Implicit-Explicit

The statement that the drinking vessel is implicit in the command to drink, does not warrant the conclusion that the number is incidental. First of all the drinking vessel is named and specified (Mt 26:27); let our brother deny it. If it is specified and named (as it is) then we can conclude that it is taught explicitly (i.e."clearly developed with all its elements apparent"). The number is not incidental because Jesus specified the number (i.e. "a cup," "the cup"). Paul specified "this cup," "that cup." There is no room for a plurality in New Testament teaching. To teach that cups are taught implicitly is to teach something totally foreign to the Scripture. Our brother has failed to find an approved example, divine command, or necessary inference for his practice. He has been unable to substantiate his contention by implicit teaching. The first affirmative utterly fails in its attempt to find biblical authorization for individual cups in the Lords supper.

Elmer Moore - Second Affirmative

The negative took the liberty of ignoring the major part of the first affirmative, choosing rather to completely ignore what was written by declaring that the material was "ridiculous and totally without biblical authority." I know that he understands what the negative is supposed to do. I guess he thinks that all he has to do is just assert something and the reader will accept it without question. I don't believe it. I urge you to read the first affirmative and then examine the first negative to see if he answered the arguments. He didn't even try. Even though I am in the affirmative, I will examine what he wrote in the order he presented it.

"The Real Issue"

In discussing what he thought was the issue he reflects an improper attitude toward Bible authority. He states, "Thus he must either find a command demanding their use or some passage that necessarily infers their usage" (my emp., em). If such were the case it would not be a matter of liberty. Yet the proposition states "may"! However, the language reflects a basic mistake of the negative and his brethren, that of demanding specific authorization for our practice, while neglecting such for their own.

"Assertions of the Affirmative"

He charged me with insisting that "container is never under consideration when the cup is used in the Lords Supper account." What I said was "that a vessel or container is necessary to contain liquid is not denied." The negative is fighting a strawman. He is arguing against something that I have never denied. You see it was easier for him to address himself to this false issue rather than the arguments made.

His Definition of "Cup"

Surely the negative knows that a word is always defined literally! Never is one given a figurative definition!

"What Did Jesus Do?"

The negative tells us that they do what Jesus did. Do they? Jesus, on this same occasion ate the supper in an upper room and washed the disciples feet, and told them to do as He had done (Jn 13:3-14; Lk 22:12). In this section of his article, he takes the liberty of changing the Lords statement "drink ye all of it" to "drink ye all from it or out of it." Read the passage! Mark says no such thing. This is just a case of the negative making it say what he wants it to say. However, if he could prove this, it would not prove that a plurality of drinking vessels is wrong.

He repeatedly asserted that the statement of Mark 14:23, "They all drank of it. . . " demands that all who drink must "drink from or out of it." In other words, all who drink "of" something must touch their lips to the container. This is just another assertion of the negative. Let him try his hand on 1 Corinthians 9:7. The same preposition occurs referring to drinking the milk "of" the flock. Does this mean that ones lips must touch the container of the milk to "drink of the flock"?

"Parallels"

The negative fails in his so-called parallels. He takes the language of Jesus which is obviously metaphorical, and compares it with his coffee illustration that is literal.

Note the following comparison:

Jesus: "This (fruit of the vine) is my blood."
Negative: "This (coffee) is good coffee."

It doesn't take Solomon to see the difference in these. Jesus is using a metaphor: one thing (cup) is said to be something else, His "blood" (Bullinger's Figures of Speech, p. 741). In the negatives illustration there is no metaphor. "Coffee is (good) coffee." Our brother applies the general laws of language and grammar to figurative language. This is one of his basic mistakes and is the same one that the advocates of the doctrine of transubstantiation make. It is the same basic mistake.

Effort to Reply to Argument-" Bible Authority"

The negative asserts that my argument that, "every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine, is a passage that authorizes a plurality of drinking vessels (Lk 22:19)," is "ridiculous and totally absurd without biblical foundation." He states this without showing why! Does our brother think that he can just assert and assume matters without offering proof? It would have been interesting for him to have advanced an argument showing the fallacy of my reasoning. This he did not do! He says that my argument, if applied to the support of preachers, would authorize indirect support. Why did he not formulate an argument to show this? He further asserts that my argument, if applied to benevolence would justify the support of the non-saint. Again he made no argument, just asserted it. I deny this categorically. You will recall that I stated, "When the Lord authorizes an act to be performed, whatever is necessary to carry out that direction, and whatever is expedient, is contained in the authorized action, unless what we do violates other principles of Bible teaching." I illustrated this point in the matter of singing. Our brother saw fit to ignore it, as he did most of what I wrote. He certainly recognizes this fundamental principle. I know he believes that it is scriptural to preach the gospel by means of television. Where is the "example" of such being done? Where is there a "command demanding such practice or some passage that necessarily infers its use"? Remember this is what he demands of me? If he leveled the same criticism at his own practice, that he does to others, he would have to give it up. Concerning the "support of preachers" and "benevolence," the total context of Scripture will reveal that "indirect support" and "non-saint benevolence" will "violate other principles of Bible teaching." Let our brother deny it!

Our brother wrote that Jesus could have solved the problem if He would have said, "He took the cups," or "He took the fruit of the vine." No, if Jesus had said "cups" my brother would have demanded a plurality and refused the use of one. Jesus did say in no uncertain terms that He was talking about the fruit of the vine. As I pointed out in my first article, Jesus used a metaphor and explained His metaphor. He declared that He was talking about the fruit of the vine. The negative is so wedded to his literal approach that he refuses to see it (see first affirmative on "How many elements of significance?").

"Spiritual Significance"

The negative states, "We have no right to demand that a matter lacking spiritual significance be preserved." He then endeavors to show that the drinking vessel has "spiritual significance." First, he makes an argument by changing what Jesus said to what he desired Him to say. Jesus said, "Drink ye all of it"; the negative changed it to read, "Drink out of it."

Secondly, he argues that there are three elements of significance, including: the "fruit of the vine" referring to the Lords blood; the "bread" referring to the Lords body; and the "cup-vessel" referring to the New Covenant. About one-fourth of his article was devoted to giving a lesson on the laws of language. Again, he ignores the fact that Jesus used highly metaphorical language (Dungan, Hermeneutics, p. 253, and Bullinger's Figures of Speech, pp. 738-741). This is a mistake that a man of brother Wades background ought not to make! After one reads what he writes, one may be impressed with his ability in the field of grammar, but what does he prove: That there was literal bread, juice and a vessel? Who denies it?

Strip his argument of all the excess verbiage and we have him declaring that the statement "this is my blood of the New Testament" (Matthew and Mark) and the statement, "this is the New Testament in my blood" (Luke and Paul) are not teaching the same thing; that they are advancing two different ideas. This is the result of his literalizing this account in the way he does. These two statements are teaching the same thing. Both are teaching that the cup, the fruit of the vine, represents the blood of Christ that ratified the New Testament. This statement is comparable to Hebrews 9:20 that indicates the ratification of the Old Covenant by the blood of animals. The difference in the order of record does not necessarily indicate a difference in the teaching. Our brother knows this. He stated, "The order of mention is not necessarily the order of occurrence" (Wade-Knowles Debate, p. 35).

To further show this I call attention to Romans 10:9-10. One verse records confession before belief while the other records belief first. Are they teaching two different concepts? Matthew and Mark record the statement in one order while Luke and Paul reverse that order. It is important to note that both Paul and Luke are using the figure of speech of metonomy, i.e., the container for the contents. A casual reading will reveal that the "cup" was to be "divided," and they were to "drink" it (Lk 22:17; 1 Cor 11:25-28; cf. Thayer p. 533). It is evident that both of these writers are talking about the contents and not the container. Hence, in whatever sense that the "cup" is the New Testament, it is not the "container," but the "contents." My brother is wrong about this.

Two Elements of Significance

I call your attention to an argument that I made in my first affirmative, that the negative totally ignored. Paul declared in I Corinthians 10:16 that the "cup of blessing" was a communion of the blood of Christ," and that the "bread was a communion of the body of Christ." Do you not see that there are two elements of significance, which are the bread which is a fair representation of His body and the cup, the fruit of the vine, which is a fair representation of His blood?

"Implicit-Explicit"

The negative argues that the number of vessels is explicit, only one, because the Bible speaks of "a cup," "the cup," etc. This he declares "leaves no room for a plurality." I suppose that one should be extra careful not to give more than one cup of cold water in the name of Jesus since He said "a cup" of cold water (Matt 10:42). Please note that the term "the cup" was used to describe what the church at Corinth and at Ephesus both blessed (1 Cor 10:16; 16:8). Even if we grant the negatives contention that there was only "one" container used at each place, you still have "two," one at Corinth and one at Ephesus. If the term "the cup" can mean two it can mean a plurality, contrary to the argument of the negative.

Please read my first article and note the argument made on "The Design of the Lords Supper."

Ronny Wade - Second Negative

The second affirmative article, which you have just read, is a masterpiece in subterfuge and circumlocution. Seldom will you see someone try so hard to evade clear responsibility and duty. In his first article our brother made two basic arguments, i.e. (1) the cup is the fruit of the vine; hence the container is not under consideration when the word cup is used in the Lords supper accounts; and (2) the container has no significance; therefore the number used is incidental. I spent the greater part of my first negative showing why both of these assumptions were false. I will leave it to the readers determination as to whether or not I "tried" to answer the arguments.

"The Real Issue"

It doesn't surprise me at all that our brother is disturbed when I demand that he find an example, command, or necessary inference for his practice. Did you ever see a "liberal" that didn't get upset when such demands were made? Its all right for him, and those who agree with him, to demand specific authorization for the sponsoring church concept as Cogdill did of Woods ("There isn't an example of any church in the New Testament raising its money by going out and begging other churches for it. You find that" Cogdill- Woods Debate, p. 303, emp. mine R. W.) but if I do it, it "reflects a basic mistake" in my reasoning. Looks to me like what's sauce for the goose ought at least to be applesauce for the gander. He's already admitted that there is no New Testament example of a plurality of cups being used in the observance of the Lords supper. Now he admits that there is neither command nor necessary inference justifying their use. If this be the case, then how does he know the church of the first century used them as he claimed in the January 2, '86 issue of Guardian of Truth? Did you notice how quiet he was on this? Wonder why?

Oh! but you misunderstand says, our brother, the proposition states may. Cups may be used. But wait a minute, what the proposition says is: "The scriptures teach a plurality of cups may be used." What we want to know is how do the Scriptures teach a plurality may be used? We know by his own admission, that a plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference. If not in one of these three ways, then in what way do the Scriptures teach a plurality of cups? Well, says the affirmative, they are implied. But I ask, where? Where do the Scriptures imply the use of a plurality of cups in the Lords supper? Ive never read a single account of that event, that implies a plurality of cups were used. What the affirmative really believes is that cups are taught implicitly (i.e. "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed"). There you have it, my friend. Even though we have no example, no command, no necessary inference, we understand from something else (heaven only knows what it is) that cups may be used, even though it is unexpressed. Shades of logic! Wouldn't the liberals love to have that kind of freedom in proving church support of non-saints? Such argumentation is unworthy of church of Christ people.

The Strawman

He says I falsely charge him with believing that the container is never under consideration when the cup is used in the Lords supper accounts. "I have never denied that a container is necessary to contain liquid." "The negative is fighting a strawman." Well, lets see. Notice the two statements: (1) "The container is never under consideration when the word cup is used in the Lords supper accounts." (2) "Container is necessary to contain liquid" (his belief). Are the statements the same? Of course not and it doesn't take a Solomon to see the difference. If they are the same, as our brother implies, let him answer the following: in Matthew 26:27, "And he took the cup. . . ," does cup mean a container? 1 Corinthians 10:16, ". . . the cup of blessing... " is cup a container here? If not in either of these passages, let him tell us in which Lords supper passage the word cup means a literal container. Then well see who is fighting a straw man. Come on, brother, this is the issue, face it squarely, and let the readers know where you stand.

Ek -- "Out Of"

In his agitated state he then proceeds to accuse me of "taking the liberty of changing the Lords statement" with reference to the Greek preposition ek. Well, I did no such thing. I merely gave the definition of ek which is "from" or "out of." In every place where the Lord commands His disciples to drink of the cup, "of" is translated from ek. Thayer says under pino ek (drink of), "with a genitive of the vessel out of which one drinks, ek tou poterion i.e. drink out of the cup" (p. 510). That is exactly what Jesus commanded the disciples to do. And it is just wishful thinking on the affirmatives part to claim otherwise. He wants me to try my hand on 1 Corinthians 9:7, i.e. "of" the flock. "Of" is from ek, but Thayer says "with a genitive denoting the drink of which as a supply one drinks" (p. 510). There is a difference in drinking from a vessel that one hands another (which is what happened in Mt 26:27) and drinking from the supply of milk given by a flock. Thayer says the genitives are different, let our brother deny it.

Parallels

In my first article I gave the following parallel: (1) "And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the New Testament. . . ." (2) He picked up the cup (container) and drank it (contents) and sighed gustily saying, "this is good coffee." Notice (A) cup is literal in both sentences. (B) This and it both refer back to cup (literal) but the pronouns (this, it) refer by metonymy to the contents of the cup. (C) Cup is still literal and does not become the contents. (D) The fruit of the vine was not the cup. The coffee was not the cup.

Did our brother deny A or B and try to disprove either? No! He merely with one swipe of the hand said that because a metaphor is involved in the expression "this is my blood" there is no parallel. That fact however does not negate the parallel, and it wont go away, even though he wishes it would. Why didn't he notice the three points I made regarding these statements? No one denies that the fruit of the vine was the blood or that the coffee was good coffee. The question is: was the cup the coffee?, was the cup the fruit of the vine? That's the question, let him face it.

Spiritual Significance

Now let's look at what he had to say about my argument on the significance of the cup. First of all, he charges that I "ignore the fact that Jesus used highly metaphorical language" then opines that a man of my background should never make a mistake like that. Well, I regret to have to correct him again, but his accusation just isn't true. Please notice my point #3, "Each embraces a metaphor which is a figure of comparison. . . ." You'd think that at least he would read what I said before making statements that have no foundation and serve only to demonstrate his inability to deal with the issue at hand. Secondly, he says the argument might be impressive from a grammatical standpoint, but proves nothing about the significance of the vessel. Did he take up the argument point by point and show where it was false? No! He didn't even attempt that. He knew better. He says I literalize everything, thus the argument is all wrong. Now that's really answering an argument, isn't it? Let me encourage everyone to re-read that entire section. Note each point carefully, compare it with the Bible and see if it isn't true. He does no better in his effort to explain the two statements (1) "This is my blood of the N.T." and (2) "This cup is the N.T. in my blood," claiming they are identical, only that the terms are reversed. This, however, cannot be for at least four reasons:

1. The first statement teaches that the fruit of the vine represents the blood, that ratified or sealed the New Covenant.

2. The second statement teaches that the cup is emblematic of the N.T. that the blood ratified.

3. The blood that sealed the N.T. was not the testament, they were two different things.

4. Since the blood and the New Testament were two different things, Jesus used two different things to represent them (fruit of vine represents the blood; cup represents the New Testament). Let him disprove it.

On And On He Goes

His next failure involves the so-called argument on Bible authority. I showed exactly why it wouldn't work, his assertion to the contrary not withstanding. Every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine teaches that we are to drink of ("out of") the cup. When cups are used, the commands of both Paul and Jesus are disobeyed. He has no argument here at all.

In a feeble effort to find at least two cups the affirmative cites 1 Corinthians 10:16, but totally misapplies the passage. "We" refers to the congregation where Paul was Ephesus. "We the assembled" (Alford, Greek New Testament). "We the many (believers assembled; so the Greek)" (Jamieson, Faucett, Brown). He finds no relief here.

What Does He Really Believe?

So far the affirmative has told us that the cup is the fruit of the vine, that the cup is the blood, that cup is a container, and to cap it all off he says, "in whatever sense that the 'cup is the New Testament, it is not the 'container, but the 'contents." I wonder, the contents of what? Tell us brother, the cup is the contents of what? What does the man believe?

His Problem

Our brother is laboring under a terrible burden. He is trying to prove a man-made practice scriptural a practice introduced into churches of Christ around 1913 by such men as C. E. Holt and G. C. Brewer. In his book Forty Years On The Firing Line, Brewer said, "I think I was the first preacher to advocate the use of individual communion cups and the first church in the state of Tennessee that adopted it was the church for which I was preaching, the Central church of Christ at Chattanooga, Tn." So there you have it. There is his authority. No wonder the man has problems.

Elmer Moore - Third Affirmative

In his second negative brother Wade declares that my second affirmative was a "masterpiece in subterfuge and circumlocution," and that I tried to "evade clear responsibility and duty." He seems to think that all he has to do is just assert something and that makes it the truth. Both of his articles have been introduced in this fashion. You, the reader, must decide who has done what in this exchange. I believe you are intelligent enough to do so. His tactics of assertion are evident. He takes the liberty of asserting what I and others have said. I suppose that he feels no obligation to be correct in the statements he makes. Who does he think he is that he can just assert matters without proof? You can decide if I used "subterfuge" (deception to conceal) or "circumlocution" (use an unnecessarily large number of words to express an idea) and tried to evade (avoid facing up to) the matters that have been presented, in view of the fact that most of the affirmative arguments I made have gone virtually unnoticed.

"The Real Issue"

Under the above heading the negative charged me with admitting "that there is neither command nor necessary inference justifying (my emph. e.m.) their use." Did you notice how he changed what I said in my second affirmative? I said that if there was a command or necessary inference demanding their use "it would not be a matter of liberty." He has changed his terminology! He first insisted that I find where my practice was demanded, and when I said there was no such demand, he charges me with saying that they were not justified! This is reckless! He then states, "We know by his own admission, that a plurality of cups is not taught (my emph. e.m.) by example, command, or necessary inference." Notice what this man has written. He has equated the terms demanded, justified and teach. Tell us brother, does the Bible teach your practice of preaching the gospel by means of television? If it does, it is justified? But, if it is justified it is demanded according to your reasoning!

He takes his ridiculous concept of how a matter is authorized, then charges me with a consequence of it. I pointed out that the Bible did not demand the use of a plurality of drinking vessels. He then charged that I admit that "there is neither command nor necessary inference justifying their use." After building this false concept of how to establish authority he advanced to the next step and declared, "We know by his own admission, that a plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference." I have admitted no such thing. I emphatically stated, "Every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine, is a passage that authorizes a plurality of drinking vessels." It is one thing to state that an argument logical ly demands a certain conclusion, but this man recklessly asserts that I "admit" such. This is uncalled for and only indicates the frustration of the negative, in building and fighting a strawman.

It was much easier for him to engage in an un necessarily large number of words in false charges than it was for him to address himself to what I said about authority. He chose to brush it aside by saying that it was "ridiculous and totally without biblical authority." Do you suppose that the negative doesn't understand the nature of general authority? Yes, he understands general authority when he wants to defend many of his practices, but denies others the same right. He is guilty of special pleading. He will not level the same criticism at his practice that he does toward others. We insist that the negative tell us where is the command, example or necessary inference for the following: (1) a plate for the bread in the Lords supper; (2) a song leader; (3) a song book; (4) the use of radio or television for preaching the gospel; (5) a plate or basket for the contribution; or (6) a baptistry. Tell us brother, are these things authorized? If so, are they authorized by command, ex ample or necessary inference? If they are authorized, are they demanded? And will you also tell us if a matter demanded may be ignored with impunity? Your brethren, along with me and my brethren, await your answer! Surely you must think the above are authorized. If not do you and your brethren practice those things that are unauthorized? But remember, according to you, if they are authorized they are demanded! What our brother has done is substitute the word demanded for the word mention. He used to talk about a matter not being mentioned as being unscriptural, he was shown to be so inconsistent that he has coined a new word. However, it has gotten him in trouble.

"Implicit Authority"

The negative is a master at misrepresentation. He will misrepresent me and then charge me with an inconsistency based on the misrepresentation. He stated, "We know by his own admission, that a plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference." This is a glaring misrepresentation! I never admitted any such thing. He then states, "Well, says the affirmative, they are implied." He now completes his effort to show my inconsistency. I must believe that a matter may be implied though not authorized by "command, example, or necessary inference." I believe no such thing. The negative talks about "implicit authority" in such a way as to indicate that he doesn't believe there is such. Tell us, do you believe there is such a thing as "Implicit Authority?" If so, is such established by command, example or necessary inference? Don't evade!

"Straw Man"

In this section the negative further demonstrates his frustration by attributing a statement to me that he made and then charging me with a contradiction. He "quoted" me as saying that, "the container is never under consideration when the word cup is used in the Lords supper accounts." Then he quotes my statement, "a container is necessary to contain liquid." I deny the first statement! It occurs in my second affirmative, third paragraph. In this place I was referring to what the negative had accused me of saying. I denied it then! I deny it now! Do you suppose that the negative is guilty of subterfuge? I have continually argued that, "Every passage that requires us to drink the fruit of the vine teaches us that a container is necessary." I have never denied this. My point has been that the number is not essential. You, the reader, know this, whether the negative does or not.

"Out Of It"

The negative is a master at referring to something you say without looking at the main thrust of the argument and he did this on the term "out of." I fail to see how his reference to Thayer on the use of the genitive helps him. His contention is that everyone drinking of a container must touch his lips to that same vessel. You would think, by his argument, that Thayer lists 1 Corinthians 9:7 under the statement, "with the genitive denoting the drink of which as a supply one drinks." But my friends he does not. This is just another instance of the negatives assertions. He implies that the English translations are not sufficient and that what your Bible says may mislead you. You must have the negative to guide you. The expression does not demand that the lips must touch the same container to drink of it and our brother would not make this argument in any other situation when you have parallel language.

"Parallels"

He did not deny my charge that he took the "language of Jesus which is obviously metaphorical, and compared it with his coffee illustration that is literal." He simply endeavors to prove that there was a literal container involved in each. Who denies it? He wants to know if the cup was the coffee and in his illustration, metaphorical ly, yes.

"Spiritual Significance"

The mistake that the negative made, to which I refer red, was that of using about, "one-fourth of his article to give a lesson on the laws of language." I said, "He ignores the fact that Jesus used highly metaphorical language." My argument was on the fallacy of applying the general laws of language to figurative expressions (Bullinger's Figures of Speech, pp. 738-741). I still say that a man with his background ought to know better. As to his "circumlocution" on grammar I said, "What does he prove: that there was literal bread, juice and a vessel? Who denies it? "Why should I devote time and space to something I do not deny?

In an effort to show that the statements of Matthew and Mark are teaching something different than that of Luke and Paul, our brother takes a portion of what Mark says. Note his chart that he gave in his first negative. He states, "The following parallel demonstrates the significance of the cup." "This (bread) is my body" (Lk 22:19). "This (fruit of the vine) is my blood" (Mk 14:24). "This cup is the New Testament in my blood" (Lk 22:20). The second and third statements are the ones in dispute, thus I address them. He presents a partial truth. The following is a chart illustrating the whole truth!

"This is my blood of the New Testament" (Mk 14:24).
"This is the New Testament in my blood" (Lk 22:20).

You will note that the negative deleted the phrase "of the New Testament" stated in Marks text. Yet he would have you to believe that he is looking at these passages fairly. The two statements are teaching the same thing. The negative knows that the order of record is not necessarily the order of occurrence. Notice also, that he makes the first two statements figurative explaining in parenthesis the figure; but makes the third statement literal. The Catholics will make the first and second literal and the third figurative language in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The two errors are the result of failing to understand the use of figurative language. The negative barely noticed my argument. I called attention to the fact that both Paul and Luke were using the figure of speech of metonomy, i.e., the container for the contents. The record indicates that they were to "divide" the cup and "drink" it. Thayer on page 533 states, "by metonomy of the container for the contained, the contents of the cup, what is offered to be drunk" (Lk 22:20b; 1 Cor 11:28sq). Both of these writers are talking about the contents. Obviously, then, in whatever sense the "cup" is the New Testament it is the contents and not the container. I wish he would have addressed this in his second negative so I could have replied. His only comment was, "I wonder, the contents of what?" It is the contents of the container named to suggest that which was significant the fruit of the vine.

"What Does He Really Believe"

Those who read this exchange are capable of understanding what I believe, even though the negative indicated he doesn't. I wrote in my first affirmative a simple explanation of what I believed. I said, "First allow me to give a brief explanation of this statement (referring to Matt 26:26-29). Jesus declared that the bread was a fair representation of His body and the cup, which He identified as the fruit of the vine (v. 29), was a fair representation of His blood that served to ratify the New Testament. Our Lord used metaphorical language declaring that "one thing is another." The negative may not believe the foregoing but he certainly must understand what I believe.

"His Problem"

Under the above heading the negative refers to C. E. Holt and G. C. Brewer about the introduction of multiple vessels. If he could prove that this was so it would have nothing whatever to with whether a plurality of drinking vessels were scriptural, unless the negative believes that tradition is a valid means of determining scriptural authority. He misrepresents Alford, Jamieson, Faucett & Brown on I Corinthians 10:16.

Summary of the Debate

Allow me to remind the reader of the arguments that I have advanced that the negative has not answered. I made an extensive argument on the purpose of the Lords Supper showing that Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me" (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24). The negative took no issue with my statement that, "Whatever is essential to the keeping of this memorial must have some specific bearing on the design or purpose of that memorial," (1st. Affirm., par. 4). I showed that the word remembrance meant, "not in memory of but in an affectionate calling of the person himself to mind." I have advanced arguments showing that the "bread" and the "fruit of the vine" met the demands of the design (see 1st article) but the container does not. I also presented arguments based on Matthew 26:26-28 show ing that there were two elements of significance. I introduced 1 Corinthians 10:16 noting that there were only two elements of significance (see 1st article). These arguments went virtually unnoticed by the negative.

Under the section entitled "Bible Authority for a Plurality of Drinking Vessels" I presented a formulated argument showing that when the Lord authorizes an action, that whatever is necessary to carry out that action and what is expedient, is contained in the authorized action, unless it violates other principles of Bible teaching." I illustrated this with the command to sing. I pointed out that the vessel was included in the command to drink but that the number was incidental.

Ronny Wade - Third Negative

The Affirmative Refuses To Let Us Know Where He Stands

In my last negative article I begged our brother to tell us in which Lords supper passage the word cup meant a literal container. He refused to answer. Brother Moore, the readers want to know why you are withholding this information. If I have falsely charged you by saying that you "believe the container is never under consideration when the cup is used in the Lords supper accounts" then why not tell us where the word is so used? Again, in the 1-2-86 issue of Guardian Of Truth our brother stated his belief that the church of the first century used a plurality of cups in the Lords supper. I have repeatedly asked how he knew this. What has been his answer? Silence! Nothing but silence. Now you know why I charge him with subterfuge (a stratagem used in order to conceal, escape, or evade). If he has the answers then why, oh why, has he kept them concealed for three affirmative articles? The very information he claims to have, which could have set tled this whole disagreement, he chooses to keep hidden and concealed.

You Decide Where He Stands And What He Believes

"I do not mean that I can read verbatim about a plurality of drinking vessels being used in distributing the fruit of the vine. If I could do this it would not be a debatable proposition" (Moore, First Aff.). Yet when I accused him of admitting that a "plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary in ference" he replied, "I have admitted no such thing" (Third Aff.). In other words he must believe that a plurality of cups is taught either by example, or command, or necessary inference. When do we believe him, the first article or the third?

Again, I said, "We know by his own admission, that a plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference." He replied, "This is a glaring misrepresentation! I never admitted any such thing" (Third Aff.). Now, come on brother Moore, do you or do you not? Are cups taught by example, command, or necessary inference? If so, where? Why didn't you tell us? If they are not taught by command, example, or necessary inference, then why be afraid to admit it? I tell you, I don't know where the man stands.

Demanded-Justified-Taught-Mentioned

The affirmative seems greatly agitated by the fact that I demanded an example of his cups. If he would use greater care in what he writes and pay more attention to what I write, his problems wouldn't be nearly as great as they are at the present. First of all, he made it clear that a plurality of cups was not taught explicitly and that he could not read about them verbatim. In other words there was no example of their use in the New Testament. Then he proceeded to inform us that a plurality of cups was taught implicitly i.e. "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed." Now it doesn't take a Solomon to see that if cups are taught (justified) by something unexpressed there is no example, command, or necessary inference that teaches (justifies) their use. If this is reckless, he has no one to blame but himself. If I have misrepresented him by stating "we know by his own ad mission, that a plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference," why didn't he cite the passage that "teaches" their use instead of crying mis-representation? And he wonders why I charge him with circumlocution (talking around or in circles).

It Gets Worse

Notice the following: "He takes his ridiculous concept of how a matter is authorized, then charges me with a consequence of it" (Third Aff.). Later in the same paragraph he quotes me, "We know by his own admission, that a plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference. I have admitted no such thing. I emphatically stated, 'Every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine, is a passage that authorizes a plurality of drinking vessels." Yes brother I know you emphatically stated that, but you didn't prove it. Stating a thing is a far cry from proving it. You see it is impossible for any passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine to authorize a plurality of drinking vessels when every such passage commands those present to "drink of the cup," i.e. "out of" or "from" the cup. You just cannot drink "out of" the cup and drink from cups.

Who Will Meet The Issue Head-On?

Brother Moore has not addressed the issue. He has repeatedly refused us the advantage of information he claims to have. But now, he has the audacity to write "we insist that the negative tell us where there is the command, example, or necessary inference for the following: (1) a plate for the bread in the Lords supper; (2) a song leader; (3) a song book; (4) the use of radio or television for preaching the gospel; (5) a plate or basket for the contribution; or (6) a baptistry?" First of all, it is the obligation of the negative to examine the proof or evidence advanced by the affirmative. I am affirming nothing in this discussion. I am denying. Secondly, we are not debating song books or plates, we are debating cups. I am not surprised, however, at our brothers actions. Every digressive who ever debated has taken this road. The instrumental music man wants to know about tuning forks and song books. The institutional (Herald of Truth, Orphan Home) brethren want to know about individual cups and classes. (Remember the Cogdill- Woods Debate?) Why? Simply because neither can read or justify his practice by the Scriptures. Now, our brother takes the same road traveled by all innovators. He wants to know if these things he mentions are authorized. And if so, how? I am neither ashamed nor afraid to address his argument. Yes, I believe they are authorized. How? By generic authority. Why? Because they are subordinate elements included within the purview of the precept given by Divine inspiration. Do cups fall into this same category? I answer emphatically no. Why? Because the precept (Mt 26:27; Mk 14:23) specifies that "He took the cup" (not cups). He commanded them to "all drink of it" (not them). They understood and "all drank of (out of) it" (Mk 14:23). Subordinate elements under cup are such things as size of the cup, color or material out of which it is made, whether or not it has a handle, etc. Coordinate elements, i.e. elements from the same sphere (where we have no choice) are such things as individual cups, drinking from an eye dropper, or lapping it off the floor. This is why he has no parallel between cups and the things he mentions. I submit that our brothers cause would have been better served had he dealt just as forth-rightly with the readers of this exchange as I have instead of withholding valuable information he claims to have, but refuses to share.

His Problem

As we pointed out in our last article, the affirmative is laboring under a terrible burden, by defending a practice that was introduced into churches of Christ around 1913-15. By his own admission "Efforts to introduce multiple containers met with much opposition" (Guardian Of Truth, 1-2-86). That opposition continues to day by brethren interested in maintaining purity of worship. The charge that the recent origin of multiple cups has nothing to do with their scripturalness "unless the negative believes that tradition is a valid means of deter mining scriptural authority" seems strange in view of the approach used by brother Moore and his brethren to the institutional question. In fact when they argue that issue, you would think they had taken a page right out of my debate notes. I have already shown that Cogdill demanded an example of Woods for his practice. That's O.K., but I shouldn't demand an example of cups. In the Gospel Guardian (10-28-85) Hoyt Houchen wrote, "We remind these brethren that the church was here a long time before these human institutions and it fared all right without them." Its O.K. for them to make the antiquity argument, but when I use it, it proves nothing. Oh consistency, thou art a jewel. Brother Moore then charges that I misrepresented, Alford, and Jamieson, Faucett and Brown on 1 Corinthians 10:16." In what way? How did I misrepresent them? Does he expect us to accept his allegation without any proof? What is the matter with this man?

Out Of It

In his frenzy brother Moore is getting careless. First of all he fails to see how my reference to Thayer on the use of the genitive is of any help to my position. Well sir, it helps because the genitives in Matthew 26:27 and 1 Corinthians 9:7 are different. In the former it is "a gen. of the vessel out of which one drinks," and in the latter it is "a gen. denoting the drink of which as a sup ly one drinks." So you don't have a parallel and your argument falls. Secondly, he says, "You would think, by his argument that Thayer lists 1 Corinthians 9:7 under the statement, 'with the genitive denoting the drink of which as a supply one drinks." Well, my friend that's exactly what Thayer does under ek on p. 191 under #9 supply, he lists 1 Corinthians 9:7. Our brother needs to be more careful. And then to cap it all off he implies that because I refer to Thayer I am saying that "the English translations are not sufficient and what your Bible says may mislead you." Brother Moore is that why you referred to Dungan and Bullinger in your first affirmative? I thought better of you than this.

The Foolishness of His Position

I asked our brother "in the sentence He picked up the cup and drank it and sighed gustily saying, this is good coffee, is the cup the coffee?" His reply: "metaphorically yes." There you have it friends. In order to sustain a dying cause this man has taken the illogical position that when a man picks up a cup and drinks it, and then says "this is good coffee" the cup he picked up is metaphorically the coffee. Who can believe it? How sad, how tragic. May God give us the courage to stand for truth regardless of the consequences.