Why The Common Cup Should Be Used For Holy Communion

In these perilous times of Covid-19, questions are being raised in the churches of Christ concerning the proper means of distributing the cup in our Holy Communion Services. Some are advocating abandoning the common cup in favour of the baptist shot-cups. The purpose of this blog is to advocate the use of the common cup, as well as to why other traditional methods of distributing the sacrament should be observed. Although, this is not to comment on whether Holy Communion should or should not be conducted during times of plague, which is best left to the discretion of the local priest.  

Before we begin our discussion, it is necessary to state where we stand in regards to the nature of this sacrament. We deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, which claims that there is a real change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Equally, we deny the doctrine of the Zwinglians and baptists, who argue that the sacrament is nothing but a symbol and a reminder that Christ died for us; that there is no benefit beyond reminding us of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross. Rather, we hold to the Calvinist position. The Calvinist understanding states that in the supper there is a promise, like there is in baptism - see here, which when grasped by faith brings benefits associated with the promise. 

We will illustrate the difference between the Zwinglian and the Calvinist doctrine, for there are those who claim that there is no difference at all. The Zwinglian understanding is like a man giving his friend a photograph by which to remember him by. The friend might have many happy thoughts when looking at the photograph as he remembers the man, he may remember things the man has done for him, or remember that the man has vowed to pay him some money and thus go to retrieve it from him, but here the benefits end, the photograph gives no benefit that pure memory and contemplation alone could not have given. Indeed, The Metropolitan Tabernacle church in London, which takes the Zwinglian position, during the Covid-19 period decided to ‘celebrate the Lord’s Table without the elements of the bread and wine’ by contemplation alone.

The Calvinist position, by contrast, is like a man who gives a lady a ring as a pledge to his devotion to her, and his care for her. The ring does serve as a memory of the man, but it also serves as a token of his promise. In a similar way, we say that within the institution of Holy Communion, God has given us a promise. This promise being that if we partake of the bread and wine with faith, we will receive the promises and benefits of the New Covenant. This is what Christ meant when He said, ‘This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.’ Such benefits include spiritually feeding upon Christ and drinking His blood, and union with Him. 

With the Calvinist position in mind, we can make the following points as to why Holy Communion should be conducted with a common cup. 

(1) There are four recorded accounts in Scripture of Holy Communion (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25) In all of these accounts we can note that it is only a single cup (ποτήριον - neuter, singular, accusative) that Christ blessed and distributed to His disciples. This is made further clear from Matthew’s and Mark’s account which tells us that the disciples only drank from a single cup. (Matthew: Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες Mark: ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ). The words of Scripture, therefore, give preference to a common cup being used; and in so much as we wish to remain faithful to how Christ instituted this sacrament we should use a common cup; after all, He could have very easily instituted the Holy Toast, with all the disciples clanking their own cups together.

(2) Communion represents not only that we are one with Christ, but that we are also all one with each other through Christ. (1 Cor. 10) The cup represents the one death of Christ that we all partake of. Contrary to the modern individualistic ideas of baptist theology, the church should be pleased to affirm her communal nature. The individual cups completely destroy the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper as the sacrament of union with one another, where the man in rags partakes of the same cup as the king in robes. 

(3) It introduces an irreverence to the sacrament, making the supper akin to drinking vodka at a boozy Russian party. I have always felt like crying out, ‘for Mother Russia!’ when partaking in a communion service that involves the shot cups.

Moreover, it means that the consecrated wine cannot be fully consumed. Now, it might be argued that since there is no real change of the bread and wine, it does not matter if the the consecrated wine and bread are left unconsumed. However, there is a good reason why we ought to show reverence to the consecrated bread and wine, even when denying the doctrine of transubstantiation. For if we take a Calvinistic position, then we are stating that the bread and wine are tokens, signs, and symbols of God’s promise. And it is for this reason they should be treated respectfully. It would be an insult to a man if his wife threw her ring into the bin can. Seeing that we treat these earthly tokens with respect, does that not give us reason to treat the heavenly ones with all the more respect?

(4) It is contrary to the tradition and history of the church. (The shot-cups were introduced to the church in the late 1800s by a baptist church in New York and became popular in the 1960s, especially with the rise of HIV.) While it is true that tradition is not on equal par with Scripture, we should also not completely disregard what tradition has to tell us. And if the church has practiced Holy Communion in a particular way for a long period of time, we should give second thought before easily disregarding it.

(5) Individual cups also lend themselves to a tendency to have the bread and wine passed around rather than requiring the congregates to come forward to receive the elements. There is a big disadvantage with this. It makes it more difficult to opt out of partaking of the elements, especially if you are known to have taken before. If the plate and cups are being passed around the church, it is noticeably awkward to avoid taking a piece of bread or one of the small cups, inclining one to partake even if they themselves are not yet ready, or even worse pressuring an unbeliever to partake. It is for this reason that we should be invited forward to partake of the feast rather than have it thrust before us. An added benefit of this is that congregates who do not wish to partake can be asked to cross their arms for a blessing, which cannot be done if the elements are passed around.

(6) The individualism the shot-cups bring allow for there to be multiple elements suited to the individual needs of the congregation. Churches with the shot-cups now conduct Holy Communion with several elements: wine, grape-juice, gluten-free bread, fair-trade bread, grape-free wine, and so on. Now, it might be argued that it is pharisaical to insist on using alcoholic wine and proper bread. We must, however, reject this claim if we are going to remain faithful to Christ’s institution. For it was the elements of bread and wine that Christ chose to symbolise His promise, and despite what we think about the inadequacies of these elements, dare we say that Christ was mistaken in choosing them? that He should have picked more suitable elements? 

But what about those who have an intolerance to bread or cannot take wine? To these people the following considerations can be given. 

Regarding the bread, fully gluten-free bread is made from potatoes and cannot be regarded as bread. Nevertheless, there are proper breads that have the gluten reduced. If the priest is in a church with congregational members who suffer from an intolerance to bread, then he could consider ordering such bread. Depending upon the intolerance, it may be the case that a nibble of the bread can be taken, or that the negative effects of the intolerance can endured as part of suffering for Christ. (Of course, no congregate should ever put their life at risk or do something that seriously threatens their health!)

Regarding the wine, the wine is often watered down, and therefore its alcohol content weakened. For those who claim to be alcoholics, since there is no physical impairments preventing them from taking the wine, but rather a weakness of the will, they should pray to God that their will be strengthened as it is their duty to be able to partake in the sacrament.  

Yet, if none of these solutions work, a congregant can take only one element. It has been the traditional position of the church that the full blessings of the sacrament can be received by partaking of just one element. What we should not try and do is disregard the elements that Christ has chosen because we think them as inadequate. 

Addressing Health Concerns

At this point the objection will come that the common cup is unhygienic, and that with the rise of new understandings of how disease is spread we should adopt the shot-cups as a means to prevent the spread of disease. I have two things to say in response to this. 

First, we should remember that the supper was instituted by Christ with a single cup; as such, the church has practiced a common cup for two millennia. By changing to shot-cups in fear of disease - when Christ could have easily instituted a holy toast - shows lack of faith in Christ and His wisdom.

Second, evidence shows that priests, who have to finish off the remaining communion wine, do not get sick or unwell more often than priests of churches that choose to conduct Holy Communion with shot-cups. If care is taken, proper wiping etc., then the health concerns of sharing a common cup are minimal.

This is not to comment on whether during times of plague Holy Communion should be taken or not, but only that a solution can not be found in using individual shot-cups, and that the shot-cups can neither be used for Holy Communion in any other circumstances.

Does the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity Identify God with a Property?

The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) says that God is not composed of parts or is in anyway divisible. This means that each of God’s attributes cannot be considered as separate individual properties, but instead have to be considered as all being identical to each other; God’s attribute of omnipotence is identical to God’s attribute of omniscience, and both of these identical to God Himself, etc. This way of understanding God was the position of the majority of the church fathers and medievals, as well as that of the compilers of the reformation confessions. 

The first article of the Anglican church states:

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions… (39 articles, BCP)

Equally, the Westminster divines concluded in the second chapter of their confession:

There is but one only living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions…

There were strong reasons for why the church held to DDS. First, if God was composed of parts, then He could not be considered to be pure act, for any composite has the potential to be divided into the parts that compose it. This leads to the second concern with divine complexity; namely, that it would weaken God’s essential nature. God would have the potential to be separated into His parts; and even if this possibility is never actualised, it still weakens God’s essential nature as a being who can say ‘I am who I am’ (Ex. 3.14). Third, it would make God dependent upon His parts, as any composite is dependent upon the parts that compose it; for instance, a mosaic is dependent upon the individual coloured pieces that make it up. Fourth, complexity would entail that God is not the first of all things, for these parts would precede God, even if just logically. 

While these reasons have for many been convincing, especially if one rejects nominalism, contemporary philosophers have had serious doubts about DDS. The reason given that simplicity comes with too high a metaphysical cost to justify its benefits. One of the alleged metaphysical costs is that it would make God to be identical to a property. And since a property is inert and impersonal, and God is active and personal, God cannot be identified with a property and thus cannot be simple. Moreover, if God is one property, we would not be able to distinguish between God’s properties. However, since we can, God cannot be just one property.

A key proponent of this criticism is Alvin Plantinga, who lays out these criticisms in his paper 'Does God Have a Nature' (Marquette University Press, 1980)’. Plantinga says,

[God] doesn’t merely have a nature or essence; he just is that nature, … [and] each of his properties is identical with each of his properties…so that God has but one property.” But this “seems flatly incompatible with the obvious fact that God has several properties; he has power and mercifulness, say, neither of which is identical with the other. (pp. 46–47).

He further says,

No property could have created the world; no property could be omniscient, or, indeed, know anything at all. If God is a property, then he isn’t a person but a mere abstract object; he has no knowledge, awareness, power, love or life. So taken, the simplicity doctrine seems an utter mistake. (47)

What could we say in response to Plantinga’s criticism? The most common response is that Plantinga has misunderstood the metaphysics of those who hold to DDS. James Dolezal and Lawrence Dewan argue that a property is something that inheres in something imperfectly. (God without Parts, Pickwick Publications, 2011) All creatures have limited power, knowledge, goodness, etc. and so inhere these things as properties. God, however, has perfect power, perfect knowledge, and perfect goodness. This means that God does not inhere these things as properties but is instead identical to them.

The crux of Dolezal and Dewan’s argument can be explained as follows. No creature can be said to be identical to the attributes of power, knowledge, and goodness, since if they were identical to these attributes, then they could not be said to have these attributes in a limited way, which all creatures do. To explain this, let us consider what it is to be human. A human is identical to the human nature; this means that while humans can be more fully or less fully human - they might lose a leg or something, it can never be said that a human is less human. A human is a human in so far is it has the essence of a human, and they possess this essence in so far as they exist as a human. No human could be less than a human; that would be absurd. So, when I have imperfect knowledge within me, it cannot be identical to me but must inhere inside of me as something conceptually separate. This, Dolezal and Lawrence, argue, is a property. God, however, is identical with all His attributes and holds them perfectly. God thus does not inhere his attributes as properties; rather, God is the perfection of the attributes that creatures inhere as properties. Dolezal thus concludes: ‘We attribute to God the perfections but not the inherence’.

The way that this addresses Plantinga’s concern is that it allows for us to say God is not a property. This means that God can only be allegorically ascribed properties. Francis Turretin sums up gist this argument well: 

Attributes are not ascribed to God properly as something superadded to his essence (something accidental to the subject), making it perfect and really distinct from himself; but improperly and transumptively inasmuch as they indicate perfections essential to the divine nature conceived by us as properties (IET. 3.5.2)

If God is not a property, then it does not follow that God is necessarily inert and impersonal by being identical to His attributes. 

However, while this solution has the advantage of showing the difference between man and God and shows that it is wrong to say DDS makes God a property, it yet leaves how God is to be personal as unexplained and mysterious, nor does it explain how God can be ascribed different attributes. Of course, this mysteriousness does not exclude the possibility that God is a person. Nevertheless, there is a further response that can be given that makes things more clear. 

On the classical theist understanding, God is said to be pure act. Katherine A. Rodgers, by appealing to David Hume, believes that  understanding God as pure act can elucidate DDS. (Perfect Being Theology, Edinburgh University Press, 2000, p. 30.) Hume argued that we do not perceive our own properties; rather, we only perceive our own acting and experiencing as a result of these properties. So, I do not experience myself as a subject with the property of rationality; I only experience myself as thinking. The same can be said with power. I do not experience the property of power, but only its exercise in things. In other words, we only ever experience ourselves as acting, our acts. This experience of acting can serve as an analogy to how God is pure act. Additionally, we can do things that have multiple aspects to them. For example, by the single act of knowing that Anselm existed in 1033, I know various pieces of information: what existence means, what 1033 means, etc. Similarly, in one act God can be said to know all things. 

And since most theists believe that thinking is the same as acting within God, in knowing all things God can be said to be doing all that He knows. Hence, God in a single act is knowing all He does and doing all He does. It is in this way in which we can call God to be powerful and knowledgable, although in an allegorical way to how we predicate these terms in man.

Understanding God as act also helps us grasp in some sense the way we can call God personal. Of course, since God is fundamentally different to us in many aspects, existing outside of time, being immutable, the way we call God a personal can only be an allegorical predication. Nevertheless, a vital aspect needed for a personal relationship is interaction. I cannot have a personal relationship with a rock since a rock cannot interact and respond to anything I say or do to it. If God was a mere abstract property, then the same could be said of God - it is difficult to see how God could be interacting and responding to the things I do. However, if God is pure act, then God can respond and interact with me; from His eternal standpoint He can be acting to effect a change at t2 in response to something I do at t1; God can be acting to respond to my prayer at 12noon yesterday, and thinking/doing of the response at 12noon today.

Calvinistic Molinism

For a long time philosophers and theologians have been trying to reconcile God’s sovereignty and determination over the universe with man’s freedom and responsibility. Often, responses have been unsatisfactory by either favouring a strong version of God’s sovereignty at the expense of man’s freedom, or a strong version of man’s freedom at the expense of God’s sovereignty. In this blog post, I will offer what I term the Calvinist Molinist solution, which attempts to mediate between these two extremes. However, before we can discuss what Calvinist Molinism is, we first have to examine Molinism itself.

Molinism is the theological model, first put forward by sixteenth century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina as a solution to solve the sovereignty/freedom conflict, and is popular amongst contemporary philosophers such as William Lane Craig. The way Molinism attempts to solve the sovereignty/freedom conflict is by postulating that, in addition to God’s natural knowledge (knowledge of all modal truths) and free knowledge (knowledge God has about contingent affairs), God also has middle knowledge, which is knowledge of how creatures would have freely acted in non-actual circumstances. God, the Molinist says, in light of what He knows via His middle knowledge, chooses to actualise the circumstances that would bring about a world where creatures have freely chosen to act in a way that is most pleasing to Him. The Molinist maintains that God only ever actualises the best feasible world. A feasible world is a subset of possible worlds that are limited by subjunctive conditionals of creaturely freedom (henceforth SCCs) - what creatures would freely choose in a given circumstance. This is in contrast to any mere possible world, which may include scenarios where God overrides the free will of creatures to achieve some end. The molinist argues that SCCs are brute facts, and not grounded in God, which they believe must be argued to protect the freedom of man. 

Molinism has been popular amongst theologians and philosophers as it allows for both God to remain strongly sovereign while also preserving man’s freedom and responsibility. It also provides a solution to the problem of evil in that the culpability for evil, at least moral evil, can be grounded within the free actions of creatures. However, Molinism has serious problems, challenging God’s aseity and sovereignty, the doctrine of divine simplicity, and faces trouble when faced with the ‘truth-maker objection’.

Molinism threatens God’s sovereignty because it suggests that there are contingent facts that God has no control over. God is simply confronted with SCCs which He is beyond His power to do anything about. And this is not only problematic philosophically, but also Biblically, for the Bible asserts that God is sovereign over all of creation. (Job 42:2)

Molinism has the additional disadvantage of threatening divine attributes that are seen as essential to classical theism. For a start, Molinism poses a threat to the traditional doctrine of divine simplicity. Divine simplicity argues that God’s act of willing is identical to God’s act of knowing, and that these are both identical to God’s being. The problem with Molinism is that God is affected by the objects of middle knowledge in a way that entails that His knowledge could not be identical to His willing. Molinism also poses a threat to divine impassability, since it entails that God is affected and changed by the facts of middle knowledge. Moreover, Molinism challenges the doctrine of aseity, which says that God alone is self-sufficient and that all other things depend upon Him; for Molinism claims that these facts cannot be dependent upon God. This again has not only a philosophical disadvantage but a Biblical one too, conflicting with Col. 1.16. Of course, one could reject these doctrines, but this is a high metaphysical cost just to adhere to Molinism.

The final problem with Molinism is that it is incompatible with the truth-maker principle, which states that for any true proposition P, there is some entity which bears and grounds that truth, by virtue of which makes the proposition true. What makes it true that Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March is the fact of him being so assassinated. Similarly, what makes it true that there are bears in Russia is the fact of there being bears in Russia. Molinism, however, brings into question this principle, since there can be no entity that grounds the truth of SCCs. It cannot exist within the creatures, as they are yet to exist, and the Molinist argues that it cannot exist within the mind of God as this would conflict with man’s freedom. 

While those who hold to Molinism have criticised the truth-maker theory and have asserted that SCCs can exist as brute fact, we should hesitate before rejecting the truth-maker principle for the following reasons. First, truth-maker theory prima-facie is a self-evident theory, and we should not reject a self-evident theory for a less evident theory (Molinism) without good reason. Second, if we reject the idea of truth makers, we are left without an explanation of what it is that makes a given proposition true, and are thus lead into indeterminacy. Third, to reject the truth-maker principle would also bring into question the validity of the principle of sufficient reason; this principle itself has admirable prima facie plausibility and if rejected would, as said by Alexander Pruss, undermine science (The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 255.) and philosophical argument. ('The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument', in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, 2009, p. 45)

Defenders of Molinism, such as Craig, have attempted to rebut this criticism by demonstrating that certain truths cannot have truth makers, which shows the truth-maker principle to be erroneous. (Craig, 'Middle Knowledge, Truth-Makers, and the Grounding Objection', Society of Christian Philosophers, 18(3):337-352, 2001) These truths are as follows:

(1) No physical objects exist. 

(2) Dinosaurs are extinct today.
(3) All ravens are black.
(4) Torturing a child is wrong.
(5) Napoleon lost the battle of waterloo.
(6) The US President will be a woman in 2070.

The problem with Craig’s counter-examples is that it relies on assumptions that are classically rejected by classical theists, such as nominalism and the A-theory of time. (2), (5), and (6) all have a truth-maker if we adopt a B-theory of time. (1)’s truth-maker can be explained by appealing to the totality of facts that exist, which includes the facts about the essences of things that exist within the mind of God and whether their potentialities have been actualised or not. This explanation, of course, is excluded on a nominalist account. (4) Can have a truth-maker, again by appealing to the essences of things. On classical essentialism, it is the essence of a thing that defines what is right or wrong for a thing to do. (3)’s truth-maker is also the essence that exists within the mind of God, which defines Raven’s as birds that are black. 

There is a lot more that can be said about truth-makers, but that is a subject for another blog post. Nevertheless, it should be clear that for the traditional classical theist, Craig’s counter-examples are not going to hold weight.

Given that Molinism has a high metaphysical cost, what might be offered in its place that overcomes these problems? I suggest Calvinistic Molinism. Calvinistic Molinism, instead of postulating SSCs as brute fact, instead argues that the SCCs exist within the mind of God as His thoughts. These SSCs are a result of our natures that first exist as essences, or blueprints, within God’s mind. Contrary to what the Molinist might say, it is hard to see why this ought to be taken as denying free will anymore than if the natures are just the result of some undetermined brute fact. Moreover, Calvinistic Molinism has the advantage that it can exist without conflicting with classical theism, and other intuitive principles while also preserving man’s freedom, since God’s sovereignty over the actions of creatures are not the direct result of His particular decrees. 

What might be said to be problematic with Calvinistic Molinism? Perhaps the biggest problem is that it makes the problem of evil more acute, making it seem to be the case that God is the author of sin. There are two ways that one could respond to this challenge. First, we might be able to say that while both God and y are equally responsible for creating s when y does sinful action s, they are not equally to blame. This is because blame attaches itself to intentions. We might be able to say, therefore, that the intention that God had for creating s was to promote the greatest good whereas the intention that y had was not but rather was to benefit himself, meaning that God is not blameworthy whereas y is. 

An additional response is to appeal to our inability to fully comprehend God and His influence over the world. It is wrong to imagine that the way God exercises control over His creation is similar to that of how a man has control over puppets. Instead, we should picture it as being analogous to how an author has control over the events of a novel. Within a crime novel, when the Butler murders Mrs White, we assume that the punishment that the Butler receives is just - we do not object because the story was determined and written by an author. In an analogous way, we can say that while God has control over His creation, the way He exercises His control is not one that violates man’s responsibility or makes God responsible for evil.