Truth Magazine

By Elmer Moore

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 “ample, 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 “ample, 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 logically 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 unnecessarily 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 Lord’s 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, example 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 Lord’s supper accounts.” Then he quotes my statement, d ta 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 negative’s 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, metaphorically, yes.

“Spiritual Significance”

The mistake that the negative made, to which I referred, 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). 1 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 Mark’s 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 1 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 Lord’s 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 showing 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.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 149-150, 153
March 5, 1987

By Ronny Wade

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 Lord’s 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 Lord’s 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 Father’s 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 affirmative’s 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 God’s 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 cannot 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,” itis 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 “ample, 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 Lord’s supper.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 143-144, 148
March 5, 1987

By Mike Willis

I make notations to myself regarding things I want to write. Several of these notations have accumulated pertaining to which a full article is not needed. Hence, this week’s editorial will be a collection of “short stories.”

Continuous Cleansing And The Windshield Wiper

Recently a sermon by Guy N. Woods on “Continual Cleansing” was published by Britnell Publications, Little Rock, AR. In defending the position of “continuous cleansing,” brother Woods wrote,

Now having seen this remarkable promise, may I illustrate it somewhat like this, crude though it is. You start out in your automobile on a rainy day, and it’s necessary to use your windshield wipers, and you turn them on. You don’t operate them manually, at least you don’t any more. One time you did. I remember those early Fords when you had to drive down the highway manually operating your windshield wipers. Today, we set in operation a process that keeps them going. These passages teach us that the Lord, for his faithful people, sets in operation a process by which he keeps them continuously cleansed. What is the process? If we walk in the light, the blood cleanses. If we keep on walking in the light, it keeps on cleansing (p. 3).

As I understand the sermon and illustration, the Christian is cleansed of his sins of weakness, frailties, imperfections, ignorance, and stupidity conditioned upon the general intention to walk in the light. Brother Woods said, “If we walk in the light, by which it is meant if we do our best to live according to His word, the blood keeps on cleansing,” just like the windshield wipers keep on wiping water off our windshields.

I grew up in East Texas and have lived in Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky. In every state I have lived, I have witnessed relatively long periods of drought. I have never seen motorists in any of these places driving down the highways during these periods of drought with their windshield wipers on, just in case rain perchance might fall. Instead, the cars come equipped with windshield wipers which must be turned on by the operator when they are needed. When rains begins to fall, the motorist turns on his windshield wipers which clean the windshield. Now, if I have understood brother Woods and others who are circulating the windshield illustration, they imply that, at conversion, a process of cleansing which the Lord sets in operation is begun which continues unabated until the sinner willfully sins or dies. If their illustration was parallel to their doctrine, a motorist upon purchasing a car would find equipped a set of windshield wipers which ran non-stop in the event that rain might begin to fall. I have never had a car like that but, if I ever get one, I will take it back to the company which sold it to me to get it fixed, just like a man does when his horn begins blowing and will not stop.

“Living the best we know how” is no different doctrine when taught by a Christian than when taught by denominational folk. For years denominational folks have taught that man was saved if he did the best he knew how – even if he never was baptized. Now some Christians are teaching the same doctrine, implying that one is justified who is doing the “best he knows how” even though he might be worshiping where the instrument is used or where institutions are supported from the church treasury.

Cleansing is continuously available but conditionally given!

A Step Is Not A Walk

Another catchy phrase which has been used in the continuous cleansing controversy is “a step is not a walk.” Some have used this phrase to state that a person whose general character may be described as “walking in the light” does not fall into a state of condemnation by a single sin. He is not “walking in darkness” as a result of a single sin.

I fully recognize that “walking in the light” and “walking in darkness” describe one’s general course of life. A man like the apostle Peter can be described as one who “walked in the light” in spite of the fact that he fell into sin from time to time.

In spite of the fact that “a step is not a walk,” we recognize that a walk begins with a step. A man will never walk in the light unless he takes the first step and a man will never walk in darkness unless he takes the first step. When a Christian takes his first step in darkness, he begins a walk in darkness unless he repents and take a step back into the light. The step in darkness is a sin which brings guilt and places a man in jeopardy of eternal damnation, whether this step in darkness is committed in ignorance, weakness, or high-handed rebellion.

The life of Peter is particularly instructive in this case. The apostle was “clean through the word” which Jesus spoke (Jn. 15:3). But on the night of Jesus’ betrayal, he denied the Lord three times. Jesus had taught, “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:33). Having denied Jesus, Peter needed to be converted (Lk. 22:32). His step into sin brought him into condemnation; he needed to be converted in order to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus. Later, at Antioch, Peter again fell into sin, being guilty of hypocrisy as a result of “peer pressure” (Gal. 2:11-14). Because of his sin, Paul said “he was to be blamed” (ASV: he stood condemned). His sin brought guilt which could only be removed by the blood of Christ on the condition of repentance and prayer (Acts 8:22). His previous “walk in the light” did not cause the blood of Christ to cleanse him. His was not a life of “walking in darkness,” but it was a step – a step in darkness which made him stand “condemned.”

Carefulness In Terminology

The discussion on “walking in the light” has called my attention to the need for careful attention in defining our terms. For example, one says, “‘Walking in the light’ does not describe a life of sinless perfection. A man commits sins while ‘walking in the light.”‘ I agree that “walking in the light” describes a general lifestyle – a lifestyle such as displayed by the apostle Peter. I have no hesitancy in saying that Peter, “walked in the light.”

However, then the latter statement is added: “a man commits sin while ‘walking in the light.”‘ Tell me what you mean by your phrase “walking in the light” and I will tell you whether or not I agree with the statement. I agree that a man whose general character is that of faithfulness may occasionally commit sin. However, his sin is an act of darkness, not of light. The word “light” is used in opposition to “darkness.” In the “light” there is no sin. In order to commit sin a man must step out of light and into darkness. Whether such an individual may continue to be described as “walking in the light” or should be described as “walking in darkness” depends upon whether he repents and goes back into the light or persists in his sin. All this seems axiomatic to me and accepted by all brethren.

The trouble comes when someone whose general character might be described as “walking in the light” commits an act of sin (darkness). Some are teaching that this man’s sins are cleansed even as they are committed on the condition that he is generally trying to please God. In this area disagreement exists. We are thankful that brethren have focused and are focusing in on this point and are rejecting the idea that one’s sins are cleansed “even as he sins,” before and without his repentance.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 6, pp. 162-183
March 19, 1987

By Ronny Wade

The Affirmative Refuses To Let Us Know Where He Stands

In my last negative article I begged our brother to tell us in which Lord’s 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 Lord’s 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 Lord’s 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 settled 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 inference” 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 misrepresentation? 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 d6we 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 Lord’s 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 brother’s 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 brother’s cause would have been better served had he dealt 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 today 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 determining 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.” It’s 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 supply 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 you 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.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 151-152
March 5, 1987