Spurgeon's Cigar

The following is by Angelus de Silentio: Paedo and Teeto are invited to a debate about the sacraments. This is a transcription of what transpired: Moderator: Good morning all. Thanks for coming to Sacrapalooza here at the Protestant Palace Hotel, where all things sacramental are discussed, debated, exegeted, and then we all go back to doing whatever we did before we got together, just armed with more ammo (ordinance, if you will) to fire at the other guy.  Just kidding, we're here to edify. That is, we're here to make you feel like Cousin Eddie from Christmas Vacation.  I'm pleased to introduce two prominent, world renowned theologians. From France, we have Paedo Baptiste. And from Argentina, Teeto Taler.  A big round of applause for Paedo and Teeto! Paedo: Thank you. Thank you. I know what you're going to say----A Frenchman up against a blond guy from Argentina. You're thinking the Maginot Line is up here by the dais.

A. Introduction Three issues are relevant to whether a congregant ought to have the option of eating broken bread and drinking wine at communion: 1.             Whether Jesus intentionally chose broken bread and wine, to the exclusion of other possible elements, to represent His body and blood. 2.             Whether churches have an obligation to preserve the sacrament of communion as Christ intended it to be practiced. 3.             Whether the Bible conveys authority to churches to materially and substantially alter a sacrament instituted by Christ. I’ll not patronize the reader by writing “The Biblical Case for Using Broken Bread and Wine at Communion.” The idea that Jesus used anything other than broken bread and wine at the Last Supper is risible, and no one I know clings to the notion that Jesus and the apostles ate crackers and consumed grape juice that evening. In the law we deal with something called “the burden of proof.” I