Why Only One Cup?

By Randy Tidmore

Introduction:

Many have written about the Lord’s Supper. Obviously, there are various points of controversy or disagreement among religious groups. However, it is alarming to know that one point of disagreement among our brethren in Christ is the one that titles this study: Why only one cup?

I say that it is alarming because there is no controversy over what the Holy Scriptures say on the subject, but rather over the necessity to practice what is said. When we think that this could be a problem among brethren, who claim “to speak where the Bible speaks, and to be silent where the Bible is silent,” it is incredible. However, since this is the case, and because true Christians are to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have,” (1 Peter 3:15), we find ourselves needing to answer the question: Why only one cup?

First we need to establish what the cup is. If we were dealing with children or unbiased adults, we could skip this step. A child knows that a cup is a cup. However, there are some adults, mature in the faith, very intelligent, and well trained, who find this point difficult. For them we need to define the cup.

What is the cup?

Definition

The cup is the utensil that Jesus Christ used, when He instituted His supper, to contain the fruit of the vine. “Cup” is the translation of potérion (Greek). For the definition of potérion, we read what some Bible dictionaries say.

W. E. Vine says:

POTÉRION, a diminutive of potér, denotes, primarily, a drinking vessel; hence, a cup (a) literal, as… The cup of blessing, I Cor. 10:16… (b) figurative, …in the N. T. it is used most frequently of the sufferings of Christ, Matt. 20:22, 23; 26:39; Mark 10:38, 39; 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11; also of the evil deeds of Babylon, Rev. 14:10….

Joseph H. Thayer, says:

POTÉRION …a cup, a drinking vessel…

So a cup is simply a cup, a drinking vessel. Sometimes it is used literally and sometimes it is used figuratively. How do we know which?

Literal or figure of speech?

E. W. Bullinger says:

It may be asked, ” How are we to know, then, when words are to be taken in their simple, original form (i.e., literally), and when they are to be taken in some other and peculiar form (i.e., as a Figure)?” The answer is that, whenever and wherever it is possible, the words of Scripture are to be understood literally, but when a statement appears to be contrary to our experience, or to known fact, or revealed truth; or seems to be at variance with the general teaching of the Scriptures, then we may reasonably expect that some figure is employed. (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. XV)

And:

No one is at liberty to exercise any arbitrary power in their use. All that art can do is to ascertain the laws to which nature has subjected them. There is no room for private opinion, neither can speculation concerning them have any authority. It is not open to any one to say of this or that word or sentence, “This is a figure,” according to his own fancy, or to suit his own purpose. We are dealing with a science whose laws and their workings are known. If a word or words be a figure, then that figure can be named, and described. It is used for a definite purpose and with a specific object. (Ibid. p. XI)

D. R. Dungan says:

Sec. 50. Rules by which the meaning of words shall be ascertained.

Rule 1. All words are to be understood in their literal sense, unless the evident meaning of the context forbids.

Rule 2. Commands generally, and ordinances always are to be understood in a literal sense. (Hermeneutics, p. 184)

Sec. 51. How can we know figurative language? (Ibid. p. 195)

Rule 8. It must be remembered that figures are not always used with the same meaning. (Ibid. p. 216)

First then, we should accept the words of the Bible in a literal sense. Before we decide that a word or a passage is figurative, we should make sure that the context demands it, or that the context prohibits a literal interpretation.

Definition of three figures of speech

In the Word of God, the Lord used three figures of speech when He instituted His supper. They are metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche. In his book Claves De Interpretación (Keys to Bible Interpretation), Tomás de la Fuente gives the following simple definitions of these figures of speech. (The translation to English is mine – R.T.) He says:

Metaphor

This figure indicates the similarity between two very different things, declaring that one of them is the other. (p. 86)

Metonymy

Metonymy is the use of a word in the place of another, suggested by the first one. When the writer puts the effect of an action for its cause, or uses the symbol or sign for the actual thing, he uses metonymy. (p. 86)

Note: E. W. Bullinger classifies the metonymy used in the Lord’s Supper as: “The container for the contents. (P.539 & 577)

Synecdoche

Synecdoche occurs when the writer points out a part for the whole, or the whole for a part. (p. 86)

It is interesting what Tomás de la Fuente says with regards to the use of a word in different ways or different figures of speech. He says: (Translation – R.T.)

There are synecdoches in 1 Corinthians 11:27 and Luke 2:1. But in these same texts there are metonymies also. These texts are examples of the problem of classifying literary figures.

In 1 Corinthians 11:27 Paul says, “Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup…” The full cup is used here for the small amount that the communicant drinks; this is the synecdoche. But the cup is put here for its contents, the wine. This is the metonymy. (p. 87)

This completely harmonizes with what D. R. Dungan said in rule 8, of section 51: “It must be remembered that figures are not always used with the same meaning.”

Now, we can examine the use of the word “cup” in the texts concerning the Lord’s Supper, and apply these rules in order to understand exactly what the Lord meant.

Analyzing the texts

Key to abbreviations of the versions used: King James Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJV), New International Version (NIV), Goodspeed (G), The New English Bible (NEB), Williams (W), Confraternity Version [From the Latin Vulgate] (CV).

First phrase:

Matthew

And he took the cup (KJV)

Then He took the cup (NKJV)

Then he took the cup (NIV)

And he took the wine-cup (G)

The he took a cup (NEB)

He also took the cup of wine (W)

And taking a cup (CV)

Mark

And he took the cup (KJV)

Then He took the cup (NKJV)

Then he took the cup (NIV)

And he took the wine cup (G)

Then he took a cup (NEB)

He also took the cup of wine (W)

And taking a cup (CV)

Luke

And he took the cup (KJV)

Then He took the cup (NKJV)

After taking the cup (NIV)

And when he was handed a cup (G)

Then he took a cup (NEB)

Then He received a cup of wine (W)

And having taken a cup (CV)

1 Corinthians

Also (he took) the cup (KJV)

(He) also (took) the cup (NKJV)

He took the cup (NIV)

He took the cup (G)

He took the cup (NEB)

He took the cup of wine (W)

Also the cup (CV)

We should ask ourselves if there is a reason not to accept “cup” here as a literal cup. Is it possible to take a literal cup in one’s hands? Certainly it is.

Is a part placed for the whole? Yes. By the context, we know that it was not an empty cup, but that it contained the fruit of the vine. So then the figure would be synecdoche. Jesus took in his hands a cup (a literal, drinking vessel) that contained literal fruit of the vine.

Second Phrase:

Matthew

Gave thanks, and gave (it) to them (KJV)

Gave thanks and gave (it) to them (NKJV)

Gave thanks and offered it to them (NIV)

Gave thanks and gave it to them (G)

Having offered thanks to God he gave it to them (NEB)

Gave thanks; then He gave it to them (W)

He gave thanks and gave it to them (CV)

Mark

When he had given thanks, he gave (it) to them (KJV)

When He had given thanks He gave (it) to them (NKJV)

Gave thanks and offered it to them (NIV)

Gave thanks and gave it to them (G)

Having offered thanks to God he gave it to them (NEB)

Gave thanks and gave it to them (W)

And giving thanks, he gave it to them (CV)

Luke

Gave thanks, and said, take this (KJV)

Gave thanks, and said, Take this (NKJV)

Gave thanks and said, Take this (NIV)

He thanked God, and said, Take this (G)

After giving thanks he said, Take this (NEB)

Gave thanks, and said, Take this (W)

He gave thanks and said, Take this (CV)

1 Corinthians Omitted

This does not constitute any impossibility if taken literally. Jesus gave his disciples that which he had taken in his hands, a cup containing fruit of the vine.

“This” refers to that which he had taken in his hands, a literal cup, which contained literal fruit of the vine. Matthew and Mark say that he gave it to them, Luke gives the Lord’s command to receive it.

Third Phrase:

Matthew

Drink ye all of it (KJV)

Drink from it, all of you (NKJV)

Drink from it, all of you (NIV)

You must all drink from it (G)

Drink from it all of you (NEB)

All of you drink some of it (W)

All of you drink of this (CV)

Mark

They all drank from it (KJV)

They all drank from it (NKJV)

They all drank from it (NIV)

They all drank from it (G)

They all drank from it (NEB)

And they all drank some of it (W)

They all drank of it (CV)

Luke

Divide (it) among yourselves (KJV)

Divide (it) among yourselves (NKJV)

Divide it among you (NIV)

Share it among you (G)

Share it among yourselves (NEB)

Share it among you (W)

And share it among you (CV)

1 Corinthians Omitted

In the same way, this constitutes no impossibility; therefore it is literal. Jesus commanded them to drink from the cup, which he had taken in his hands and given to them, a cup that contained fruit of the vine.

Luke is the same as Matthew and Mark with the exception of the use of the word “divide” or “share,” which is not as specific as “drink.” However, we know that they divided or shared the cup by drinking from it, according to Mark. Matthew and Luke give the command, Mark shows that they obeyed.

Fourth Phrase:

Matthew

This is my blood of the new testament (KJV)

This is My blood of the new covenant (NKJV)

This is my blood of the covenant (NIV)

This is my blood which ratifies the agreement (G)

This is my blood, the blood of the covenant (NEB)

This is my blood which ratifies the covenant (W)

This is my blood of the new covenant (CV)

Mark

This is my blood of the new covenant (KJV)

This is My blood of the new covenant (NKJV)

This is my blood of the covenant (NIV)

This is my blood which ratifies the agreement (G)

This is my blood of the covenant (NEB)

This is my blood which ratifies the covenant (W)

This is my blood of the new covenant (CV)

Luke

This cup (is) the new testament in my blood (KJV)

This cup (is) the new covenant in My blood (NKJV)

This cup is the new covenant in my blood (NIV)

This cup of wine is the new covenant to be ratified by my blood (W)

This cup is the new covenant in my blood (CV)

1 Corinthians

This cup is the new testament in my blood (KJV)

This cup is the new covenant in My blood (NKJV)

This cup is the new covenant in by blood (NIV)

This cup is the new agreement ratified by my blood (G)

This cup is the new covenant sealed by my blood (NEB)

This cup is the new covenant ratified by my blood (W)

This cup is the new covenant in my blood (CV)

(Marginal note) “The new covenant: Sacrificial blood sealed the old covenant; cf. Ex. 24,8. This is the sacrificial blood that makes effective the new order established by God.” (CV)

We know that what he had in his hands was not his literal blood. In the same way, we know that a cup is not literally a testament. Therefore, we are forced to accept this as a figure of speech.

The figure is a metaphor. “This,” (of Matthew and Mark) refers to all that he had taken in his hands, a literal cup that contained literal fruit of the vine, two physical inseparable things that represent two inseparable spiritual things (the blood and the testament). Matthew and Mark give the picture from the point of the blood that confirmed the New Testament. Luke and Paul give the picture from the point of the New Testament that was confirmed by the blood of Christ.

The cup, when it contains the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s supper, represents the New Testament confirmed by the blood of Christ. The fruit of the vine, when contained in the cup in the Lord’s supper represents the blood of Christ that confirmed the New Testament. Two literal things (the cup and the fruit of the vine) represent two spiritual things (the blood of Christ and the New Testament).

Fifth Phrase:

Matthew, Mark, & Luke Omitted

1 Corinthians

Drink (it); drink this cup; drink (this) cup; drink of (that) cup (KJV)

Drink (it); drink this cup; drink of the cup (NKJV)

Drink this cup; drinks the cup; drinks of the cup (NIV)

Drink it; drink from the cup; drinks from the Lord’s cup (G)

Drink it; drink the cup; drinks the cup; drinking from the cup (NEB)

Drink it; drink from this cup; drinks from the Lord’s cup (W)

Drink it; drink the cup; drinks the cup; drink of the cup (CV)

We know that it is impossible to literally drink a cup, therefore, “Drink it” has to be a figure of speech. The figure is metonymy, “the container named referring to the contents.” How does one drink a cup? By drinking that which is contained in a cup. However, in order to say that one “drank a cup,” with reference to the contents, it could only have been the contents of a cup, and not the contents of anything else (such as a pitcher, thermos, or barrel, or even “cups”). “Cup” is the container named. It is not the contents, not even when it refers to the contents.

What does the Bible teach?

The Bible teaches in the following ways:

1. Explicit or Direct command.

When God told Noah to build an ark out “gopher wood” (Genesis 6:14), Noah understood, that in order to do the Lord’s will, he had to build the ark out of gopher wood. Why did he understand it that way? God had given him a direct command. In the same way, the New Testament contains direct commands for us today.

2. Implicit or Necessary inference.

When Philip preached the gospel of Christ to the Ethiopian eunuch, the eunuch asked him, “What hinders me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:35-40). This question necessarily infers that baptism is a part of the gospel.

3. Approved examples.

The Bible tells us what we should do in order to please God, giving us certain approved examples of things that pleased Him before, under the same law of Christ. For example, the church in the first century, under the direction of the apostles of Jesus, came together on the first day of the week, Sunday, in order to break bread. If we follow this example of an action approved by the apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit, we will also please God.

Our motto to follow as we study the Bible should be, Let us speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent (1 Peter 4:11). We can only obey and teach as doctrine that which the Bible authorizes by way of direct command, necessary inference and approved example.

Does the Bible teach “one cup?”

Yes, the Bible teaches only one cup, as we will show by the following.

1. Direct command.

  • “Drink from it, all of you” (Matthew 26:27).
  • “This do . . .in memory of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25).

This last verse tells us what we are to do, and how we are to do it: (1) do what he did (2) and do it in his memory.

How many cups did Jesus take in his hands? How many did he give to the disciples, saying, “Drink from it, all of you?” If we obey the command “This do,” how many cups will we use?

2. Necessary inference.

  • “This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25).
  • Since there is only one New Testament, it is necessary to infer that there should be only one cup, which represents it.

3. Approved example.

Matthew, Mark and Luke give us the historical account of the institution of the Lord’s supper. Paul not only gives us certain commands concerning the supper, but also gives us an approved example of the way the first Christians carried out those commands. He prefaced his teaching about the supper, saying, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you” (1 Corinthians 11:23). This makes clear that his example was not simply one way of many to observe the supper, but that it was an inspired example. Sometimes, it is debatable whether an example is to be followed, or if the Scriptures are simply relating the succession of events, but it is not that way when the Scriptures clearly state that it was received from the Lord. Paul also said, “Be imitators of me, as I also imitate Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).

Other points to consider

Paul emphasized the importance of following his examples.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. (NKJV)

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (NKJV)

Philippians 4:9 The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you. (NKJV)

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (NKJV)

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. (NKJV)

The Lord emphasized the importance of following God’s Word.

  • Jesus Christ commanded his apostles:

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (NKJV)

  • Paul said that he had

Acts 20:26-27 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. (NKJV)

  • The Lord revealed this principle to the apostle John.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (NKJV)

  • Christ explained to the Samaritan woman:

John 4:23-24 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (NKJV)

  • The Lord made clear that God simply will not accept worship that does not conform to His Word. He warned:

Matthew 15:8-9 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” (NKJV)

Some objections

1. “The cup is the fruit of the vine.”

Answer: The cup is not the fruit of the vine. Sometimes the cup is named with reference to the fruit of the vine, but the cup never becomes the fruit of the vine. Anyone who thinks so should try asking for fruit of the vine that way when they need to buy it. “Do you have small bottles of cup?” The cup is not the fruit of the vine.

Not only this, but “cup” can only be named with reference to the fruit of the vine when that fruit of the vine is contained in a cup. If it were contained in a bottle, a bottle would have to be named. If it were in a pitcher, a pitcher would have to be named, etc. The reason is that the container is named, with reference to the contents.

Remembered that, according to the rules of hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) it is an error to say that because a word was used figuratively once, it is always used that way.

2. “It would have been impossible to use only one cup in Jerusalem.” (Or, huge congregations)

Answer: It would not have been impossible in Jerusalem. There is no reason to think that all Christians in that city made up only one congregation. Although they met daily in the temple, we know that they did not celebrate the Lord’s supper there. The Jews would never have permitted that! If they did not observe the supper there, then where? In their homes (Acts 2:46).

If we find ourselves in a situation that makes obedience to a command of God impossible, we must change the situation, not God’s command!

3. “Jesus used two cups.” (Or “divide it” in Luke’s account)

Answer: It is debatable whether the cup of Luke 22:17 has anything to do with the Lord’s supper. Many commentaries say that it pertains to the Passover instead of the supper. Even if it refers to the Lord’s supper, the contents of the cup can be divided by all drinking from the cup. “Divide” is the only word in Luke’s account that can correspond to the word “drink” in Matthew and Mark’s accounts. Therefore, we must conclude that “divide” means “drink” in Luke’s account.

4. “The Bible does not say that we “must” use only one cup.” (Or, making laws–see chart)

Answer: Neither does the Bible say that we “must” celebrate the Lord’s supper “every” first day of the week, nor that we “must” use only unleavened bread, nor that we “must” use only fruit of the vine. However, the Bible does teach these things (see the study on how the Bible teaches).

If these things can be understood and accepted as truths, without thinking someone is making laws, then why can’t we understand the cup in the same way? They are parallels.

5. “The cup is insignificant or incidental.” (Or song books, lights, buildings, upper rooms, benches, etc.)

Answer: This is the same argument that some brethren use to defend their instruments of music in their worship services. For brethren that refuse the instrument but accept the use of cups, this is an “empty argument” when used to defend musical instruments. However, when they try to defend their cups, it becomes a “powerful argument.”

According to the Bible, the cup represents the New Covenant. If that is true, (and it is) then one can not truthfully say that it is insignificant.

6. “The cup is physical, not spiritual.”

Answer: This is interesting. The bread and the fruit of the vine are also “physical, not spiritual.” They represent something spiritual. It is the same way with the cup. The “physical cup” represents the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25).

7. “You are worshipping the cup.”

Answer: Nonsense! The Bible places as much emphasis on the cup as on the bread and on the fruit of the vine. For that reason, so do we. However, giving due emphasis to a thing is not equivalent to worshipping that thing. If it were, we would be worshipping the bread and the fruit of the vine, also. The three stand or fall together.

8. “It is not sanitary to drink after others.” (Or, the danger of contagious diseases)

Answer: It is not known with any certainty, that there is any danger in participating in the Lord’s supper with only one cup. According to the experiences of all preachers and leaders around the world that use only one cup, there is not one case of anyone that has become sick from a disease they contacted by participating in the Lord’s supper.

Furthermore, it was the “Great Physician” and creator of “all things” who instituted the “Lord’s Supper.” If Christ created the diseases, and He is the best “Physician,” if it were “dangerous” He would have known it. He still chose to institute His supper with only one cup. We should follow His command to “Do this” just like He instituted it, with only one cup.

9. “The fruit of the vine is the most important.”

Answer: Which is more important, the blood or the New Covenant? They are equal. Neither, alone, would retain its value (Hebrews 9:22; Galatians 2:21). If this is accepted, then it must also be accepted that the fruit of the vine (which represents the blood) and the cup (which represents the New Covenant) are also equal in importance.

10. “Then we must use the same cup that Jesus used.”

Answer: If that were so, we would also have to use the same bread that He ate, and the same fruit of the vine that He drank. We know that would be absurd. Let us obey His command by following His example, without changing it.

11. “You can’t drink a literal cup.”

Answer: One drinks a cup by drinking what the cup contains. However, one can only drink a “cup” by drinking that which is contained in a cup. The “container” is named with reference to the thing contained. If cups were used, one would have to say, “Drink the cups.” IT MUST BE REMEMBERED the container (or containers) is (are) named (specifically) even when referring to the contents.

12. “Then there must be only one cup for the whole world, not just for each congregation.”

Answer: On the world level the church does nothing, including observe the Lord’s supper. Only on the congregational level does the church assemble, worship and function. If it were not so, there would be a problem for the teaching. 1 Corinthians 14:31 says, “For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.” (NIV) On the congregational level we can easily obey this command. How could we obey it on the universal level? We could not!

13. “If the cup falls and breaks…” (or, if someone drinks it all, etc.)

Answer: One would have to begin again so that all could drink from the same cup. If such an “accident” should constitute the use of “two” cups in the supper, it must be recognized that neither “accidents” nor human “traditions” constitute authorized reasons to change the commandments of God.

The Bible plainly condemns murder. However, if one were to kill someone in a car accident, would he be guilty of murder? Certainly there would be the possibility of him being innocent even though he had killed someone. This most certainly would not void the Bible’s teaching against taking the life of another. One could not say, therefore, that he could take his gun and kill anyone he wishes, and still be innocent. An exception or an accident does not change the rule or commandment.

14. “If the cup is the New Testament, there are many copies of the New Testament.”

Answer: The key word here is “copy.” The “copies” of the New Testament are not the New Testament, nor do they indicate many new testaments. There is only one New Testament.

Furthermore, the Bible DOES NOT say that the cup is (represents) a “copy” of the New Testament, but the New Testament itself. We do not have “various” or “many” testaments. Only one was confirmed with the blood of Christ. So, the one cup represents the one New Testament.

15. “The communion is between the Christian and Christ, not between Christians.”

Answer: No. The communion is between brethren and the body and blood of Christ. We have communion with Christ, but we also have communion with each other. Notice 1 Corinthians 10:16-17: “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” (NIV) “…We, who are many, are one body…” Why? “…For we all partake of the one loaf.”

16. “The cup of suffering.”

Answer: The cup (potérion) of suffering has nothing to do with the “cup of the Lord” in the Lord’s supper. There was neither a literal cup, nor literal contents. The cup of suffering signified all that was going to happen to him from then until his resurrection. Jesus used other terms, symbolic of his suffering as well, such as: his “hour” (Mark 14:35), and “baptism” (Mark 10:38, 39).

In this last passage, both things, “cup” (potérion) and “baptism” were symbols of his suffering. There was neither a literal cup, nor a literal content. One could not say, therefore, that there is not a literal cup (potérion) in the Lord’s supper. The cup of suffering had nothing to do with the Lord’s supper. Furthermore, if the symbolical use in Mark 10:38,39 indicated that there is not a literal cup in the supper, by the same reasoning, it would indicate that there is not a literal baptism in the plan of salvation. There is an axiom that says, “That, which proves too much, proves nothing.”

17. “A pattern for the cup”

Answer: No. It is enough to say “cup” (potérion), a cup, a drinking vessel. A wooden cup, or a glass cup, or a cup made of another material would not violate the term “cup,” but the term “cups” does violate the term “cup.”

The style doesn’t matter, whether it has one handle, two handles, or no handle at all. The important thing is that it is a cup, or a drinking vessel and that it is only “one,” just as the Bible says.

Conclusion

It would be impossible to mention every objection or argument that one might face. Each time one argument is answered another one is invented. I hope that these are sufficient to help prepare the teacher or leader for defending against such spiritual attacks.

Remember that one argument that you will never have to answer is “The Bible says cups.”

Featuring Recent Posts Wordpress Widget development by YD