Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord's Supper/Eucharist?

[Anna_Scott]

Rather than derail this thread, I decided to reopen the dead thread I opened a month or so ago.

AP,
Great suggestion; but couldn’t get the link to work. Could you post the Thread title and link again?

I did open the door for the authority issue. As I’m glancing through these posts, I don’t want the issue of the Eucharist and Real Presence to get lost.

I still want to go back through the thread and answer some of the Catholic posts. I’ve been holding off a bit, hoping our Baptist friends would accept the invitation to address the Scriptures that cause consideration of the Real Presence in the Lord’s Supper.

AmateurPianist, looks like we are the only two Protestants in the discussion. Still hoping Baptist will post.

I will have to get back to this Thread, tomorrow. Need some rest tonight.

Peace to all,
Anna

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

AP,
Great suggestion; but couldn’t get the link to work. Could you post the Thread title and link again?

I did open the door for the authority issue. As I’m glancing through these posts, I don’t want the issue of the Eucharist and Real Presence to get lost.

I still want to go back through the thread and answer some of the Catholic posts. I’ve been holding off a bit, hoping our Baptist friends would accept the invitation to address the Scriptures that cause consideration of the Real Presence in the Lord’s Supper.

AmateurPianist, looks like we are the only two Protestants in the discussion. Still hoping Baptist will post.

I will have to get back to this Thread, tomorrow. Need some rest tonight.

Peace to all,
Anna

Try this link forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=411773&page=14 :takeoff:

 

[AmateurPianist]

AP,
Great suggestion; but couldn’t get the link to work. Could you post the Thread title and link again?

I did open the door for the authority issue. As I’m glancing through these posts, I don’t want the issue of the Eucharist and Real Presence to get lost.

I still want to go back through the thread and answer some of the Catholic posts. I’ve been holding off a bit, hoping our Baptist friends would accept the invitation to address the Scriptures that cause consideration of the Real Presence in the Lord’s Supper.

AmateurPianist, looks like we are the only two Protestants in the discussion. Still hoping Baptist will post.

I will have to get back to this Thread, tomorrow. Need some rest tonight.

Peace to all,
Anna

Hmm…worked for me. Anyway it is the one that says “Why says one organization is the one true church”

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hmm…worked for me. Anyway it is the one that says “Why says one organization is the one true church”

Try this link forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=411773&page=14 :takeoff:

Got it. Thanks.

AP, that is a very interesting Thread. Maybe it will take off now. I have some thoughts I’d like to post.

I’ve got a number of posts I really want to answer here today. Getting ready for Church (Episcopal). Be back later.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Partial Response to hillsteven’s Post #192

. . . . .One other verse of scripture that points to the nature of the Eucharist as true sacrifice can actually be found in the Old Testament in the book of Malachi, Chapter 1:

**10: **Oh, that one among you would shut the temple gates to keep you from kindling fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the **LORD of hosts; neither will I accept any sacrifice from your hands.
11: ** For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

. . . .relevant to the question of whether or not Scripture points to the Eucharist…)

I included verse 10 primarily for context. Malachi is talking to the Jews at a time right after their return from exile in Babylon. In this verse, the author (unknown, the word “Malachi” means “My Messenger”, so was essentially a pseudonym.) is chastising them for offering blemished sacrifices.

In verse 11, we see the prophet conveying God’s message, that His name is/will be great among the nations. In context, we must recognize that to Jews, all other nations were Gentiles. This insight is why the Church Fathers saw, and indeed the Church today sees, this verse as a relevant prophecy. Substituting “Gentiles” in place of “nations” and for clarity’s sake, the referential article “they”, we could safely re-write this to say:

“For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the Gentiles; And everywhere [the] Gentiles bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the Gentiles, says the LORD of hosts.”

“Pure offering” could easily refer to Christ; or refer to “pure offering” of the heart, as opposed to an attempt to rob God with offerings of blemished sacrifices.

Agreed, O.T. prophecies, refer to issues of their day & foreshadow the coming of Messiah. Perhaps “pure offering” refers to Christ & the Eucharist.

Isaiah 56 says God will accept burnt-offerings and sacrifices from Foreigners (Gentiles,) who join themselves to the Lord, and hold fast to His Covenant.

Sounds like “end of days” prophecy. Do you see evidence of the Eucharist in this prophecy? Similarities with Malachi?

**Isaiah 56 (NRSV-AE): **Thus says the Lord:
6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it,
and hold fast my covenant—

7 these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.

8 Thus says the Lord God,
who gathers the outcasts of Israel,
I will gather others to them
besides those already gathered.*

Now, given that the prophet is speaking to the Jewish Priests, it is interesting (and prophetic) that he would show the Gentiles as bringing sacrifice to the LORD. First, in order to bring sacrifice to the LORD, you must have a priest. How could it possibly be that the Gentiles would have priests? What other reason would there BE for a religion to even have priests, if not to offer sacrifice?

Another role of priest, apart from sacrifice:

Malachi 2 (NRSV-AE):
6 True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in integrity and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. 7 For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

While Protestants may rail against the Catholic Church for the presence of priests, we must recognize the real fact that we see priests as early in the history of the Church as the Apostolic Age, even in the Scriptures! Though the term we see in the Bible is “presbyter”, there were, even in the Scriptures, three levels of ecclesiastic rank, Bishops, priests, and deacons. That tradition has been maintained to the current day.

NT writings do confirm service as Bishops, Priests, and Deacons:

Philippians 1: ** 1Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers (or bishops; Greek episkopoi)** and deacons:[c] (or servants, or ministers; Greek diakonoi) 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

Romans 15: 15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Could be a change in Priestly role, no longer offering sacrifices; but in service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

Romans 12 (ESV): 1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to **present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. **2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

I am not ruling out the Eucharist. Still more to say. Much meat in your post.

Anna

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

(IHOT+) כיH3588 For ממזרחH4217 from the rising שׁמשׁH8121 of the sun ועדH5704 even unto מבואוH935 גדולH1419 great שׁמיH8034 of the same my name בגויםH1471 among the Gentiles; ובכלH3605 and in every מקוםH4725 place מקטרH6999 incense מגשׁH5066 offered לשׁמיH8034 unto my name, ומנחהH4503 offering: טהורהH2889 and a pure כיH3588 for גדולH1419 great שׁמיH8034 my name בגויםH1471 among the heathen, אמרH559 saith יהוהH3068 the LORD צבאות׃H6635 of hosts.

The word for oblation:

H4503
מנחה
minchâh
min-khaw’
From an unused root meaning to apportion, that is, bestow; a donation; euphemistically tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary): - gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice.**

**English definition:

**ob·la·tion (-blshn, -bl-)
n.

1. The act of offering something, such as worship or thanks, to a deity.
2. Oblation
   a. The act of offering the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
   b. Something offered, especially the bread and wine of the Eucharist.**
3. A charitable offering or gift.**

 

[Anna_Scott]

hillsteven,

I did find this Catholic article that supports the ideas you presented in Post #192

**Malachias (Malachi)
( Hebrew Mál’akhî ), one of the twelve minor prophets.

IV. IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOK**

"Certain authors, while admitting the Messianic character of the passage, think that it should be interpreted not of a sacrifice in the strict sense of the word, but of a purely spiritual form of devotion.

However, the terms employed in v. 11 express the idea of a sacrifice in the strict sense. Moreover, according to the context, the censured sacrifices were not considered impure in their quality of material sacrifices, but on account of the defects with which the victims were affected; it is consequently not on account of an opposition to material sacrifices that the offering spoken of in v. 11 is pure.

It is an altogether different question whether or not the text of Malachias alone permits one to determine in a certain measure the exact form of the new sacrifice. A large number of Catholic exegetes believe themselves justified in concluding, from the use of the** term minhah in v. 11, that the prophet desired formally to signify an unbloody sacrifice**.

The writer of the present article finds it so much the more difficult to decide on this question, as the word minhah is several times employed by Malachias to signify sacrifice in the generic sense (i, 13; ii, 12, 13; iii, 3, 4, and in all probability, i, 10). For the rest, the event has shown how the prophecy was to be realized. **It is of the Eucharistic sacrifice that Christian antiquity has interpreted the passage of Malachias **(cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, 1)."

Link: catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7428

 

[Anna_Scott]

**Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

(IHOT+) כיH3588 For ממזרחH4217 from the rising שׁמשׁH8121 of the sun ועדH5704 even unto מבואוH935 גדולH1419 great שׁמיH8034 of the same my name בגויםH1471 among the Gentiles; ובכלH3605 and in every מקוםH4725 place מקטרH6999 incense מגשׁH5066 offered לשׁמיH8034 unto my name, ומנחהH4503 offering: טהורהH2889 and a pure כיH3588 for גדולH1419 great שׁמיH8034 my name בגויםH1471 among the heathen, אמרH559 saith יהוהH3068 the LORD צבאות׃H6635 of hosts.

The word for oblation:

H4503
מנחה
minchâh
min-khaw’
From an unused root meaning to apportion, that is, bestow; a donation; euphemistically tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary): - gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice.**

**English definition:

**ob·la·tion (-blshn, -bl-)
n.

1. The act of offering something, such as worship or thanks, to a deity.
2. Oblation
   a. The act of offering the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
   b. Something offered, especially the bread and wine of the Eucharist.****
3. A charitable offering or gift.

Prodigal Son1,

Thanks for posting this. I just read about “oblation” this afternoon.

Anna

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1,

Thanks for posting this. I just read about “oblation” this afternoon.

Anna

Here’s the Haydock Commentary (from my computer Bible program):

Mal 1:11 Sacrifice. Protestant, “incense.” (Haydock) — Clean oblation. The precious body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice. (Challoner) — This is denoted by the very word mincha, the offering of flour and wine. (Calmet) See St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; St. Irenæus, Against Heresies iv. 32.; St. Augustine, City of God xviii. 35.) — “We pollute this bread, that is the body of Christ, when we approach the altar unworthily.” (St. Jerome v. 7.) — This sacrifice is clean. (Council of Trent, session xxii. chap. i.) (Menochius) — It is offered daily throughout the world. The Jews see the completion of this prediction, and are vexed; they strive to elude its force. Though enemies, they bear about these proofs of our faith, and of their own condemnation. (Calmet) — God not only changed his people, but instituted a better sacrifice. Instead of the former needy elements, (Galatians iv.) which were often defiled by the sins of the offerers, He instituted the sacrifice of his own Body and Blood, under the appearance of bread and wine, as St. Chrysostom (in Psalm xcv.), Theodoret, &c., prove against all opponents. A sacrifice different from any offered as many have demonstrated. (Worthington) — Christ’s bloody sacrifice on the cross was performed on Calvary, and not among the Gentiles. What sacrifice can Protestants now produce? (Haydock)

 

[Anna_Scott]

I have been very disappointed in the lack of Baptist response to our Thread Question: Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord’s Supper/Eucharist?

However, perhaps I can understand the silence. The following is taken from the SBC Faith and Message. Notice the Scripture passages quoted to support beliefs regarding the Lord’s Supper. John Chapter 6 is nowhere to be found.

In all my years attending Southern Baptist Churches, I do not recall John 6 ever being quoted or taught regarding the Lord’s Supper.

Southern Baptist Convention
The Baptist Faith and Message

VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
“The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”

Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 10:21; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

Link: sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

I cannot vouch for the following website, and I really do not know Wyman Richardson. I’m posting his commentary, because it really sheds light on the minimal role of the Lord’s Supper in Southern Baptist Churches, at least that was the case in my years as a Baptist:

The Baptist Way: Interview with Dr. Wyman Richardson on Baptists, The Lord’s Supper, Church Discipline and Tradition
June 7, 2007 by iMonk

Wyman Richardson has served as the pastor of First Baptist Church in Dawson, Georgia, since 2002. He previously pastored churches in Woodstock, GA, and Burneyville, OK. He is the author of Walking Together: A Congregational Reflection on Biblical Church Discipline,

“5. The Baptist version of the Lord’s Supper is a practically invisible doctrine today. In fact, many younger, theologically astute Southern Baptists openly embrace the Calvinistic view of the Lord’s Supper. What do we need to be teaching about the Lord’s Supper (and include your views on how the frequency of the LS figures into that teaching.)

. . . . .It seems to me that our major errors as Baptists when it comes to the Supper are an unchecked Enlightenment-driven skeptical reductionism, a grotesque neglect in terms of the infrequency of our observance, an uncritical acquiescence to a kind of hyper-Zwinglianism, a constant articulation of what we believe the Supper is not, and a suspicion and ignorance of how spirituality and physicality interact in worship.

. . . .Our anti-liturgicalism, our naïve elevation of the power of information alone to transform the Christian’s life (which is a kind of neo-gnosticism) apart from the interaction of the Christian with various forms and physical articulations of this information through worship, and our failure to draw all of the senses into Christian worship has really hindered our approach to the Supper.

. . . . .I am opposed to the denigration of the symbol to a meaningless rite. Furthermore, there’s some fascinating work being done right now in calling Baptists to a measured sacramentalism. I do not believe the language of “sacrament” is inappropriate for Baptists, though I do believe we must carefully delineate what we mean. The Lord’s Supper must regain a place of prominence in Baptist life.”

internetmonk.com/archive/the-baptist-way-interview-with-dr-wyman-richardson-on-baptists-the-lords-supper-church-discipline-and-tradition

I welcome all comments. Would love to hear from Baptist Forum Members.
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Here’s the Haydock Commentary (from my computer Bible program):

Thank you Prodigal!

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Cont Response-hillsteven Post #192–Malachi 1:10-11

Malachi 1: 11For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

. . . . .Now, given that the prophet is speaking to the Jewish Priests, it is interesting (and prophetic) that he would show the Gentiles as bringing sacrifice to the LORD. First, in order to bring sacrifice to the LORD, you must have a priest. How could it possibly be that the Gentiles would have priests? What other reason would there BE for a religion to even have priests, if not to offer sacrifice?

Question: Is the “pure offering” of Malachi 1:11, an offering of the living sacrifice of the body/heart of the Gentile Christian; or the Eucharistic Sacrifice administered by Priests of the Catholic Church?

This article does, at least, mention the possibility of a “purely spiritual form of devotion.”

**Malachias (Malachi)
( Hebrew Mál’akhî ), one of the twelve minor prophets.

IV. IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOK**
“Certain authors, while admitting the Messianic character of the passage, think that it should be interpreted not of a sacrifice in the strict sense of the word, but of a purely spiritual form of devotion.”
Link: catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7428

. . . .There is no offering that could be more pure than the one our Lord Jesus offered on the Cross at Calvary. In that most pure offering, Jesus was at once High Priest, and Perfect Sacrifice. he remains so at the High Altar of Heaven, as we see in the book of Revelations.

I agree, “no offering that could be more pure than the one our Lord Jesus.” Yet, I’m not entirely convinced that the “pure offering” could only be applied to Christ.

Romans 12, speaks of our bodies as a “living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship,” which supports the possibility of sacrifice as a “purely spiritual form of devotion.”

Romans 12 (ESV): 1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to **present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. **2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

In that most pure offering, Jesus was at once High Priest, and Perfect Sacrifice. he remains so at the High Altar of Heaven, as we see in the book of Revelations. (An interesting side-light would be that this book has the same author as the Gospel of John that has been in such dispute in this thread.)

Offering our bodies as a “living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,” in “spiritual worship,” can only be accomplished through the sacrifice of Christ, who is–as you said, “at once High Priest, and Perfect Sacrifice.”

Christ did arise as a “Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.” It is only through Christ that we are reconciled to God and able to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice; and only through Christ could our sacrifice be called “Holy and acceptable to God.”

If we interpreted “pure offering,” of Malachi, as our bodies offered as living sacrifices; we do have Christ, as the high Priest, offering us to God.

I’m not ruling out the possibility of the pure offering being the Eucharistic Sacrifice. I’m just trying to carefully consider the possibilities, which does speak to my Protestant roots–except for the fact that I am still considering the Catholic view of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. As I said in a previous post, I do acknowledge that the Lord’s Supper is far more than a “symbolic remembrance,” and that there is an element of mystery involved in the “Presence of Christ” during the Sacrament.

Hebrews 7 (NRSV-AE):

17 For it is attested of him,
‘You are a priest for ever,
according to the order of Melchizedek.’

19 (for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God.

20 This was confirmed with an oath; for others who became priests took their office without an oath, 21 but this one became a priest with an oath, because of the one who said to him,

‘The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest for ever” ’—
22 accordingly Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant.

24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. 25 Consequently *he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
**
**Hebrews 7 (NRSV-AE):**26 For it was fitting that we should have such a **high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. **

*27 Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself. **28 For the law appoints as high priests those who are subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.

Hebrews 7:27 tells us Christ offered His Sacrifice “once for all when He offered Himself.” So, I don’t quite understand how this supports transubstantiation. Why would we need to repeatedly consume Christ’s body & blood sacrifice–when He sacrificed Himself once for all?

 

[hillsteven]

Hebrews 7:27 tells us Christ offered His Sacrifice “once for all when He offered Himself.” So, I don’t quite understand how this supports transubstantiation. Why would we need to repeatedly consume Christ’s body & blood sacrifice–when He sacrificed Himself once for all?

This is a common logic trap… it presumes an either/or scenario, while completely ignoring the possibility of an and/both option. Part of this, I think, is that as humans, we are limited in that we only experience time in a linear fashion. God, on the other hand, is everywhere and “everywhen” at once. For God, there is no yesterday, today, tomorrow. For God, all times are now. We see this in Revelations when we see the High Priest offering an unending unbloodied sacrifice. At the Altar, we enter into that sacrifice that happened once for all. We do not re-sacrifice our Lord over and over again, we enter into that one eternal sacrifice.

Sorry for the lack of biblical quotes, I don’t have my Bible handy.

 

[ncgolf]

This is a common logic trap… it presumes an either/or scenario, while completely ignoring the possibility of an and/both option. Part of this, I think, is that as humans, we are limited in that we only experience time in a linear fashion. God, on the other hand, is everywhere and “everywhen” at once. For God, there is no yesterday, today, tomorrow. For God, all times are now. We see this in Revelations when we see the High Priest offering an unending unbloodied sacrifice. At the Altar, we enter into that sacrifice that happened once for all. We do not re-sacrifice our Lord over and over again, we enter into that one eternal sacrifice.

Sorry for the lack of biblical quotes, I don’t have my Bible handy.

Yes, this reality of the coming together at Mass of Heaven and earth is why the Mass is so central to Catholics. The eternal, once for all, sacrifice is made present to the faithful. It is the eternal Passover meal over and over again. What a gift!

This reality, though unseen by us, reminds me of the upcoming reading for this weeks Mass from Isaiah 6. Isaiah praying in the temple but God decides to make himself present to him.

Isaiah says in verse 5, "Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

We should mimic Isaiah in his cry as each week the King, the Lord of hosts makes himself present to us.

 

[Cristian_B]

We see this in Revelations when we see the High Priest offering an unending unbloodied sacrifice.

Well… a sacrifice has an ending, which is at death. And there is blood. It is not unbloodied, because without blood there is not forgiveness. I am sure you didn’t mean that, but just in case.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well… a sacrifice has an ending, which is at death. And there is blood. It is not unbloodied, because without blood there is not forgiveness. I am sure you didn’t mean that, but just in case.

**2Ti 2:18 Who have erred from the truth, saying that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some. **

A sacrifice for all, is just that; for all time, for all people.

 

[Cristian_B]

**2Ti 2:18 Who have erred from the truth, saying that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some. **

A sacrifice for all, is just that; for all time, for all people.

What are we exactly talking about?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What are we exactly talking about?

The sacrifice of Christ was for all people, throughout all time. The Mass is sharing in that one sacrifice. It’s not a repeated sacrifice.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, this reality of the coming together at Mass of Heaven and earth is why the Mass is so central to Catholics. The eternal, once for all, sacrifice is made present to the faithful. It is the eternal Passover meal over and over again. What a gift!

This reality, though unseen by us, reminds me of the upcoming reading for this weeks Mass from Isaiah 6. Isaiah praying in the temple but God decides to make himself present to him.

Isaiah says in verse 5, "Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

We should mimic Isaiah in his cry as each week the King, the Lord of hosts makes himself present to us.

Appreciate the comment on Isaiah, and the Catholic Mass.

This is a common logic trap… it presumes an either/or scenario, while completely ignoring the possibility of an and/both option. Part of this, I think, is that as humans, we are limited in that we only experience time in a linear fashion. God, on the other hand, is everywhere and “everywhen” at once. For God, there is no yesterday, today, tomorrow. For God, all times are now. We see this in Revelations when we see the High Priest offering an unending unbloodied sacrifice. At the Altar, we enter into that sacrifice that happened once for all. We do not re-sacrifice our Lord over and over again, we enter into that one eternal sacrifice.

Sorry for the lack of biblical quotes, I don’t have my Bible handy.

hillsteven,

I do agree that it does not necessarily have to be an either or situation. It can be and/both.

Very helpful statement: " We do not re-sacrifice our Lord over and over again, we enter into that one eternal sacrifice."

I’m re-posting this article. It shows my starting point in the Baptist Religion; and may help Catholics to see why it is so difficult for many Protestants to embrace the “Real Presence.” I am prayerfully considering all comments.

**The Baptist Way: Interview with Dr. Wyman Richardson on Baptists, The Lord’s Supper, Church Discipline and Tradition
June 7, 2007 by iMonk
**
*Wyman Richardson has served as the pastor of First Baptist Church in Dawson, Georgia, since 2002. He previously pastored churches in Woodstock, GA, and Burneyville, OK. He is the author of Walking Together: A Congregational Reflection on Biblical Church Discipline,
*
“5. The Baptist version of the Lord’s Supper is a practically invisible doctrine today. In fact, many younger, theologically astute Southern Baptists openly embrace the Calvinistic view of the Lord’s Supper. What do we need to be teaching about the Lord’s Supper (and include your views on how the frequency of the LS figures into that teaching.)

. . . . .It seems to me that our major errors as Baptists when it comes to the Supper are an unchecked Enlightenment-driven skeptical reductionism, a grotesque neglect in terms of the infrequency of our observance, an uncritical acquiescence to a kind of hyper-Zwinglianism, a constant articulation of what we believe the Supper is not, and a suspicion and ignorance of how spirituality and physicality interact in worship.

. . . .Our anti-liturgicalism, our naïve elevation of the power of information alone to transform the Christian’s life (which is a kind of neo-gnosticism) apart from the interaction of the Christian with various forms and physical articulations of this information through worship, and our failure to draw all of the senses into Christian worship has really hindered our approach to the Supper.

. . . . .I am opposed to the denigration of the symbol to a meaningless rite. Furthermore, there’s some fascinating work being done right now in calling Baptists to a measured sacramentalism. I do not believe the language of “sacrament” is inappropriate for Baptists, though I do believe we must carefully delineate what we mean. The Lord’s Supper must regain a place of prominence in Baptist life.”
internetmonk.com/archive/…-and-tradition

More to say later. Gotta run to an appointment.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

What are we exactly talking about?

Cristian B,

At the moment, we are discussing hillsteven’s post on Malachi.

. . . .One other verse of scripture that points to the nature of the Eucharist as true sacrifice can actually be found in the Old Testament in the book of Malachi, Chapter 1:

10: Oh, that one among you would shut the temple gates to keep you from kindling fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts; neither will I accept any sacrifice from your hands.
11: For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

This, I think, is worthy of note in context with the question (though I’m not Baptist, it is at least relevant to the question of whether or not Scripture points to the Eucharist…)

First , it should be noted that many of the writings of the early Church Fathers point to this scripture as evidence of the real Sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. The question becomes “Why?”

I included verse 10 primarily for context. Malachi is talking to the Jews at a time right after their return from exile in Babylon. In this verse, the author (unknown, the word “Malachi” means “My Messenger”, so was essentially a pseudonym.) is chastising them for offering blemished sacrifices.

In verse 11, we see the prophet conveying God’s message, that His name is/will be great among the nations. In context, we must recognize that to Jews, all other nations were Gentiles. This insight is why the Church Fathers saw, and indeed the Church today sees, this verse as a relevant prophecy. Substituting “Gentiles” in place of “nations” and for clarity’s sake, the referential article “they”, we could safely re-write this to say:

“For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the Gentiles; And everywhere [the] Gentiles bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the Gentiles, says the LORD of hosts.”

See my OP for Thread Topic:

Request Baptist Comments re Eucharist. . .

"2. As for the bread and wine becoming the literal body of Christ; I’ve given this much thought. There are Scriptures that do point to this. I’m sure you are all aware of them. I plan to do more study regarding when the idea of the real presence began and when it fell out of favor with Protestants. Many of you may be farther along in your studies, and can provide some quotes from early church fathers compared to Reformation and Post-reformation writers. I welcome any resources you may have.

Regarding the Lord’s Supper; we are most familiar with the passage, in Luke 22:19, where Christ says, “Do this in remembrance of me.” These are usually the words spoken by Baptist ministers during the Lord’s Supper. . . .

See definitions:

Definitions. . . .

EUCHARIST
"The true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to offer himself in the sacrifice of the Mass and to be received as spiritual food in Holy Communion. It is called Eucharist, or “thanksgiving,” because at its institution at the Last Supper Christ “gave thanks,” and by this fact it is the supreme object and act of Christian gratitude to God.