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

[Dancelittleewok]

There is nothing in the context to believe that every meal is to be the Lords Supper. It is an occasion. Verse 20 does not indicate how often but it being every meal would take defending.

I didn’t say that every meal is the Lord’s Supper but why, according to you, does one need to discern themselves in this special ‘occasion’? If the Lord’s supper is a mere meal, no different from a lunch at Panera’s, then why don’t we discern ourselves every meal?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I bolded and underlined part of your statement for emphasis. I believe that was intended to be negative of Catholics.

When we come together, it is now to eat the Lord’s Supper.

Paul taught what the Lord’s Supper was, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.”

Sounds more like a religious ceremony than a ‘meal’ to me.

Are you saying they did not “eat” at the passover meal?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I didn’t say that every meal is the Lord’s Supper but why, according to you, does one need to discern themselves in this special ‘occasion’? If the Lord’s supper is a mere meal, no different from a lunch at Panera’s, then why don’t we discern ourselves every meal?

Show me one thing that indicates I believe it is a “mere” meal. No different than Panera? Show me. Please. Or quit adding adjectives to what I say.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Show me one thing that indicates I believe it is a “mere” meal. No different than Panera? Show me. Please. Or quit adding adjectives to what I say.

You said it was an occasion and a meal. The lunch at Panera were attempts at humor on my part but still there’s something special about the Lord’s supper and hence I’d like you to answer me: Why is Paul telling us to discern ourselves on this occasion? If Paul is trying to invoke patience and brotherly love, then why don’t we do this at other meals like lunch if his pastoral intent for this passage?

 

[Rightlydivide]

You said it was an occasion and a meal. The lunch at Panera were attempts at humor on my part but still there’s something special about the Lord’s supper and hence I’d like you to answer me: Why is Paul telling us to discern ourselves on this occasion? If Paul is trying to invoke patience and brotherly love, then why don’t we do this at other meals like lunch if his pastoral intent for this passage?

He is telling us to discern ourselves because we do this in remembrance of Christ and those that do not bring damnation! It is so much more than invoking patience. I believe what the passage says. Its an important event.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you saying they did not “eat” at the passover meal?

They ate at the Passover meal. The Lord’s Supper replaced the Passover meal, or fulfilled it and the Lord replaced the sacrificial lamb. In the Passover meal the lamb was to be eaten, just as the Lord commanded us to eat His body and He said drink His blood.

The people of Corinth had turned it into a meal, like the Seder meal, but Paul told them there were heresies and corrected them. He twice told them they had homes to eat meals and drink in. Apparently, the Lord’s Supper, of His body and blood had become more than just a meal.

Did the Jews have to discern the body of the lamb at the Passover meal? Did the Jews have to prove themselves, before someone let them eat?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He is telling us to discern ourselves because we do this in remembrance of Christ and those that do not bring damnation! It is so much more than invoking patience. I believe what the passage says. Its an important event.

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

It says nothing of discerning ourselves.

 

[Rightlydivide]

They ate at the Passover meal. The Lord’s Supper replaced the Passover meal, or fulfilled it and the Lord replaced the sacrificial lamb. In the Passover meal the lamb was to be eaten, just as the Lord commanded us to eat His body and He said drink His blood.

The people of Corinth had turned it into a meal, like the Seder meal, but Paul told them there were heresies and corrected them. He twice told them they had homes to eat meals and drink in. Apparently, the Lord’s Supper, of His body and blood had become more than just a meal.

Did the Jews have to discern the body of the lamb at the Passover meal?

Lets slow this down. Did they eat at the Last Supper? Was it a meal? Yes or no.
Paul does not tell them not to not eat a meal. He tells them the way they are eating a meal is wrong. They are to wait for one another. They are not to be drunk. They are not to go when hungry so to cause problems.

They are to come together and eat. Paul says to come together and eat.

1Cr 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

Corinthians is not written to just the Jews and I find the last question off task. What is its point?

 

[jmcrae]

Under the appearances of bread and wine so that would make them symbol’s of his body.

Signs - not “symbols.” A symbol is something that represents a thing that is absent.

The bread and wine are signs that tell us Christ is present.

 

[Rightlydivide]

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

It says nothing of discerning ourselves.

Correct. I was quoting him and got careless.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Lets slow this down. Did they eat at the Last Supper? Was it a meal? Yes or no.
Paul does not tell them not to not eat a meal. He tells them the way they are eating a meal is wrong. They are to wait for one another. They are not to be drunk. They are not to go when hungry so to cause problems.

They are to come together and eat. Paul says to come together and eat.

Corinthians is not written to just the Jews and I find the last question off task. What is its point?

They ate the body and drank the blood, corrected from eating the meal they had turned it too. Paul doesn’t say, people are getting drunk so drink at home, he said eat and drink at home.

The problem with them treating it as a meal, some were not receiving.

1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.

Paul told them what they came together to eat.

1Co 11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.

In order there was no mistaking what he meant, he explained it.

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

You asked, “Are you saying they did not “eat” at the passover meal?” That made me think you were saying the Lord’s Supper was as the Passover meal. It was an improvement, a new and everlasting covenant. That’s why I asked if the Jews had to discern the body of the lamb. Paul specifically told them, “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” The lamb had been replaced with a Lamb, Jesus Himself.

I posted a post where Christ spoke symbolically about food, each time He explained Himself to His disciples. When He told them they had to eat His body and drink His blood, His disciples left Him and walked with Him no more. Did He stop them and explain Himself? No, He turned to His Apostles and asked them if they were going to leave Him too. I see irony in John 6:66 being the numbered verse that tells of His disciples walking with Him no more.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying they did not “eat” at the passover meal?

Yes, they ate, but it was not so much to fill their bellies. Each item of food had significance, and was to be eaten in the correct order, so as to retell the story of the Passover. Also, they didn’t take heaping platefuls, but just a bite or a small amount of each thing.

 

[Rightlydivide]

They ate the body and drank the blood, corrected from eating the meal they had turned it too. Paul doesn’t say, people are getting drunk so drink at home, he said eat and drink at home.

The problem with them treating it as a meal, some were not receiving.

1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.

Paul told them what they came together to eat.

1Co 11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.

In order there was no mistaking what he meant, he explained it.

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

You asked, “Are you saying they did not “eat” at the passover meal?” That made me think you were saying the Lord’s Supper was as the Passover meal. It was an improvement, a new and everlasting covenant. That’s why I asked if the Jews had to discern the body of the lamb. Paul specifically told them, “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” The lamb had been replaced with a Lamb, Jesus Himself.

I posted a post where Christ spoke symbolically about food, each time He explained Himself to His disciples. When He told them they had to eat His body and drink His blood, His disciples left Him and walked with Him no more. Did He stop them and explain Himself? No, He turned to His Apostles and asked them if they were going to leave Him too. I see irony in John 6:66 being the numbered verse that tells of His disciples walking with Him no more.

He tells them to eat together and to wait on one another. The meal component stays the same; its how they are doing it. If it is just a matter of eating, stay home he says. I absolutely believe that Christ explained himself in John 6 to the disciples and it has nothing to do with the Eucharist. Absolutely nothing. John is mindful of this and if John 6 had anything to do with a Eucharist it is odd he does not tie it to the Last Supper. We are sticking with Corinthians I hope. I
But my John 6 link will come up regardless so here it is just to get it out of the way. While I do not agree with everything, it beats retyping the same old stuff
ntrmin.org/images/questions/John6Eucharist.html

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes, they ate, but it was not so much to fill their bellies. Each item of food had significance, and was to be eaten in the correct order, so as to retell the story of the Passover. Also, they didn’t take heaping platefuls, but just a bite or a small amount of each thing.

The small is a matter of dispute jmcrae. Regardless we agree in essence.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Part 1 of 2

Since when do the Catholics have a different Lord then the rest of us?

The wine is a symbol of his blood that was shed for all.

The bread is a symbol of his body, the sacrificial lamb.

I don’t believe that it is meant to be taken literally and his real body and real blood.

When I asked, “Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord’s Supper/Eucharist?” I didn’t mean to imply Catholics have a different Lord’s Support, only a different understanding/belief, etc.

I answered the question I still don’t see any Baptists talking about it. So I being a Baptist thought I would answer the call for Baptists. . . . .

Rev Kevin,

So, glad you’re here. Unless I have missed a post, you are the only Baptist to post on this Thread. So, I really appreciate your taking the time to join the discussion.

Your beliefs are your right and we’re wrong. Its how all the threads go. We Catholics are always right because we have been around for 2000 years and we were founded by Jesus and you non-Catholics are wrong because you haven’t been around as long as we have and weren’t founded by Jesus. See I already know how it goes so I don’t have to read through all of them to know how it is.

Rev Kevin,

There have been many CAF Threads on the “Real Presence” of Christ during the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist.

As the OP of this Thread, **I have specifically asked for the Baptist (name removed by moderator)ut/view/interpretation of particular Scriptures that have caused me to consider the Catholic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. **

Since I grew up in the Baptist Church; I wanted to know if these passages ever caused other Baptists to consider the same.

These passages became a concern to me, long before I came to CAF. However, I’ve had difficulty discussing my concerns with other Baptist (& Evangelical) friends. Usually, they are upset that I asked the question. However, few would engage in discussion and actually deal directly with the Scripture.

I am looking for Baptist responses that include, this is what I believe; this is the Scripture that supports what I belief, and this is why I interpret the Scripture literally, or this is why I interpret the Scripture symbolically. If your beliefs have been influenced by ECF’s, Protestant Reformers, or Post-Reformation Protestant writers—please provide applicable quotes.

Link to OP:

Request Baptist Comments re Eucharist

. . . . .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. . . . .

. . . .Jesus also said, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;” and “my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” So, do we accept His Words as spoken? Are they literal or symbolic?

John Chapter 6 has given me much to ponder on this issue:
John 6: 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

I am rather perplexed by the way certain passages of Scripture, such as the creation story in Genesis, are taken literally; and others are reduced to allegory. . . . .

. . . . .Many other passages of Scripture also point to consuming the body and blood of Christ.

. . . . .The “Real Presence” of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist is foreign to many of us in the Protestant Sector. Yet, these Scriptures cause me to ponder the Catholic interpretation.

Baptists, would these passages cause you to consider the “real presence” of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist?. . . . .

I, also, asked our Catholic friends to provide other Scriptures, writings of ECF’s, and help correct misconceptions. Great resources so far!
**
So, Rev Kevin,**

I will quote Scriptures again—continued 2 of 2 next post.

To all on this Thread:
**I hope more Baptists will join the discussion. There have been 671 views of this Thread. Where are the Baptists??
**
I appreciate the presence of other Protestants in the discussion. I. also, appreciate all the many resources provided by Catholics and other Christians.

I am not feeling well tonight, and need some sleep. So, not sure if I can check back again tonight.

In light of recent events with our friends at BaptistBoard.com; I ask that all discussion on this topic continue in the spirit of utmost Christian charity and respect for one another. So, play nice, while I am getting some much needed rest.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Continued–Part 2 of 2

I am looking for Baptist responses that include, this is what I believe; this is the Scripture that supports what I belief, and this is why I interpret the Scripture literally, or this is why I interpret the Scripture symbolically. If your beliefs have been influenced by ECF’s, Protestant Reformers, or Post-Reformation Protestant writers—please provide applicable quotes.

**Luke 22 (ESV): **19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

**John 6: **48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

**John 6: **52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

**Matthew 26: **26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

**Mark 14: **22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

1 Corinthians 10: 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?". . . .

I see lots of interesting conversations happening, and many I want to comment on. Will have to be tomorrow.

Goodnight All. This Momma’s going to sleep & hopefully will feel better tomorrow :sad_bye:
Anna

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He tells them to eat together and to wait on one another. The meal component stays the same; its how they are doing it. If it is just a matter of eating, stay home he says. I absolutely believe that Christ explained himself in John 6 to the disciples and it has nothing to do with the Eucharist. Absolutely nothing. John is mindful of this and if John 6 had anything to do with a Eucharist it is odd he does not tie it to the Last Supper. We are sticking with Corinthians I hope. I
But my John 6 link will come up regardless so here it is just to get it out of the way. While I do not agree with everything, it beats retyping the same old stuff
ntrmin.org/images/questions/John6Eucharist.html

Eat together, wait on one another. That contradicts each other.

The early Church fathers wrote about how the earliest Christians believed and practiced the Eucharist.

John 6 is clear, they ask who could hear it. Christ knew He was about to replace the Passover with a new and everlasting covenant and the Passover would be no more.

**Joh 6:52 (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53 (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
Joh 6:57 (6:58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 (6:59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 (6:60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
Joh 6:60 (6:61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? **

He explained it very well. When they mummured, He addressed it quickly.

Joh 6:61 (6:62) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

**Joh 6:62 (6:63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 (6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. **

The flesh that profiteth nothing was not His flesh, it was their worldly thinking thinking, or their fleshly thinking. Paul explains what flesh meant.

1Co 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.
1Co 2:15 But the spiritual man judgeth all things: and he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Jesus continued on with His ‘explanation’.

Joh 6:64 (6:65) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him.
Joh 6:65 (6:66) And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
Joh 6:66 (6:67) After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
Joh 6:67 (6:68) Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

The link you provide is a writing from what period? How far removed from the actual events are they in time? How does their interpretation out weigh the writings of the early Church fathers on the subject?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Eat together, wait on one another. That contradicts each other.

Lets handle this first. No it does not. Do you start eating when you sit down or do you wait for everyone?
It does not say wait ON
It says wait FOR
Is that your confusion?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Eat together, wait on one another. That contradicts each other.

The early Church fathers wrote about how the earliest Christians believed and practiced the Eucharist.

John 6 is clear, they ask who could hear it. Christ knew He was about to replace the Passover with a new and everlasting covenant and the Passover would be no more.

**Joh 6:52 (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53 (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
Joh 6:57 (6:58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 (6:59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 (6:60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
Joh 6:60 (6:61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? **

He explained it very well. When they mummured, He addressed it quickly.

Joh 6:61 (6:62) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

**Joh 6:62 (6:63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 (6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. **

The flesh that profiteth nothing was not His flesh, it was their worldly thinking thinking, or their fleshly thinking. Paul explains what flesh meant.

1Co 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.
1Co 2:15 But the spiritual man judgeth all things: and he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Jesus continued on with His ‘explanation’.

Joh 6:64 (6:65) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him.
Joh 6:65 (6:66) And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
Joh 6:66 (6:67) After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
Joh 6:67 (6:68) Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

The link you provide is a writing from what period? How far removed from the actual events are they in time? How does their interpretation out weigh the writings of the early Church fathers on the subject?

Why would the early church fathers have their stuff together anymore than the churches in Revelation that had serious doctrinal errors? Did they all of a sudden start gettings things right??

 

[jmcrae]

…] if John 6 had anything to do with a Eucharist it is odd he does not tie it to the Last Supper.

Oh, but he does, though - keep in mind, when John was writing this, the Christians had been celebrating Mass for more than 50 years already - they knew the words to the Mass. So when they read, “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood” they would have immediately remembered that in the Mass, Jesus tells us, “This is my flesh (the bread); this is my body (the wine)”

It also ties together the other way, too. Obviously, the disciples at that time didn’t know what he was talking about. But, when they came to the Last Supper, and Jesus said to them, “This (bread) is my body; this (wine) is my blood” they would certainly have remembered the conversation that took place earlier that same week.