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

[AmateurPianist]

This is one reason why I really do not like to do arguing Scripture. To have a fair discussion of a passage of Scripture involves a lot of study…and a lot of words. I make an exception this time.

So I have covered the overall setting of this passage and verses 17-22. To the next small section.

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

I actually took the time to go back to the three gospel accounts where this is taken from. I actually find it interesting and possibly significant that John is the one gospel author who does not include this account in His gospel.

The only author that includes “do this in remembrance of Me” is Luke, and that for the bread only. Never noticed that before.

And I have never noticed this before but verse 25 has the phrase “after supper”. It sort of makes me wonder if during the original Lord’s Supper there was a time interval between the bread and the cup. I don’t know.

But anyway, it is as though Paul’s intent is to compare what happened during the original Lord’s supper against that which is happening in the church at Corinth. It seems as though that at the church of Corinth (v.21-22) they had forgotten that the purpose was all about Jesus and replaced it with a purpose of eating and drinking with some type of class distinctions mixed in there.

More later (possibly this evening).

 

[qui_est_ce]

I do want to say that in all the reading and studying I’ve done over the past few years (and I have so far to go); the most shocking thing I have read is the Bible—shocking because, after reading the Bible cover to cover (still plan to read the Deuterocanonical Books); I realized many teachings of the Baptist Church are supported by a very selective use of Scriptures, group in very specific ways, to support specific beliefs.

You are to be commended for that. I find reading the OT very difficult. We are now studying Jeff Cavins Great Adventure Series. He makes so clear God’s leading his people and support for the NT.

So, when you say, “It’s a problem with all protestants. They are their own authority”: I will say that I do believe the Holy Spirit can intervene in one’s life and illuminate the truth of Scripture.
If this were not the case, I would still be a Baptist; I would never have questioned Baptist teachings; I would never have come to these forums; I would not be visiting an Episcopal Church (huge step); and I would not be prayerfully considering the words from my Catholic brothers and sisters.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to infer that people shouldn’t research and question. I do it all the time. The problem is many protestants make their own interpretations with today’s lenses. Splintered Christianity is the result. BB.com is a prime example of distorted interpretation.

JohnDeereFan
Charity is not the Gospel. Nor is it a substitute for the Gospel.
The Gospel is the Gospel and it is to be preached and proclaimed.

Sorry, this snippet made me giggle when I first saw it. But it’s really sad

Working out my salvation with fear and trembling
Anna

:harp::hug1:

 

[qui_est_ce]

This is one reason why I really do not like to do arguing Scripture. To have a fair discussion of a passage of Scripture involves a lot of study…and a lot of words. I make an exception this time.

The only author that includes “do this in remembrance of Me” is Luke, and that for the bread only.** Never noticed that before.
**{snip}

More later (possibly this evening).

Amateur, I strongly suggest you read the link ConfusedTim posted. It will open your eyes. Also read Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper

I am not sure if this has been posted before but I highly recommend all to watch the video or at least download the transcript of the video on this site. ***It was the best presentation of how the old testament prefigured the eucharist and shows how God has a thread linking the Passover, the Exodus (which included manna being the “bread of life”) through to the feeding of the 5000, feeding of the 4000, John 6, Last Supper, Paul, etc. Its absolutley mind blowing ***when you see how it all hangs together.

Go see for yourself, you will not regret it.

the4thcup.com/

(emphsis mine)

 

[Joshua27]

I would like to add to the further study of this topic by providing the following references *: Hebrews 9:24-28 through Hebrews 10:1-25

[Words in brackets are mine], but if you’d prefer please read in context for yourselves without my brackets.

Hebrews 9:24-28

24

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands [our man-made holy places], which are the figures * of the true “places” (in context of what is being compared)]; but into heaven itself*, now [Currently] to appear in the presence of God for us:

25 Nor [meaning “neither”] yet that he should offer himself often [more than once], as [again comparitively] the High priest entereth into the holy place every year [to do so] with blood of others;

26 For then [consequently, based on the mock-logic Paul’s poses] must he [Messiah] often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but [meaning “instead”] now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement:

28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and [only] unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Please read the entire passage of chapter 10 in context, but I specifically wanted to point out verses 8-14 for the purpose of this discussion:

Hebrews 10: 8-14

8

Above when he [Messiah] said sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin wouldest [they] not [do], neither hadst [they] pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9 then said he, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” He taketh away the first [act of payment described in verse 8], that he may establish the second.

**10 **by the which Will [the same “Will of God” referenced in verse 9] we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 and every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.

15 Wherefore the Holy Spirit also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 *"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17* and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

18 Now where remission of these “sins”, based on context of verse 17] is, there is no more offering for sin.

If I’m not mistaken, this was the same Paul that wrote the letter to the Corinthians about the Lord’s Supper. One must assume that Paul’s point of view does not contradict itself from one group to another, so if we put his message to the Corinthians together with his message to the Hebrews, what conclusion is drawn about the Sacrifice of the Messiah?

If it was a one-time act that counted for all sin forever, and if Pauls says that Messiah doesn’t dwell in any man-made holy place now but in heaven, is the supper we’re supposed to partake in an act of “rememberance” (and “acceptance” of the power of the original sacrifice) or is it an act of “actual” sacrifice; and actual offering of our sins once again?*

 

[qui_est_ce]

If I’m not mistaken, this was the same Paul that wrote the letter to the Corinthians about the Lord’s Supper. One must assume that Paul’s point of view does not contradict itself from one group to another, so if we put his message to the Corinthians together with his message to the Hebrews, what conclusion is drawn about the Sacrifice of the Messiah?

If it was a one-time act that counted for all sin forever, and if Pauls says that Messiah doesn’t dwell in any man-made holy place now but in heaven, is the supper we’re supposed to partake in an act of “rememberance” (and “acceptance” of the power of the original act) or is it an act of “actual” sacrifice; and actual offering of our sins once again?

Colossians 1:24
24
13 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,
25
of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God,
26
the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones,
27
to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory.

 

[Joshua27]

Colossians1:23

23 For ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Colossians 1:24
24
Now I [Paul, based on context of the previous verse 23] rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I [Paul] am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,

This is Paul speaking of himself and **his own suffering **to the colossians.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Colossians1:23

This is Paul speaking of himself and his own suffering to the colossians.

What does this have to do with the Eucharist?

 

[Joshua27]

What does this have to do with the Eucharist?

Look a few posts back…qui est ce responded to my question with a reference to Colossians 1:24 as if to suggest that Christ was speaking of continuing his own suffering, but I corrected her reference, showing that Paul was actually talking about himself and is own suffering…not Christ’s.

My post that has to do with the Eucharist is found 5 posts ago when I cite reference to Hebrews and ask the questions:

If I’m not mistaken, this was the same Paul that wrote the letter to the Corinthians about the Lord’s Supper. One must assume that Paul’s point of view does not contradict itself from one group to another, so if we put his message to the Corinthians together with his message to the Hebrews, what conclusion is drawn about the Sacrifice of the Messiah?

If it was a one-time act that counted for all sin forever, and if Pauls says that Messiah doesn’t dwell in any man-made holy place now but is in heaven, is the supper we’re supposed to partake in an act of “rememberance” (and “acceptance” of the power of the original sacrifice) or is it an act of “actual” sacrifice; and actual offering of our sins once again?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Look a few posts back…qui est ce responded to my question with a reference to Colossians 1:24 as if to suggest that Christ was speaking of continuing his own suffering, but I corrected her reference, showing that Paul was actually talking about himself and is own suffering…not Christ’s.

Paul was uniting his suffering with that of Christ. What was LACKING in Christ’s suffering in verse 24?

Our participation in the ONE Eternal Sacrifice made present.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Amateur, I strongly suggest you read the link ConfusedTim posted. It will open your eyes. Also read Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper(emphsis mine)

Hi:

As soon as I saw 98 minutes on the video, I aborted it.

You see I have satellite internet (living as I do in the boonies) and they have this annoying fair usage policy where if you exceed your bandwidth they make your internet practically unusable for a day. That usually happens at about 20 minutes.

The article by Scott Hahn touches a subject that to be honest I have not thought about. And that is communion as a sacrifice. I know I have heard the term “Sacrifice of the mass”. And I have heard the response in Hebrews about there being one sacrifice that is complete (I think these are the verses Joshua27 is quoting). And I am sure you have a response to those verses? Whether the response makes sense I dunno.

Hahn does use the phrase “Christ’s perpetual sacrifice”. For the time being I will withhold judgment on this phrase, but admittedly I am skeptical concerning any more sacrifice of Jesus after Calvary. So my questions are (to help me better understand) How can the risen Lord Jesus Christ even able to sacrifice Himself? What does He do to sacrifice Himself? How is this a sacrifice? Why does He do this? and What benefit does this sacrifice provide that is not a benefit of His work on the cross 2000 years ago?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Hi:

As soon as I saw 98 minutes on the video, I aborted it.

You see I have satellite internet (living as I do in the boonies) and they have this annoying fair usage policy where if you exceed your bandwidth they make your internet practically unusable for a day. That usually happens at about 20 minutes.

The article by Scott Hahn touches a subject that to be honest I have not thought about. And that is communion as a sacrifice. I know I have heard the term “Sacrifice of the mass”. And I have heard the response in Hebrews about there being one sacrifice that is complete (I think these are the verses Joshua27 is quoting). And I am sure you have a response to those verses? Whether the response makes sense I dunno.

I have the CD from Scott Hahn. Would you like me to send it to you? It’s worth a listen.

 

[Joshua27]

Paul was uniting his suffering with that of Christ. What was LACKING in Christ’s suffering in verse 24?

There’s no doubt that Paul was uniting his suffering with that of Christ, but notice that Paul says, “in MY flesh I am filling up what is LACKING…”

Question: What is Paul lacking in HIS [Paul’s] flesh?
Answer: “Christ’s affliction on behalf of the Church”.

Also note that WHENEVER Paul wanted to use the words “sacrifice” or “offering” he used them…yet in this instance Paul uses the word “affliction”.

Affliction means “suffering”, not “offering or sacrifice”.

Paul is not consuming anything, he is stating that he is suffering as Christ suffered…and that he is glad of it.

 

[Anna_Scott]

There’s no doubt that Paul was uniting his suffering with that of Christ, but notice that Paul says, “in MY flesh I am filling up what is LACKING…”

Question: What is Paul lacking in HIS [Paul’s] flesh?
Answer: “Christ’s affliction on behalf of the Church”.

Affliction means “suffering”, not “offering or sacrifice”

Paul is not consuming anything, he is stating that he is suffering as Christ suffered…and that he is glad of it.

Joshua 27:

Interesting comment to find. I was just thinking about the assumption that our flesh could be compare to Christ’s flesh (as God Incarnate and the Sacrificial Lamb): two entirely different things.

Anna

 

[qui_est_ce]

There’s no doubt that Paul was uniting his suffering with that of Christ, but notice that Paul says, “in MY flesh I am filling up what is LACKING…”

Question: What is Paul lacking in HIS [Paul’s] flesh?
Answer: “Christ’s affliction on behalf of the Church”.

Also note that WHENEVER Paul wanted to use the words “sacrifice” or “offering” he used them…yet in this instance Paul uses the word “affliction”.

Affliction means “suffering”, not “offering or sacrifice”.

Paul is not consuming anything, he is stating that he is suffering as Christ suffered…and that he is glad of it.

That’s a tortured explanation for a clear teaching:
13 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,

It is clearly Christ’s body which is the Church, not Paul’s.

 

[Joshua27]

That’s a tortured explanation for a clear teaching:
13 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,

It is clearly Christ’s body which is the Church, not Paul’s.

Sure! No one said otherwise, but also…

What is the body of Christ but the body of believers?
What is the temple of the Holy Spirit but those who are sanctified in faith in Christ?

It is Christ who makes tabernacle [dwelling] within us, thus WE are the church more than any formal institution…likewise if the Holy Spirit is in Paul then Paul is truly also of the body of Christ, isn’t he?

Then as Paul suffers so is he fulfilled and truly of the Body because Christ also suffered. THIS is why Paul rejoices.

…And I don’t feel it’s “tortured” to define terms as they truly are defined [doesn’t affliction mean suffering?], or to say that (clearly) this was a more recent time than the old testament, so when Paul says words like “sacrifice” or “affliction” he means them exclusively and not interchangeably.

But back to the Eucharist…

I’ve given you an entire segment of passage (in context; non-cherry-picked) where Paul explains - several times over - the “non-mystery” and finality of Christ’s one-time sacrifice, while you’ve only provided one verse that doesn’t even use the word “sacrifice”. Can you find any other verses that help prove your argument, or is one verse enough to disprove my entire body of reference?

I only ask because Anna wanted to find the truth so if this is not truth please disprove it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sure! No one said otherwise, but also…

What is the body of Christ but the body of believers?
What is the temple of the Holy Spirit but those who are sanctified in faith in Christ?

The body of Christ is the Church.
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is **lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,
**

Then as Paul suffers so is he fulfilled and truly of the Body because Christ also suffered. THIS is why Paul rejoices.

What is LACKING in the affliction of Christ? It is our participation in the sacrifice.

But back to the Eucharist…

We must participate in Christ’s suffering. This is the LAMB, Jesus is the LAMB. We must eat the LAMB, as did the Hebrews at the Passover meal. The Lamb is made present to us in the Eucharist. Read the links provided and tell me what you think.

I’ve given you an entire segment of passage (in context; non-cherry-picked) where Paul explains - several times over - the “non-mystery” and finality of Christ’s one-time sacrifice, while you’ve only provided one verse that doesn’t even use the word “sacrifice”. Can you find any other verses that help prove your argument, or is one verse enough to disprove my entire body of reference?

There are plenty of Biblical references here, so I won’t be redundant.

I only ask because Anna wanted to find the truth so if this is not truth please disprove it.

It’s great to ask. You are welcome to ask.

 

[Joshua27]

There are plenty of Biblical references here, so I won’t be redundant.

You’re right…and I will read and move this thread along instead of forcing redundancy.

---

Would anyone else like to answer the following? Prove? Disprove?

After citing Hebrews 9:24-28 through Hebrews 10:1-25, I asked:

*If I’m not mistaken, this was the same Paul that wrote the letter to the Corinthians about the Lord’s Supper. One must assume that Paul’s point of view does not contradict itself from one group to another, so if we put his message to the Corinthians together with his message to the Hebrews, what conclusion is drawn about the Sacrifice of the Messiah?

If it was a one-time act that counted for all sin forever, and if Pauls says that Messiah doesn’t dwell in any man-made holy place now but in heaven, is the supper we’re supposed to partake in an act of “rememberance” (and “acceptance” of the power of the original sacrifice) or is it an act of “actual” sacrifice; and actual offering of our sins once again?*

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae,

I meant to ask: would you mind telling the folks at BaptistBoard.com about the “Protestant, defending Protestant beliefs against what she honestly considered to be Catholic errors - quite vigorously” part. They did ban me for being a “Catholic Proselytizing.”

Anna

Unfortunately, being a Catholic myself, I can’t sign up for their Board. Not that I mind - “lead me not into temptation,” etc. I think I would just lose my temper with those people.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Actually this all comes from a decision I made a couple of years back to try to learn about other Christian traditions and to really try to see it from their eyes instead of evaluating them from my eyes. And I also decided that I would adjust my belief system if necessary. But God did give me the Scripture I have in my signature, so I would only adjust my belief system after a thorough examination and crosschecking of the new proposed belief system.

The questions, disconnects and other objections I bring forth are all a part of my crosschecking and obeying the Scripture in my signature.

Hold on to 1 Thessalonians 5:21. I have quoted it a number of times in my posts. We seem to be on similar journeys, AP. It’s nice to have some company. It’s a lonely road sometimes-even perilous–as was the case at BB (not “Wizard of Oz” scary: “lions, & tigers, & bears! Oh, my” :blackeye: --but, it sure felt like it at the time.

It has been a very good and rewarding process. I have adjusted my beliefs in certain respects (adopting the traditional Methodist understanding of the Real Presence being one of them). But most of all when I look at other belief systems through their eyes, I find I can develop a tolerance and respect and lose the judgemental attitude I am prone to getting.

My attitude as been “duly adjusted” over time on the Forums. I didn’t even realize I had an “attitude.” But I did, and it needed “adjusting.” :doh2:

So now you know why I am here. This is actually a very interesting place, not only because you encounter Catholics and Orthodox but also mainline Protestants like Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists.

Interesting, indeed.

And yet Christ clearly states: “. . . .unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” and “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

And this statement causes me to want to crosscheck this new proposed interpretation of this passage even more rigorously because it not only impacts how you view communion and how you have eternal life. So this proposed new interpretation is a very biggie.

It is big. It is just so strange to realize that in all the years I spent in the Baptist Church, I never really noticed this connection between Communion and eternal life. Indoctrination can lead to a bad case of “tunnel vision.” I think the cure may take some time, at least in my case.

And again I note that nowhere else in the Bible do you read of a connection between communion and eternal life to confirm this proposed new interpretation even though there are plenty of opportunities for the writers of the gospel and the apostles to do so should they choose to. There are plenty of places in the epistles where the apostles teach about how to come to eternal life in Jesus and no mention of communion.

As I’m thinking about this; :idea: it does occur to me that one of the most explicit revelations of the identity and nature of Christ occurs only in the Gospel of John:

John 1 (ESV): 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

No other Gospel says, “the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

So, I’m thinking we may not be able to judge the importance of a Biblical truth by the number of times it occurs in Scripture. Plus, the Gospel of Christ is revealed throughout the New Testament, collectively.

And in my readings, I found where John Wesley (Wesley Quadrangle) said personal experience is one of the lens you should use in interpreting Scripture. And I observe that in my experience communion has nothing to do with how I came to eternal life in Christ.

As I said before, Communion and eternal life were never connected in the teachings of the Baptist Church. So this doctrine is foreign to me also; but since Christ Himself makes the connection, I figure I’d better listen.

I do agree with the personal experience factor. I had a very profound experience with the passage in Matthew, Chapter 16, regarding “binding” and “loosing.” For Catholics, this passage refers to the authority of the Catholic Church as the Keys are handed down through Apostolic Succession (Catholics, please correct me if I am wrong.)

Matthew 16: 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Yet, this verse played a serious role in my healing from cancer. I have posted my story several times on the forums. If you or anyone else is interested in reading it, this is the Post-click blue arrow:

What I am about to share with you is intensely personal. . . .

AP, I will answer part 2 & 3 of your posts, either later tonight or tomorrow.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Unfortunately, being a Catholic myself, I can’t sign up for their Board. Not that I mind - “lead me not into temptation,” etc. I think I would just lose my temper with those people.

Jmcrae,

You are very kind. I was really just joking around a bit. I wouldn’t wish that forum on anyone.

Anna