Eucharist or Communion Debate Part 2

Here is Part 2 of a Baptist pastor's symbolic interpretation Holy Communion.  (Part 1 is here.)  My responses are in red.

I have not received a response from this pastor or my friend who sent it to me about a year ago.  All responses are most welcome!

The Eucharist or Communion - Part 2  --  body & blood or “in remembrance of”
Pastor [of a Baptist community in] OH

Now let’s go in the offense
The Last Supper was the Passover meal (Sader)       Passover in Exo 12
                The bread is Matzah bread and it’s eaten at the end of the meal as desert
                Then Jesus gives them the 3rd cup - the cup of redemption  --  He is our redeemer
                The meal is a lamb without spot or blemish.  So where was the lamb at the Last Supper?????  It wasn't there.  Or was it?  Jesus is the lamb!

Many times Jesus is called the Lamb of God
READ Jn 1:29,36
27 times in the Book of Revelation Jesus is referred to as the Lamb
The lamb in the Passover meal represents Jesus.
The breed and cup represent what he did for us on the cross to pay our sin debt in full.
 First, let’s look at the “cup”
READ  --  Mat 26:26-29
Catholics will stop after verse 28. Not quite.  V29 is very important, showing that Jesus purposely did not intend to drink the 4th cup of wine (cup of consummation) until the Kingdom is made new on the cross.  He asks his Father to let this "cup" pass from Him, but submits to His Father's will.  He asks for the 4th Cup from the cross:  "I thirst."  Then after he drinks it He says, "It is finished."  What is finished?  The Old Covenant is finished, and the New Covenant is established, sealed by His blood.  What else is finished?  The Passover meal he began the night before!
 Notice:  He didn’t put out his forearm and say “Take a bite”.  He gave them bread.  It’s obviously that he was not speaking literally because He still literal had His body and blood.  He was showing them the symbolism in the Passover meal.  If it's symbolism, why didn't he take a lamb and say "this represents me"?  Why bread?  Notably, there was no lamb present, because He is the lamb.... So you think Jesus couldn't be sitting there with his literal body and blood and at the same time give it to the Apostles under the appearance of bread and wine?  Really?  Kind of like he couldn't walk on water, he couldn't multiply loaves and fishes, he couldn't cure the sick, or he couldn't rise from the dead?  He's God!  Now you are saying some things are impossible for him to do?
Q: In verse 29 it’s still the “fruit of the vine” not his blood.  Where is Transubstantiation?  It already occurred at the 3rd Cup.  In verse 28 he says it IS His blood, then he even describes that blood (lest anyone doubt) as the blood which is "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".  So you tell me:  did he pour out His literal blood or His metaphorical blood?  If the Eucharist is figurative, then the Crucifixion was figurative.
The "fruit of the vine" refers to that 4th cup of wine that he skipped at that time.  They went to the garden to pray after singing the Great Hallel (Mk 14:26). 
READ  --  Mk 14:22-25                      (Lk 22:14-20)
Q: In verse 25 again, it’s still the “fruit of the vine” not his blood.  Where is Transubstantiation?

Again, transubstantiation occurred in the 3rd Cup.  The "fruit of the vine" he won't drink then refers to the 4th Cup of wine. 
The other side may bring up 1Cor 10:16-17
READ  --  1Cor 10:16-17  --  Communion means fellowship or partnership  It does not consumption  Paul is speaking of Eucharistic communion.  If he is not speaking of a literal body and blood of Christ, then why does he later warn against eating and drinking a judgment upon oneself if receiving in an unworthy manner (1Cor 11:27-29)?  How can this be a sacrilege and bring self-condemnation if he's speaking of merely a symbolic body and blood?

Now, let’s look at the bread.
READ  --  1Cor 11:23-30
23  --  Paul got this directly from Jesus  --  in Arabia 3 years.  Some say on Mt. Sinai (Gal 1:17-18)
24  --  “do this in remembrance of me”  Jesus did not say because it is Me  Huh?  Yes he did:  "This is my body which is for you" (v24).  Again, he refers to his literal body which will be offered for us on the cross.
25  --  “in remembrance of me”  Again, Jesus did not say because it is Me  "This chalice is the new covenant in my blood."???
                Luke also has “in remembrance of me”  in his account of the Last Supper in Lk 22:19.
                We have these 3 references.  Jesus is saying He would not physically be there.
The words "in remembrance" lose something in translation.  In the original greek it's anamnesis.  It does not mean a mere intellectual memorial, but rather "to make present once again"... just as the Passover meal made the Exodus present once again (see Ex 13:8).  Therefore, the Eucharist is not only a meal but also a re-presentation of Christ's one true sacrifice on Calvary, and the manner by which we participate in our own "exodus" from slavery to sin.   
We have Him here today spiritually (yes) buy not physically (yes we do, sacramentally).  The Bible says where ever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, There I am there also. Yes, spiritually.
26-28  --  3 times it’s still bread
27  --  Paul give you a contrast between the bread and cup and the body and blood of Christ.  He’s showing you that they aren’t the same  Huh?  See above.  How can you profane the Lord by eating and drinking something that is merely bread and wine?

Q: Show me where Transubstantiation occurs?  It occurs when Jesus says "This is my body... this is my blood."  When God speaks, by his Word it is so!
                Mat   26:26-29  --  “this fruit of the vine” not “My blood” in Verse 29  Refers to the 4th cup of wine, not the transubstantiated 3rd cup.
                Mk   14:22-25   --  “the fruit of the vine” not “My blood” in verse 25  See above.
                1Cor 10:17        --  “one bread” twice  "Bread" refers to the Eucharistic bread.
                1Cor  11:23-28 - bread and cup three times not body and cup or body and blood in verses 26,27 & 28  See above.

Also, lets go to the early Church history Acts and see how they referred to it

If you had Transubstantiation all the way back to Jesus, surely the term would have been established during this time and written in the book of Acts.

READ  --  Acts 2:42,46 - called “breaking bread” not “breaking the body”  --  Where is Transubstantiation?
READ  --  Acts 20:7,11 - called “breaking bread” not “breaking the body”  --  Where is Transubstantiation?
"Breaking of the bread" refers to the celebration of the Eucharist/Mass.  The "breaking of the bread" and words of consecration spoken, in "Persona Christi" by a priest, bring about transubstantiation.
Some Catholics will say “They’re talking about a meal”  Yes, it's both a meal and a sacrifice.
                Meals in the KJV are referred to as “at meat” so we’re talking about communion
                They called it breaking bread  -- not breaking body  Look at the formula always followed by Jesus... "took... blessed... broke... and gave"... which all occurred, including the "breaking", before transubstantiation took place at His words of consecration.

There is no Biblical proof of Transubstantiation  Oh, there's plenty, in the OT and NT.  It takes an anti-Catholic predisposition in order to deny it.  Have you ever read the Church Fathers?  Men who learned directly from the Apostles?  As I said in Part 1, it's difficult to take seriously anyone who so grossly misrepresents historical facts.  Claiming that the early Church didn't believe in the Real Presence is not an honest option.

Those on the outer side are taught that Jesus is a “Perpetual Sacrifice”     The word “perpetual” means continuing forever or everlasting
Jn 19:30   --  Jesus said “It is finished”  The old covenant and the Passover meal started the night before are finished.

Let’s go to Hebrews and notice the words “once” and “one”
READ  --  Heb 7:27  --  “This He did once, when he offer up Himself”  Yes.
READ  --  Heb 9:12  --  “by His own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”  True.
READ  --  Heb 9:26  --  “once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself”  Yes.
READ  --  Heb 9:28  --  “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many  Yes.
READ  --  Heb 10:10-12 Ok
READ  --  Heb 10:14  --  “For by one offering, He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Yes.
READ  --  Heb 10:18  --  “there is no more offering for sin”  Right.
These verses speak of the daily sacrifices offered by Levitical priests every morning and evening (Num 28:1-8) and the annual sacrifices of the Day of Atonement, which the high priest offered for the sins of Israel, including his own (Lev 16:11-19).  This is in contrast to Christ, who offered only one sacrifice, and that for his people and not for himself. The former sacrifices are no longer needed.  Jesus establishes a new and eternal priesthood in the order of Melchizedek (mentioned 5 times in Hebrews).  Jesus ordains His Apostles at the Last Supper ("do this..." i.e., make present again the sacrifice of my body/blood... see above) and again after the Resurrection ("As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" Jn 20:21).  And the Apostles ordained others into this priesthood (see Acts 1 - Matthias replaces Judas, Acts 6:6, 13:3, 14:22, 20:28; 1Tim 4:14; 2Tim 1:6; Tit 1:5).  

Jesus is not a “Perpetual Sacrifice”  He's not?  What does John see in heaven?  "I saw a Lamb standing as though it had been slain" (Rev 5:6).  Christ does indeed appear forever as a sacrificial victim perpetually offering Himself in heaven.  What makes this perpetual sacrifice present to us?  The Mass/Eucharist!!  --  He’s a “Perpetual Saviour”
What he did 2000 years ago allows us to be saved today.
Jesus won’t do it again.
Heb 10:18  --  “there is no more offering for sin”
Heb 6:4-6  --  will “put Him to an open shame”
Heb 10:26  --  “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin”
Jn 19:30  --  Jesus said “It is finished”

They tell you to listen to them.  No, God in Scripture and Jesus Christ Himself tells you to listen to His Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
I’m asking you to humble yourselves, let the Holy Spirit be your teacher and read the Bible for yourselves.  I have.  
Here in America, we still have that right.  God is going to hold you accountable for you, not your priests and not us pastors.
Do not read with the attitude “I know what I want to believe.” because that will defeat the purpose.
Start with the attitude “God, I want to know Your truth.”  Been there, done that.  Left the Church (spiritually) in college, put all things on the table, and the Holy Spirit led me right back to the one, true, apostolic Church.
I can tell you from personal experience, the Holy Spirit will put you on a spiritual growth plan that will amaze you.  Do you know when I've experienced spiritual growth that has amazed me?  When I started going to Mass and receiving the Eucharist daily and furthermore, when I started spending one holy hour with our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament at least once per week.... not to mention meeting His mercy in the confessional at least once per month.

Other verses not used

Lev 10:9   Eze 44:21       Pro 23:30-32
1Cor 2:12-16        2Cor 4:3-4            1Jn 4:6
 To symbolically eat & drink one’s body & blood = assault
 Ps 14:4
     Isa 9:18-20;49:26
     Mic 3:3
     2Sam 23:15-17
     Rev 17:6,16


When we are born again & receive the Holy Spirit - not by baptism or the Eucharist
                Soul is your mind, essence, personality - Is 55:8-9
                                Divinity = God - Is 45:5,21; 46:9

This is a list of questions I made up for a Catholic friend to explain why I don’t accept the “Eucharist” as opposed to “Communion”.  I told him he could check with anyone he wanted to get the answers including the Vatican.  He sent this to Catholic Answers in November, 2002.  In 2004, he sent it again.  He still has not received a reply.  No disrespect, but I got a chuckle out of this assertion that the staff at Catholic Answers (or the Vatican!) was stumped by this, when it's no different than anything they answer on their radio show every day!

No comments:

Post a Comment