The Lord's Supper an offering to God

[Charles Sloan]

Here's a pic of one I've seen (a CofC preacher took me there to show me the baptistery), what does it say?

Would you mind saying what kind of church this is where these pictures were made?

Catholic church in NY.

That doesn't look like any RCC I've ever seen, but there was one thing I saw in the picture that gave me that impression:



I've only seen fonts like that in RCC and respective congregations (usually near the door though), so I kinda figured as much. Although I have to admit they have a fine and very conservative looking building, at least from what was pictured.

[Jimbob]

The interesting thing about the font is the adult immersion pool, now standard issue in all new Cath. buildings.

[Charles Sloan]

I've always been a big admirer of catholic buildings and architecture, who knows maybe they are beginning to admire protestant biblical practices and sound doctrine. Either way it's a step in the right direction.

[s1n4m1n]

We were studying about communion the past few weeks, its amazing to see the changes in this meal throughout the centuries.... (they don't teach you all this stuff in Sunday School.....thats a plug for your book Ste.) the table being replaced by the "altar"...... we made some serious changes in the way we do this.

I dunno, it seems the altar aspect has been there since the beginning. Christ did say "This is my body" and "This is my blood" and the apostle Paul makes a comparison between the Lord's Supper and altar worship (1 Corinthians 10:16-18). Hebrews 13:10 flat out declares that "we have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat."

Interesting point from Hebrews, Ken.  

Are you considering this (or asking us to consider this) from the pov of the supper being a participation in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, or the pov of it being a sacrifice more akin to a worship offering/fellowship offering sort of thing, where it was not about propitiation, but celebration and thanksgiving?

I guess "all of the above". At least at this point I'm asking about it being an offering, but not going so far as to specify a purpose.

I think there is a fundamental vacuum in CoC theology regarding the Lord's Supper, at least it is somewhat bare. To fill this vacuum, you've got some current day CoC scholars (Hicks, etc.) trying to restore the LS as some sort of meal. I'm wondering if there is any CoC scholarship in the direction of offering. I think there is far more Scriptural support for it than the Lord's Supper every Sunday teaching, which essentially relies on one verse.

If you want to know I'll give you my take on it.

Ken

[Bon Voyage]

It is my understanding that the LS should be the focal point of the assembly.  Often folks can tell even from the architecture of the building the place the LS has in that assembly.  In some churches It is center and raised to show it importance.  In most denominational churches it is the pulpit that is raised and centered.  In the CoC the baptistery is also raised and centered.  In many denominational churches it is hid in the back and just brought out a few times a year for members only.  I would like to see it back in its rightful place. IMO the focal point of the assembly.

I've seen some churches recently with no baptistry, no pulpit, but a bunch of musical instruments where on the podium.

[s1n4m1n]

We were studying about communion the past few weeks, its amazing to see the changes in this meal throughout the centuries.... (they don't teach you all this stuff in Sunday School.....thats a plug for your book Ste.) the table being replaced by the "altar"...... we made some serious changes in the way we do this.

I dunno, it seems the altar aspect has been there since the beginning. Christ did say "This is my body" and "This is my blood" and the apostle Paul makes a comparison between the Lord's Supper and altar worship (1 Corinthians 10:16-18). Hebrews 13:10 flat out declares that "we have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat."

Interesting point from Hebrews, Ken.  

Are you considering this (or asking us to consider this) from the pov of the supper being a participation in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, or the pov of it being a sacrifice more akin to a worship offering/fellowship offering sort of thing, where it was not about propitiation, but celebration and thanksgiving?

James,

Your last question does hit upon a good point, people do call it the Eucharist which means "thanksgiving". I know you didn't request it but I'll give you some of my reasoning and thoughts.

Argument from typology:

1) Cain's offering of the fruit of the ground. If Abel's offering is a sacrifice then so is Cain's offering, yet not accepted because of unbelief.
2) Melchezidek with bread and wine only object mentioned in connection with his priesthood
3) Leviticus 2 and the grain offering (including unleaven bread). This offering is considered most holy of the sacrifices (same word is used in Leviticus 1 for bloody sacrifices).
4) The above can be seen as typical offerings which point to the LS as the antitype.

Argument from Prophecy

1) The prophet Joel speaks of a time when God will bless us with a new offering of bread and wine. This offering is associated with the priestly ministry in Joel 1. Peter seems to point to Joel as referring to the Pentecost and Christian age. (Compare language of Joel 1:11 IIRC to Acts 13:2, "ministering to the Lord")
2) Malachi speaks of a "clean offering" (oblation) that will be offered in every place.
3) Psalm about the Christ being "according to the order of Melchezidek".
4) Moses' prophecy of another Prophet. Perhaps not only a reference to moral law but also to ministerial law

Argument from text

1) "Do this" from Christ uses terminology related to offering.
2) The "altar" of Hebrews 13.
3) Paul's comparison in 1 Corinthians 10 of bread and cup of blessing to Jewish and Gentile sacrifices.


Argument from history

1) Ireneus states that the church received from the apostles and practiced universally that the bread and wine was blessed and was offered to God.
2) Restoration scholars stating that the church somehow "got off the rails" in making the LS a sacrifice shows that the offering concept is historical. The problem is seeing history and Bible at some sort of odds, instead of witnessing to the same thing.

These are just some free thoughts for discussion and will require more work for better precision. Even so, I hope that some can see that there is indeed support for the concept of the LS as an offering, that doesn't mean there isn't a "table fellowship" aspect, neglecting one or the other is a problem.

Thanks,

Ken

[Johnb]

Gary said
I've seen some churches recently with no baptistry, no pulpit, but a bunch of musical instruments where on the podium.

Don't think their focus is the LS.

It has always puzzled me when I ask folks and preachers from churches that only take the LS once a quarter or once a year why.  They usually said it would detract from the neaning.  Yet they sing and pray and take a collection every time they meet and it does not detractfrom the meaning of those things.

[s1n4m1n]

Regarding the baptistry in that Catholic Church, I'm sure that no immersion, as in dipping under the plane of the water, occurs. The convert will enter the water up to waist high and the officiant (usually the priest or deacon) will pour water over the convert's head three times.

[blituri]

As for the Lord's Supper being a sacrifice, John Mark Hicks at LU along with other very strange ideas says that the Lord's Supper is a sacrificial meal where God eats with us while we burn the fat with jubilation.  This is very similar to the sacrificial system where Beel-zebul or lord of the flies flitted around the sacrificial blood eager to lap it up.

http://www.piney.com/Hicks.Come.Table.html

Jesus said that we were to do it in memory of Him: Paul says that we show forth the death of Christ. That means that the supper is an act of "evangelism." In fact, it is the only commanded "preaching" act.

Otherwise, Christ ordained the Church in the Wilderness or in the Hebrew a word for synagogue. That never changed throughout the Old Testament Period even as it was more organized after the Return.

There was no preaching as in allegorizing or in Peter's words "private interpretation" meaning further expounding.

There was no "praise service" in the synagogue by direct command for the church in the wilderness and minimal reverence if you grasp "what is church."

There was no law of giving: they had a poor box for the poor and Paul never changed that.

To the synagogue the Lord's Supper was instituted during the feast of unleavened bread, was explained by Paul and never ceased for centuries.  The recorded history is that it was to remember the death of Christ.

It is important to understand that all of the Law of Moses was added because of idolatry at Mount Sinai.  Stephen and many of the Psalms and Prophets show that "God turned them over to worship the starry host." And that is what they did for the entire period of the monarchy. The festivals were all, I believe, for the muster-aged males and were like summer camp.

Heb. 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.
        For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace;
        not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
Heb. 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
Heb. 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts,
        whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin,
        are burned without the camp.

Heb. 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also,
        that he might sanctify the people with his own blood,
        suffered without the gate.

Heb. 13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
Heb. 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
Heb. 13:15 By him therefore
        let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually,
        that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
Heb. 13:16 But to do good and to communicate forget not:
        for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

And God supplies the FRUIT:

Isa. 57:19 I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him

[desertknight]

I don't know if it's accurate to say that we actually do the sacrifice each time, since that was done once for all.  

Nope.  That's what they do in a Catholic Mass, and it's one of the reasons why John Calvin protested.

Noooo!  Absolutely not.  We Catholics are adamant that the Mass is not a re-sacrificing of our Lord.  His sacrifice was once and for all.  Holy Eucharist is a re-presentation of that one sacrifice...

Catechism of the Catholic Church  1366- "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

   [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367- The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

[desertknight]

Regarding the baptistry in that Catholic Church, I'm sure that no immersion, as in dipping under the plane of the water, occurs. The convert will enter the water up to waist high and the officiant (usually the priest or deacon) will pour water over the convert's head three times.

Not really, they are there to immerse completely as well.  It is just not an absolute point of orthodoxy with us.  The original poster is correct that it has become standard in Catholic church architecture and baptism by immersion is becoming more popular again do to larger numbers of adult converts, but immersion is not required.   Immersion has always been practised in all of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp  

[Jimbob]

Regarding the baptistry in that Catholic Church, I'm sure that no immersion, as in dipping under the plane of the water, occurs. The convert will enter the water up to waist high and the officiant (usually the priest or deacon) will pour water over the convert's head three times.

I know a deacon there.  I'll have to ask him sometime.

[s1n4m1n]

Regarding the baptistry in that Catholic Church, I'm sure that no immersion, as in dipping under the plane of the water, occurs. The convert will enter the water up to waist high and the officiant (usually the priest or deacon) will pour water over the convert's head three times.

Not really, they are there to immerse completely as well.  It is just not an absolute point of orthodoxy with us.  The original poster is correct that it has become standard in Catholic church architecture and baptism by immersion is becoming more popular again do to larger numbers of adult converts, but immersion is not required.   Immersion has always been practised in all of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp   

Yes, I agree that immersion has always been a valid form of baptism in the CC. With regards to current CC baptistry design, some of them are designed to allow immersion and some aren't. The one in the picture looks to me to be unsuitable for immersion. However, I could be wrong.

Ken

[desertknight]

Yes, I agree that immersion has always been a valid form of baptism in the CC. With regards to current CC baptistry design, some of them are designed to allow immersion and some aren't. The one in the picture looks to me to be unsuitable for immersion. However, I could be wrong.

Ken

It may not be, as I said, it is not a point of vital orthodoxy with us.  The Didache is considered one of the earliest post-canonical writings of the Church and was even considered by some of the Fathers to be canonical and argued for it's inclusion into the New Testament.   It's views on baptism still reflect that of the Catholic Church today...

"Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water.  But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm.  But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.  And before the baptism let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able.  Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand."

[DCR]

Yes, I agree that immersion has always been a valid form of baptism in the CC. With regards to current CC baptistry design, some of them are designed to allow immersion and some aren't. The one in the picture looks to me to be unsuitable for immersion. However, I could be wrong.

Ken

It may not be, as I said, it is not a point of vital orthodoxy with us.  The Didache is considered one of the earliest post-canonical writings of the Church and was even considered by some of the Fathers to be canonical and argued for it's inclusion into the New Testament.   It's views on baptism still reflect that of the Catholic Church today...

"Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water.  But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm.  But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.  And before the baptism let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able.  Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand."

I've read this excerpt from the Didache before.  What I find interesting is that a distinction is made between "baptizing" and "pouring."  A different Greek word is used, in fact.

The instructions are given on baptism.  But, if you don't have enough water to "baptize," then "pour."  

That seems to point to the writer thinking of baptism as something other than simply pouring.  It doesn't seem to be a difference between "baptism by means of immersion" versus "baptism by means of pouring."  It's actually a difference between "baptism" (which means immersion, some would say) and "pouring" (as opposed to "baptism").

Just an observation.  

[desertknight]

I've read this excerpt from the Didache before.  What I find interesting is that a distinction is made between "baptizing" and "pouring."  A different Greek word is used, in fact.

The instructions are given on baptism.  But, if you don't have enough water to "baptize," then "pour."  

That seems to point to the writer thinking of baptism as something other than simply pouring.  It doesn't seem to be a difference between "baptism by means of immersion" versus "baptism by means of pouring."  It's actually a difference between "baptism" (which means immersion, some would say) and "pouring" (as opposed to "baptism").

Just an observation.  

The distinction is made because you are reading our meaning in English from what is written in the Didache in Greek.  In other words, baptizo, literally means "dipped" or "immersed" in Greek so of course when the Didache describes "sprinkling", the word in Greek used is not "baptism", but that is not to say that what the Didache is describing is not what we have come to call in English, "baptism".  It clearly is if one simply reads what the author is saying, i.e., "if you have neither, then pour..."  Clearly the author(s), of the Didache are saying that total immersion may be preferable, but that it is not mandatory in order to effect what is intended.  

[pointmade]

"The Lord's supper an offering to God"?

No, it is what Jesus said it was, "This do in remembrance of me" (1 Cor. 11:24-25). That is about as simple as He could make it.

Takes professional help to miss His asking here.....

How often: ""Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread" (Acts 20:7). When and why simplified for even the very illiterate.

Kind of like the mode of baptism He commanded: When reading Acts 8:36-39 and you can get "pouring" as being "baptized" go for it.  The Bible has become a "dead letter" in your scholarship.

[Jimbob]

I finally ran across the deacon from that Catholic church again.  He confirmed yes, it is an edict that all new churches have immersion baptistries, and yes that they are baptizing adult converts by immersion at that church.