Most Baptists believe something to the effect that?

Question

"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" (Southern Baptist "Faith and Message," June 14, 2000).

Was it not in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread that the disciples might catch a fleeting, nearly mystical, glimpse of the Risen Lord (Luke 24:30-31)?


Was Paul lying when he told us that when we partake of the Eucharist, we are partaking of the substantial and quite material presence of Christ Himself: "The blessing-cup, which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ; and the loaf of bread which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 10:16)? Does Paul say anything about the Eucharist being a mere symbolic act? Or does he use stark and clearly simple language that suggests a sharing in the material body and blood of Christ?


Do not Paul and the three Synoptic Gospels use equally clear and simple language when they record the words of consecration, "this IS my body"? Is not the simplest, clearest interpretation of the Bible usually the best?


Was Paul misleading us when he severely warned that, "anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to examine himself and only then eat of the bread or drink from the cup, because a person who eats or drinks without recognizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation" (1 Cor. 11:27-29)? Does Paul say that we are profaning a symbol, or are we are actually profaning the body of Christ? Does Paul not go on to say that partaking of the Lord's Supper without recognizing that body, upon self-examination, is itself to eat and drink condemnation unto oneself?

Answer 1

Check this out from scripturecatholic.com. You’ll see references to the original Greek texts with explanations showing Christ’s intended meaning and the correct interpretations:

Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.
1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

God bless.

Answer 2

Consubstantiation is the view that the bread and wine of Communion / the Lord's Supper are seen to spiritually be the flesh and blood of Jesus, but yet the bread and wine are still actually only bread and wine. In this way, it is different from Transubstantiation where the bread and the wine are believed to actually become the body and blood of Jesus. Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic dogma that stretches back to the earliest years of the Church while Consubstantiation is relatively new, arising out of the Protestant Reformation. Consubstantiation essentially teaches that Jesus is "with, in, and under" the bread and wine - but is not literally the bread and wine.

Martin Luther, seen to be the founder of the Protestant Reformation, was a Roman Catholic priest who was fed up with the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church and wanted to reform the Church so it could once again return to its original roots. As such, he would have learned all about the doctrine of Transubstantiation in his theological training and it would have made up part of his belief system because, as a priest, he would have celebrated the Mass many times and the dogma of Transubstantiation is central to the Roman Catholic Mass.

Thus when the Reformation started as a backlash to the Roman Catholic abuses (such as the sale of indulgences) and the reform movement was then summarily excommunicated from the Church, the leaders of the Reformation were largely Roman Catholic believers who were now without a Church since they had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Thus was formed the climate in which the elements of the Mass, the bread and the wine, could be examined in a reformed light. So instead of Transubstantiation, a doctrine that must be taken on faith alone since no apparent change is present in the bread and wine, the doctrine of Consubstantiation was formulated to explain what happened to the bread and wine and why there was no real physical change to these basic elements.

Thus, the bread, appearing as bread, was seen to be both bread and the body of Jesus, rather than seeing the bread as not bread but as the body of Jesus. The same was true of the wine. In Consubstantiation the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus instead of becoming the actual blood of Jesus. The change from Trans- to Con- is the key to seeing the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus. The prefix Trans- says that a change took place, the bread actually became the body of Jesus and the wine actually became the blood of Jesus. The prefix Con- says that the bread does not become the body of Jesus but co-exists with the physical bread so that the bread is both a bread and the body of Jesus. The same thing is true of the wine. It does not become the blood of Jesus, but co-exists with the wine so that the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus.

In this way, the make-up of the host central to the worship service is seen as approaching reality since the physical property of the bread and wine do not change, the bread tastes like unleavened bread, not flesh and the wine tastes like wine, not blood. However these two essential elements, the flesh and the blood, remain as co-existing elements with the bread and wine so that the teaching of Jesus, in Matthew 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24, can be properly observed. Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some other liturgical Christian denominations (Episcopal and Lutheran as examples). Even amongst these groups, consubstantiation is not universally accepted.

Recommended Resource: The Lord's Supper is a Celebration of Grace by Gordon Keddie.

Answer 3

Sounds like you are splitting hairs. The Baptist examine themselves as instructed and ask forgiveness for anything that keeps them from partaking in the Lord's Supper. It is a symbolic act and the grape juice is no more the blood of Christ than the bread is the body.

Answer 4

There is no such thing as theProtestant view of the Eucharist. IEven among Baptist I know people who believe in a literal real presence of Christ in the Eucharist"because the Bible tells me so". Most Baptists i know are "bare memorial meal" folks but some are "Spirtual real presence(Calvinist)" folks

Answer 5

I'm sure Baptists and other Religions have different ways of punishing. Curiosity...why Baptists in particular? Protestant Nazarene

Answer 6

The Baptists are true Christians, lovely people.

Answer 7

Not just Baptists but most protestants.
We don't believe in transubstantiation.
Jesus said 'I am the door'. but he wasn't literally a door.
He said, "I am the vine', but he wasn't literally a vine.
We do celebrate the Last Supper, in remembrance of Him as He commanded.
We just don't think it's really Him mystically in flesh and blood and the Word is subject to interpretation.

Answer 8

I'm not trying to be rude, so please forgive me if I sound like I am...but what exactly is your question?

If your asking if Baptist think that they are actually eating and drinking Jesus's body and blood...then my answer would have to be "No, they do not think or believe that."

Answer 9

And you know this because?