| Eucharist Debate : Bill Rutland vs Dr. Bill Jackson |
|
Dr. Bill Jackson heads an orginazation called Christians Evangelizing Catholics. Dr. Jackson can be reached through his web site at www.dodone.com.
Bill Rutland, Roman Catholic
Dr. Bill Jackson, Evangelical Protestant
The Bible Teaches that Jesus is Presant Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist
|
 |
Speeches
|
|
Affirmative
|
Negative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Rutland's Opening Statement
Affirmation: The Bible teaches that Jesus is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.
I believe that in the Holy Mass at the words of consecration our gifts of bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus, the selfsame Body and Blood as St. Ignatius said, "...which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again." But, before I go on to speak of what the Eucharist is, I must clearly state what it is not.
In the Eucharist Christ is not re-sacrificed. The Church teaches that the Eucharist is a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice. In the Eucharist Christ is not bleeding or suffering over and over again. St. Paul says to the Hebrews:
It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him. (Hebrews 9:23-28, NIV)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees with Hebrews when it states:
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. (CCC 1366)
The Eucharist is a fulfillment of all of the Old Testament Sacrifices. Jesus told us at His Sermon on the Mount:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17 NIV)
Therefore the Eucharist is the complete fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifices, both before the Law and after.
To understand the Eucharist we must first understand the Jewish Passover. Passover is the celebration and the commemoration of Israel’s exodus from the bondage of slavery in Egypt. For 400 years the Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians. Then God hears their cries for help and sends Moses to liberate them. But Pharaoh wouldn’t budge. Plague after plague came upon Egypt but still Pharaoh's hart was "hard". Each of the plagues struck out at a particular Egyptian god. The seventh and last plague struck out at Egypt’s god-on-earth, Pharaoh himself. Every first born male, of people and animals were consecrated to the Pharaoh. So it was the first borne that were struck down in the Passover. Yet God provided an escape for the Jews. In Exodus we read:
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, "This month is to be for you that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they with bitter herbs and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire--head, legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover." (Exodus 12:1-11 NIV)
Notice that there are two parts to the Passover. The lamb must be killed and his blood put on the tops and frames of the doors of the Israelite’s houses. Second the lamb must be eaten. This is a point that must not be overlooked. The sacrifice of Passover was not over until the lamb was eaten. If this second part was not observed then the Israelite first born would not have been protected from the "angel of death", sent by God to kill the first borne of Egypt.
It was on the backdrop of these events that Jesus establishes the new Passover. Matthew tells us:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
(Matthew 26:26-29)
As Jesus celebrates the Passover meal He hands His disciples the bread and tells them "This is my Body". Then He hands them the cup of wine and says, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Many Protestants will argue that Jesus is only speaking symbolically, yet the only rational for viewing this statement symbolically is to keep our Lord’s words from contradicting their doctrine. Comparing Matthew’s account with Luke’s we can see that Jesus cannot be seen as speaking in a symbolic fashion:
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:17-19 NIV)
The phrase "Do this in remembrance of Me.", is a sacrificial phrase. The word translated "remembrance" is the Greek anamnesis. Aside from the Last Supper accounts it is only used in one other place in the New Testament:
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4 NIV)
Hebrews speaks of the Old Testament sacrifices and calls them "reminders (anamnesis) of sin." This is a technical Greek term used in the Bible to refer to sacrifices. The LXX uses the word anamnesis in texts like Numbers 10:10:
Also at your times of rejoicing--your appointed feasts and New Moon festivals--you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial for you before your God. I am the LORD your God.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also makes this connection:
The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of His unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is His body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of intuition a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial. In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollect of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them. (CCC 1362)
From this we see that Jesus uses Old Testament sacrificial language. If He were speaking symbolically then the Eucharist could not be an anamnesis as Jesus clearly said that it was.
In the sacrifice of the Eucharist we participate in the new Passover Feast. A feast where the Lord Jesus is present to us Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Jesus has been sacrificed once and for all. But we are commanded to keep His feast, His anamnesis. This is why St. Paul tells the Corinthians:
Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival (literal "feast"), not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. (I Corinthians 5:7-8)
Negative Statement by Bill Jackson to Bill Rutland's Affirmation that The Bible teaches that Jesus is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.
Bill R started by saying, "The Eucharist is a fulfillment of all of the Old Testament Sacrifices. Jesus told us at His Sermon on the Mount, ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.'"
This does not say that Eucharist is a fulfilment of all of the Old Testament sacrifices. It merely says that Christ will fulfill all of the Old Testament Law and Prophets. He fulfilled the sacrificial aspect of Judaism when He finished the work for our redemption. Bill has not yet proved that this sacrifice is continued in the Eucharist.
Assuming far too much from Jesus' statement, he makes the unfounded claim, "Therefore the Eucharist is the complete fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifices, both before the Law and after."
Then Bill R tries to make the Passover-Eucharist link.
He says, "To understand the Eucharist we must first understand the Jewish Passover. Passover is the celebration and the commemoration of Israel''s exodus from the bondage of slavery in Egypt.. The seventh (there were ten) and last plague struck out at Egypt''s god-on-earth, Pharaoh himself. So it was the first born that were struck down in the Passover. Yet God provided an escape for the Jews, the Passover.
Notice that there are two parts to the Passover. The lamb must be killed and his blood put on the tops and frames of the doors of the Israelite houses. Second the lamb must be eaten. This is a point that must not be overlooked. The sacrifice of Passover was not over until the lamb was eaten. If this second part was not observed then the Israelite first born would not have been
protected from the "angel of death", sent by God to kill the first borne of Egypt.
The Bible clearly says, "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." The deliverance called the Passover was only because of the applied blood. Notice it was not just blood, it had to be applied. The salvation wrought in us through the blood of His cross is efficacious for us only because it has been applied to us. Since the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, there is no blood to be applied! While the continued eating of the Passover lamb with the herbs, etc. was to remind the Jewish people of the Lord's deliverance, subsequent Passover celebrations did not achieve the same result as did the original Passover.
Bill R says, "Many Protestants will argue that Jesus is only speaking symbolically, yet the only rational for viewing this statement symbolically is to keep our Lord''s words from contradicting their doctrine. Comparing Matthew''s account with Luke''s we can see that Jesus cannot be seen as speaking in a symbolic fashion:"
He quotes Jesus as saying, "Take this (cup) and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine . . ." Was it still the fruit of the vine which symbolized His blood? He said it was the fruit of the vine; Bill R would say it was blood. Who is right?
Now Bill Rutland's entire argument will start to revolve around the Greek word anamnesis, which means recollection and is translated in the KJV remembrance.
He says, "The phrase ‘Do this in remembrance of Me,' is a sacrificial phrase. The word translated "remembrance" is the Greek anamnesis. Aside from the Last Supper accounts it is only used in one other place in the New Testament:
Actually twice. Hebrews 10:4 and Mark 11:21. Further, "Do this in remembrance of Me" is not a sacrificial phrase.
Bill reminds us that, "Hebrews (10:4) speaks of the Old Testament sacrifices and calls them "reminders (anamnesis) of sin. This is a technical Greek term used in the Bible to refer to sacrifices.
The word anamnesis has no connection to sacrifice, and the word "sacrifices" in Hebrews 10:4 is not in the original.
Bill R. says, "The LXX uses the word anamnesis in texts like Numbers 10:10"
He fails to tell us which word in the Septuagint's Numbers 10:10 has the word anamnesis. Three words are used in English, burnt-offering, sacrifice and memorial. It doesn't really matter, for Bill has never proved that anamnesis is a technical Greek term used in the Bible to refer to sacrifices. This whole line of thinking about remembrance signifying sacrifice has absolutely no biblical backing.
Bill R then claims the Catechism also makes this connection: "The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ''s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of His unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is His body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of intuition a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial. In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollect of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them." (CCC 1362)
"The Exodus events are made present." Does that mean that the result of the Passover was continued year by year or that the Passover was to be commemorated. If we try to equate the Mass to this, if the Mass is a continuation of the one sacrifice of Christ, then it should accomplish the same result as the original sacrifice. There is no credible connection.
From this, Bill R says, we see that Jesus uses Old Testament sacrificial language. If He were speaking symbolically then the Eucharist could not be an anamnesis as Jesus clearly said that it was.
Was Peter's anamnesis (remembering the words of Christ) of Mark 11:21 sacrificial? We must repeat that Jesus did not use Old Testament sacrificial language when He spoke of remembering Him .
Bill R asserts, "In the sacrifice of the Eucharist we participate in the new Passover Feast. A feast where the Lord Jesus is present to us Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Jesus has been sacrificed once and for all. But we are commanded to keep His feast, His anamnesis."
Which doesn't signify sacrifice, but remembrance.
To sum it up, Exodus 12:27 tells us that the Lamb is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover (or deliverance). This Passover was to be commemorated forever - verse 24, and answers to the Lord's Supper, when we commemorate our deliverance.
What was to be commemorated forever? Blood on the doorposts while the destroying angel passed over? No. The memorial feast to be kept forever included, under the old covenant, unleavened bead, a holy convocation, a sabbath, the lamb to be slain. But the blood of this lamb was not painted on the doorposts and did not deliver from death.
1 Cor 5:6 says a little leaven, which is type of sin according to the context leaveneth the whole lump. So we are to
1 Cor 5:7 - purge out the old leaven, because Christ our Passover (Lamb) is sacrificed for us and we are delivered. Repeated, in different words in Colossians 3:1, Romans 12:1, etc.
Knowing this, verse 8 - keep the feast (festival) with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. A Festival is a time of celebration marked by special observances.
We celebrate this Festival at the Lord's Table, where we remember what He did for us, what He is doing for us, and what He will do for us when He welcomes us into His eternal abode.
Bill Rutland
The Eucharist is an anamnesis, or memorial sacrifice for sin. Dr. Jackson in his opening statement argues that anamnesis does not have a sacrificial meaning because, as he says, Peter uses the word in Mark 11:21 in a non-sacrificial way. Mark 11:21 says:
Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" (NIV)
To this Dr. Jackson asks:
"Was Peter's anamnesis (remembering the words of Christ) of Mark 11:21 sacrificial? We must repeat that Jesus did not use Old Testament sacrificial language when He spoke of remembering Him ."
On closer inspection Dr. Jackson’s argument fails because Hebrews 10:3 (not 10:4) and Mark 11:21 DO NOT use the same words. The "remembered" of Mark 11:21 is the Greek word anamimnesko and not the anamnesis of Hebrews 10:3. This is further born out by the fact that Mark’s anamimnesko is a verb whereas Hebrews anamnesis is a noun. One is an action and the other is an event. Dr.Jackson’s attempt to equate Mark 11:21 and Hebrews 10:3 falls under it’s ownweight.
Likewise Dr. Jackson attempts to undermine the Hebrews 10:3 passage by stating:
"The word anamnesis has no connection to sacrifice, and the word "sacrifices" in Hebrews 10:3 is not in the original."
Going back to Hebrews we read:
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4 NIV)
Dr. Jackson is correct that the Greek in Hebrews 10:3 does not have the word "sacrifices." The literal translation states:
"...but in those is a remembrance of sins every year,"
The Greek translated "those" here is autos. This is a demonstrative pronoun and points back to the sacrifices that Paul mentions in Hebrews 10:1. It is quite proper to insert the word "sacrifices" here. Even the King James Version that my opponent venerates adds the word "sacrifices":
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. (Hebrews 10:3 KJV)
Turning now to the Eucharist/Passover connection Dr. Jackson writes:
"The Bible clearly says, ‘When I see the blood, I will pass over you.’ The deliverance called the Passover was only because of the applied blood. Notice it was not just blood, it had to be applied. The salvation wrought in us through the blood of His cross is efficacious for us only because it has been applied to us. Since the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, there is no blood to be applied! While the continued eating of the Passover lamb with the herbs, etc. was to remind the Jewish people of the Lord's deliverance, subsequent Passover celebrations did not achieve the same result as did the original Passover."
Dr. Jackson attempts to portray me as equating the Eucharist and the Passover. Yet, in my affirmation I clearly stated of the Passover:
"It was on the backdrop of these events that Jesus establishes the new Passover."
This is why I referenced Hebrews 10:1 that "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves."
I completely agree with Dr. Jackson’s statement that, "The deliverance called the Passover was only because of the applied blood." But, his conclusion that, "Since the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, there is no blood to be applied!" clearly misrepresents the Catholic view of the Mass. I reference once more the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
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. (CCC 1366)
The whole point of this debate is that the Eucharist IS a blood sacrifice re-presented in an unbloody manner. Whereas Catholics do sometimes refer to the Eucharist as an "unbloody sacrifice" to try to define these words as Dr. Jackson does is clearly outside of the Catholic understanding of the term.
Next Dr. Jackson turns his attention to my presentation of the Lord’s Supper:
He [Bill Rutland] quotes Jesus as saying, "Take this (cup) and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine . . ." Was it still the fruit of the vine which symbolized His blood? He said it was the fruit of the vine; Bill R would say it was blood. Who is right?
Dr. Jackson would try to make me contend with the words of Christ.. Yet I am not the one who says that the contents of the cup was blood, Jesus says it:
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matthew 26:27-29 NIV)
Dr. Jackson tries to say that because Jesus refers to the cup as "this fruit of the vine" that this shows the contents of the cup was still wine. Yet when we compare the parallel texts this interpretation falls flat on its face! Mark records Jesus as saying "the fruit of the vine" (Mark14:25) as does Luke (Luke 22:18). Clearly Jesus is not speaking of the contents of the cup He holds in His hand, but a future celebration. The isolated "this" certainly does not carry enough weight to counter the impact of Jesus’ clear words, "this is My Blood." There is no textual evidence here to suggest that Jesus is speaking symbolically. The assertion is simply grabbed out of the thin air of doctrinal bias. In the end Dr. Jackson’s argument does not make me contend against the words of Jesus, but Scripture contend against Scripture.
All Dr. Jackson has done up to this point is to attempt to poke holes in my argument. Even if what he says refutes me (which clearly it does not) it still does not show the correctness of his position. To do that he must demonstrate that the Bible teaches that all sacrifices have ended at the cross. Scripture does teach that all Old Testament sacrifices have ended at the cross, here we have no argument. Yet the Old Testament in sections like Malachi 1:11 and Zechariah 14:21 clearly speak of a post-Calvery sacrifice.
St. Paul says to the Hebrews:
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. (Hebrews 10:26 NIV)
If we take Dr. Jackson’s position that all sacrifices ended with the cross then this verse causes us a great deal of problem. It not only refutes Dr. Jackson’s "once-saved-always-saved" position, but it would teach that if we "deliberately keep on sinning" after we are "saved" then we are doomed to the hell fires. Now let’s put the verse in a broader context and we will find that it only makes sense in relation to the sacrifice of the Mass:
Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching. If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:23-29)
The Catholic Church teaches that at Baptism the sacrifice of Christ atones for our sins, up to that point. After Baptism, if I sin, the Blood of Christ does not atone for them until I repent and bring them to the foot of the cross at the Mass. This is exactly what Paul is telling the Hebrews. How are they "deliberately sinning?" They are giving up meeting together. That is, they are not going to Mass! In neglecting to meet in Christian communion they are, "trampling the Son of God under foot, and treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him." Paul is warning his readers (and us) that if we reject the sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is "no more sacrifice for sin, but only a fearful expectation of judgment." Thus the Scriptures clearly portray the Eucharist as the on going New Testament sacrifice.
Bill Jackson's reply to Bill Rutland's First Rebuttal
Bill R. said, "All Dr. Jackson has done up to this point is to attempt to poke holes in my argument. Even if what he says refutes me (which clearly it does not) it still does not show the correctness of his position. To do that he must demonstrate that the Bible teaches that all sacrifices have ended at the cross. Scripture does teach that all Old Testament sacrifices have ended at the cross, here we have no argument. Yet the Old Testament in sections like Malachi 1:11 and Zechariah 14:21 clearly speak of a post-Calvary sacrifice."
Before I answer his original charge, let us look at Malachi 1:11, which speaks of a "pure offering." We believe that pure offering was at Calvary, and that the Holy Spirit continues, without the necessity of human instrumentality, to administer this to man. (1 Corinthians 12:13) Zechariah 14:21 speaks of the kingdom age, when temple sacrifice will be re-instituted. (Ezekiel 40-48). Israel, being an earthly people, will need visible sacrifices with which to remember Christ's sacrifice, while the Church, a heavenly people, remembers Him in spirit. (John 4:24, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Corinthians 5:7).
He ignored my summation which shows the correctness of the Bible position. I had said, "To sum it up, Exodus 12:27 tells us that the Lamb is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover (or deliverance). This Passover was to be commemorated forever - verse 24, and answers to the Lord's Supper, when we commemorate our deliverance.
What was to be commemorated forever? Blood on the doorposts while the destroying angel passed over? No. The memorial feast to be kept forever included, under the old covenant, unleavened bead, a holy convocation, a sabbath, the lamb to be slain. But the blood of this lamb was not painted on the doorposts and did not deliver from death.
1 Corinthians 5:6 says a little leaven, which is type of sin according to the context leaveneth the whole lump. So we are to (1 Corinthians 5:7) purge out the old leaven, because Christ our Passover (Lamb) is sacrificed for us and we are delivered. Repeated, in different words in Colossians 3:1, Romans 12:1, etc.
Knowing this, verse 8 - keep the feast (festival) with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. A Festival is a time of celebration marked by special observances.
We celebrate this Festival at the Lord's Table, where we remember what He did for us, what He is doing for us, and what He will do for us when He welcomes us into His eternal abode.
Much of our discussion seems to be centered around the use of the Greek word anamnesis. Since Christians believe the best way to settle any doctrinal problem is to see what the Word of God says, let us look at this word. We will use the KJV text, but then go to the Greek as given in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, with special reference to his Greek Dictionary.
Anamnesis (Strong's #364) is a noun and is used in the following places:
Mark 11:21 - . . . And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
Luke 22:19 - . . . This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me
1 Cor 11:24 - . . . Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me
1 Cor 11:25 - . . . this cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me
Hebrews 10:3 - But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
It is interesting to note where this noun is not used - in the Passover accounts of Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29 or John 13.
Anamnesis, according to Strong, comes from anamimnesko (#363), which means to remind, to recollect. This is found in the following:
Hebrews 10:32 - But call to remembrance the former days
2 Timothy 1:6 - I put thee in remembrance
1 Corinthians 4:17 - Timotheus . . .who shall bring you into remembrance
Anamimnesko comes from mimnesko (#3403) which means to remind or to recall to mind. It is found in the following verses:
2 Timothy 1:4 - being mindful of thy tears
Hebrews 2:6 - What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Hebrews 13:3 - Remember them that are in bonds
2 Peter 3:2 - That ye may be mindful
There are twelve times these related words are used in the New Testament.
The only verse where sacrifice is mentioned in the same verse is Hebrews 10:3, and the Bible merely says that in those sacrifices there is a remembrance of sin. It is not the remembrance that fell short of perfecting the comers thereto, but the sacrifices.
The Luke and 1 Corinthians texts do not mention sacrifice, and the only way Bill R. can get this idea in is to invent the idea that anamnesis is a sacrificial word, and yet none of the other verses in which it or words from which it is derived are used has any mention of sacrifice.
Exegesis is a legitimate method of Bible interpretation when the context is considered, but eisegesis, which Bill R uses, is dishonest.
Anamnesis is not a sacrificial word.
I will admit that the "remembrance" of Hebrews 10:3 refers back to the sacrifice of verse 1, but the sacrifices to which Paul referred were offered year by year and could never make the comers thereto perfect, for, if they had, they would have ceased to be offered. This is the reason the sacrifice of Calvary is no longer offered, because "by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14)
The reason that the sacrifices had to be continually offered is because they could not take away sin or the conscience of being a sinner. But, the KJV says, "in those sacrifices there is a remembrance (anamnesis) again made of sins every year. The remembrance is present only because the sacrifice is insufficient. An infinite sacrifice is by nature perpetual, and is not perpetuated by a remembrance.
The work of Christ on our behalf was a perfect, infinite sacrifice. It completely satisfied God and is the only merit by which we can be reconciled to God. Having had quite a bit of correspondence with Bill R., I would say his big problem is that he looks at spiritual things through Vatican-stained glasses. If he could understand the
infinite Christ of the Infallible Bible, he would have a Christ-centered theology.
Let me make a statement with which Bill R. should agree. In What and Why of Catholicism, with the imprimatur of Francis Cardinal Spellman. It says, "The sacrifice of the Mass forms a pivot upon which all else turns. If it is what Catholic believe it is, it is the greatest manifestation of the love of God for man and the most magnificent testimonial to the validity of Catholicism, but if it be false, it is the worst farce and blasphemy ever perpetrated upon God or man, and the Catholic faith collapses into nothingness."
I suppose we can turn this into a True/False quiz. Bill says True; I say False.
Bill R said, "I completely agree with Dr. Jackson''s statement that the deliverance called the Passover was only because of the applied blood. But, his conclusion that, ‘Since the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, there is no blood to be applied!' clearly misrepresents the Catholic view of the Mass. I reference once more the Catechism of the Catholic Church: ‘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.' (CCC 1366)"
Let us examine this lengthy paragraph.Jesuit priest John Hardon's very conservative Catechism states that "the sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice whereby Christ, the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal father, as he did on the cross."
Then we have the mental gymnastics of an unbloody blood sacrifice because, as the Catechism states, Jesus wanted "to leave his beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands)" This is a revealing statement, for it admits the sensual nature of Roman Catholicism, and denies the cardinal New Testament truth of faith vs. sight. "Blessed are they", said our Lord, "who have not seen, and yet have believed." Therefore the Mass demonstrates the one of basic flaws of Roman Catholicism.
The paragraph Bill R. quoted from the Catechism concludes, " 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."
The only re-presentation of Calvary that is necessary is fulfilled in the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). The perpetuation of its memory is fulfilled in the Christian Lord's Supper, and its power to forgive sins has a two-fold application. The sins that would condemn us are forgiven through the blood of His cross, and sins that mar fellowship are forgiven by Him as we confess them.
I quoted Bill R as quoting Jesus as follows: "Take this (cup) and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine . . ." Jesus said He would drink no more of this fruit of the vine. Bill R and the Catholic Church say it is blood. I merely asked who was correct, Bill R (and Catholicism) or Christ
We know Jesus did not contradict Himself. By showing you a photo of my daughter, I might say, "This is my daughter." You would not go to the photo and start talking to my daughter. What I meant was this is a picture of my daughter. The very fact that after saying what the Catholic church calls the words of consecration, Jesus said it was still wine proves that He spoke figuratively So there is textual evidence that it was not His Blood in the cup. Does that Precious Blood, presented to the Father as grounds for our forgiveness, fill one hundred thousand chalices daily on Catholic altars?.
Bill R quotes Hebrews 10:26 (NIV): "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.."
Hebrews 10:26 does not say Christians will lose eternal life. There are Christians who will be saved yet so as by fire (I Corinthians 3:15)..
Bill R wants to "put the verse in a broader context and we will find that it only makes sense in relation to the sacrifice of the Mass." He quotes Hebrews 10:23 - 29 and tells us ". . . . After Baptism, if I sin, the Blood of Christ does not atone for them until I repent and bring them to the foot of the cross at the Mass. This is exactly what Paul is telling the Hebrews. How are they "deliberately sinning?" The are giving up meeting together. That is they are not going to Mass! In neglecting to meet in Christian communion they are, "trampling the Son of God under foot, and treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him." Paul is warning his readers (and us) that if we reject the sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is "no more sacrifice for sin, but only a fearful expectation of judgment." Thus the Scriptures clearly portray the Eucharist as the on going New Testament sacrifice.
Does this mean that for people who "are not going to Mass" there is no more possibility of being saved? How many Masses do you have to deliberately miss in order to be damned forever? If there "remains no more sacrifice for sins" and the only valid sacrifice for sins is "re-presented" in the Mass, they cannot go to the "sacrifice for sins" if they have deliberately missed Mass. An identical warning is given in Hebrews 6, where we are told of the one who has fallen away "it is impossible . . . to renew them again unto repentance." Are you teaching Eternal Insecurity, Bill R.?
One last question. Is it true, as the leading Roman Catholic apologist has written that "There are only two ways of having sin removed - Baptism and Penance. Does the Mass remove sin?"
Bill Jackson
Bill Rutland’s Second Rebuttal
I would like to point out the logical inconsistency with which Dr. Jackson handles Malachi 1:11 and Zechariah 14:21. Dr. Jackson writes:
Before I answer his original charge, let us look at Malachi 1:11, which speaks of a "pure offering." We believe that pure offering was at Calvary, and that the Holy Spirit continues, without the necessity of human instrumentality, to administer this to man.
Although Dr. Jackson does not explain it here, his whole argument for his interpretation of this verse revolves around the Hebrew adjective tahowr translated here as "pure." In his essay entitled Holy Communion and Mass, Dr. Jackson understands tahowr to mean, "...the sacrifice of Calvery, never-to-be-repeated but always available to do a work of complete cleansing." That is, by using the word "pure" Malachi means that the sacrifice spoken of here covers sins past, present and future, with no need of a re-presentation.
Yet the word tahawr has no such meaning; it means (a) to be clean ceremonially (of animals) (b) to be pure physically (c) to be pure or clean morally and ethically. In the context of Malachi 1:11 the word carries the first meaning of ceremonially clean. God, through His prophet is condemning the Jews because they have offered "defiled" offerings (cf. Malachi 1:7). In contrast God speaks of a future offering that will be pure (undefiled). Whereas this verse does speaks of Calvery, it also portrays the sacrifice as on going, " In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to My name". This is a sacrifice that the "nations" will offer to the Lord. Not a sacrifice done, "without the necessity of human instrumentality." As Dr. Jackson asserts.
As for Zechariah 14:21 Dr. Jackson states:
Zechariah 14:21 speaks of the kingdom age, when temple sacrifice will be re-instituted. (Ezekiel 40-48). Israel, being an earthly people, will need visible sacrifices with which to remember Christ's sacrifice, while the Church, a heavenly people, remembers Him in spirit. (John 4:24, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Corinthians 5:7).
Dr. Jackson’s interpretation is biased by a dispensationalist eschatology. Whereas it is not with in the scope of this debate to address Dispensationalism, suffice it to say that it is a new and novel theory which imposes artificial structures on the Scriptures, and which is rejected by Catholics and most main-line Protestants alike. Notice that Dr. Jackson has just told us that, "We believe that pure offering was at Calvary, and that the Holy Spirit continues, without the necessity of human instrumentality, to administer this to man." Now he tells us that in this so-called "Kingdom Age" the, " temple sacrifice will be re-instituted. (Ezekiel 40-48). Israel, being an earthly people, will need visible sacrifices with which to remember Christ's sacrifice,..." Dr. Jackson cannot have it both ways. Either the sacrifice of Calvary is a once-and-for-ALL sacrifice "without the necessity of human instrumentality" or it is not!
I do not want to dwell on the Greek anamnesis. The fact of the matter is that Mark 11:21 uses the Greek word anamimnesko, as any good Greek text will show. It is NOT the same word that is used when speaking of the Lord’s Remembrance or the sacrificial Remembrance of Hebrews 10:3. As I have already pointed out, one is a noun and the other is a verb. In asserting otherwise Dr. Jackson is quite simply wrong!
Before moving on, I want to briefly touch on Dr. Jackson’s photograph analogy, he writes:
We know Jesus did not contradict Himself. By showing you a photo of my daughter, I might say, "This is my daughter." You would not go to the photo and start talking to my daughter. What I meant was this is a picture of my daughter. The very fact that after saying what the Catholic church calls the words of consecration, Jesus said it was still wine proves that He spoke figuratively So there is textual evidence that it was not His Blood in the cup. Does that Precious Blood, presented to the Father as grounds for our forgiveness, fill one hundred thousand chalices daily on Catholic altars?
Now if Dr. Jackson showed me a photograph of his daughter and said, "this is my daughter," I would hopefully understand him as meaning, "this is a portrayal of my daughter." But if I showed Dr. Jackson a rock and I said, "this is my daughter." Dr. Jackson would certainly want an explanation, because clearly it looks like a rock and not a fifteen year old girl! When Jesus says to His disciples "this is My Blood", it clearly looked to them like wine. This is why Jesus tells them:
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God." (Mark 14:24-25 NIV)
Jesus tells them that the Blood in the cup is the same Blood that will be, "poured out for many," that is, the blood shed on the cross. Now the disciples still may have misunderstood Jesus if this was the first time that He had broached the subject, but it was not. This brings us to John chapter 6:30-68.
This text recounts the challenge given to Jesus by some in the crowd to show them a sign to prove that He was the Messiah. They make reference to Moses and how he had given the Israelites manna from heaven to eat. Jesus counters that He is the "true bread" that has come down from heaven. The Jews recognize that Jesus is claiming to be the Christ (Messiah). At this they are offended and ask, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, `I came down from heaven'?"
Jesus strengthens His argument by contrasting the manna of Moses which could only sustain the body to the bread that He will give which will bring eternal life to the soul. Then He defines just what that bread is in the incredible statement, "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." The Jews are all the more scandalized and ask, "how He can give them His flesh to eat?" If Jesus were only speaking metaphorically it seems reasonable that He would have explained at this point that He was not speaking literally. Instead of doing this Jesus shocks them by saying, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." The Jews were scandalized, for the Law of Moses prohibited the drinking of blood (cf. Leviticus 7:26).
In fact this statement of our Lord was so shocking that John tells us that many of His disciples abandoned Him. At this point, if Jesus did not mean for His words to be taken literally, surely He would have explained Himself to the twelve as He had done in the past. Yet, He simply turns to them and asks if they are going to leave also, to which Peter exclaims, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." Can we really believe that Jesus was willing to let His disciples walk away over a misunderstanding?
Many Protestants try to make the claim that Jesus did in fact explain Himself when He said, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." The argument is that when Jesus said that the words He had spoken were spirit was in affect saying that He was only speaking metaphorically. Yet a close reading of this text will reveal that this is not what Jesus is saying. First our Lord says, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." Jesus is contrasting again the bread of Moses that only feeds the flesh and His true Bread that feeds the spirit. Then Jesus tells them that, "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." What "words" is Jesus talking about? the words that He has just spoken, that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood! If we are straightforward with this text we can only conclude that Jesus was speaking literally when He said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. With these startling events still clear in their minds, the disciples around the Last Supper table certainly would not conclude that the words of their Lord, "This Is My Body...This IS My Blood," were anything but literal.
Now in my remaining space I would like to turn to Hebrews:
Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. (Hebrews 7:23-8:1-2 NIV)
Paul speaks of Jesus as our Great High Priest. His Priesthood is different than the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priest’s office ended at his death. But Jesus lives forever and therefore has a "permanent priesthood." We must ask the question here that if the sacrifice of Calvary ended forever all sacrifices, and if it is not an ongoing sacrifice, what is the purpose of a permanent priesthood? Jesus, Paul tells us, lives always to "intercede" for us. But if we are "saved" in the sense that Dr. Jackson sees it, why do we need priestly intercession?
Paul speaks of a present and ongoing "service" in the Heavenly Sanctuary. It is easy to let our presumptions and doctrinal predispositions blind us to what this important text is really saying. Therefore we MUST come empty handed to the Scripture and allow it to speak for its self.
First we must ask why there is a Heavenly Sanctuary if the sacrifice is completed? In contrast Paul presents Jesus as "ministering" (present tense) in the Sanctuary. Let me repeat, Jesus our Great High Priest "sat" (past tense) down at the right hand of God, but "serves" (present tense) in the Heavenly Sanctuary! The High Priest is one who offers sacrifice. The Sanctuary is the place of offering blood. Priestly intersession is the act of offering blood to God in the Sanctuary. Paul’s picture of Jesus is that He has been sacrificed, yet that Blood is offered to God the Father continually as intersession for sin in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Jesus is "able to save completely" not just on the basis of a past sacrifice, but on a present and on going presentation of that sacrifice to God the Father.
Paul presents the same idea to the Corinthians when he says:
Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. (I Corinthians 5:7-8 NIV)
Notice that just as in the Hebrews text, the sacrifice is in the past, yet the Festival (literal Greek "Feast") is to be celebrated. In the Mass the past sacrifice of Christ is made present by the "Feast", that is the Eucharist. In the Mass we gather before our Great High Priest Jesus Christ Who offers His sacrifice to the Father in the Great Heavenly Sanctuary!
Bill Jackson's Second Rebuttal
Bill R's last answer is not as revealing by what he answered as to what he did not answer. He may try to defend this by citing the space limitations, but he could easily have dealt with every point if he hadn't have spent undue space on other topics.
He took over 1/4 of the space he used in pointing out "the logical inconsistency with which Dr. Jackson handles Malachi 1:11 and Zechariah 14:21."
I don't think tahowr literally means "the sacrifice of Calvary, never-to-be-repeated but always available to do a work of complete cleansing." but, as Bill R says, it means "to be pure or clean morally and ethically." To be pure ethically, means, according to Webster, "conforming to accepted standards." The never-to-be-repeated finished work of Christ conforms to ethical standards because it does what it claims to do, viz., perfect all those forever who have been set apart by God. The Catholic Mass is supposed to be a sacrifice to take away sin, but it doesn't complete the work, therefore has not lived up to the ethical standard.
Bill R says, "This is a sacrifice that the "nations" will offer to the Lord." There is nothing in Malachi 1:11 that suggests the nations are offering this sacrifice. Because it has been offered for them, the Gospel has gone forth and prayer ascends to the Throne of God.
If one concludes that my interpretation is biased by my eschatology, it must be admitted that any interpretation is biased by one's theology. I happen to be a moderate dispensationalist, but when one reads Zechariah 14:21 in the light of Ezekiel 40-48, I believe it to be more correct than whatever undefined eschatology Bill R would offer.
I quoted my source for stating that Mark 11:21 uses the Greek word anamnesis. Bill R. said that Mark 11:21 uses the Greek word anamimnesko, "as any good Greek text will show." But he failed to mention a source for this information, and if he comes up with one, I guess we will just have to say it is Strong's Greek Dictionary or his, and I don't believe either of us has access to an original Greek Manuscript. But let him at least show his source.
I cannot see how Bill R.'s discussion of my photograph analogy has anything to do with my original statement. I had said, "The very fact that after saying what the Catholic church calls the words of consecration, Jesus said it was still wine proves that He spoke figuratively. So there is textual evidence that it was not His Blood in the cup."
Bill R. said, "Jesus tells them that the Blood in the cup is the same Blood that will be, "poured out for many," that is, the blood shed on the cross." No he didn't. He still referred to the contents of the cup as wine.
Bill R. makes the same mistake most Catholic apologists make, when he states that after Jesus spoke, in John 6:53-58, of eating His flesh and drinking His blood many disciples left him. In fact, it was not until verse 66, after verse 63 (when Jesus explained He was not talking about a fleshly partaking of blood) that the disciples left.
In looking at John 6, Bill R. is uncovering for us a basic fact which disproves the Mass completely. At Communion, a Roman Catholic would believe he has fulfilled John 6:53 by eating the flesh and drinking the blood. (The Catholic Church has yet to explain when blood can be in the wafer when Jesus definitely speaks of eating AND drinking.)
Few think of what John 6:54 says and means. "Whoso eats my flesh and drinks my blood HAS (present tense) eternal life, and I will (future tense) raise him up at the last day," which speaks of eternal security. It doesn't say "If you eat this once a week;" one eating would be sufficient to fulfil the requirements. Will Bill R. tell his Catholic friends that if they go to Communion next Sunday they are sure of eternal life and sure of being raised up in the last day?
Bill R. suggests that Jesus' Priestly role for us is making intercession, which he claims consists of offering a sacrifice. In fact, he makes a great deal of this claim. He said, "Jesus our Great High Priest "sat" (past tense) down at the right hand of God but serves (present tense) in the Heavenly Sanctuary! The High Priest is one who offers sacrifice. The Sanctuary is the place of offering blood. Priestly intercession is an act of offering book to God in the Sanctuary."
The word intercession, once in its plural, is used 5 times in the Bible (Romans 8:27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25 and 1 Timothy 2:1.) It comes from a Greek word entugchano, meaning to entreat. It is also translated "dealt with," used once in Acts 25:24. I challenge Bill R. to find one of these scriptures that has to do with sacrifice.
Let's look at what Bill R. failed to say.
Bill did not comment on, "To sum it up, Exodus 12:27 tells us that the Lamb is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover (or deliverance). This Passover was to be commemorated forever - verse 24, and answers to the Lord's Supper, when we commemorate our deliverance. What was to be commemorated forever? Blood on the doorposts while the destroying angel passed over? No. The memorial feast to be kept forever included, under the old covenant, unleavened bead, a holy convocation, a sabbath, the lamb to be slain. But the blood of this lamb was not painted on the doorposts and did not deliver from death.
He partially answered this: "There are twelve times these related words (anamimnesko anamnesis and mimnesko) are used in the New Testament.
The only verse where sacrifice is mentioned in the same verse is Hebrews 10:3, and the Bible merely says that in those sacrifices there is a remembrance of sin. It is not the remembrance that fell short of perfecting the comers thereto, but the sacrifices.
The Luke and 1 Corinthians texts do not mention sacrifice, and the only way Bill R. can get this idea in is to invent the idea that anamnesis is a sacrificial word, and yet none of the other verses in which it or words from which it is derived are used has any mention of sacrifice.
Exegesis is a legitimate method of Bible interpretation when the context is considered, but eisegesis, which Bill R uses, is dishonest.
Anamnesis is not a sacrificial word."
He did not comment on, "An infinite sacrifice is by nature perpetual, and is not perpetuated by a remembrance.".
He did not comment on Jesuit priest John Hardon's statement, "the sacrifice on the altar is no mere commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice whereby Christ, the high priest, by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal father, as he did on the cross." If He offers Himself a victim as he did on the cross (shedding His blood) can the Mass be an unbloody immolation (killing the victim)?
He did not respond to my charge that his Catechism quote admits the sensual nature of Roman Catholicism, and denies the cardinal New Testament truth of faith vs. sight. "Blessed are they", said our Lord, "who have not seen, and yet have believed." Therefore the Mass demonstrates the one of basic flaws of Roman Catholicism.
He did not respond to my statement that the only re-presentation of Calvary that is necessary is fulfilled in the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). The perpetuation of its memory is fulfilled in the Christian Lord's Supper, and its power to forgive sins has a two-fold application. The sins that would condemn us are forgiven through the blood of His cross, and sins that mar fellowship are forgiven by Him as we confess them.
Bill R quoted Hebrews 10:26 (NIV): "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.."
He thought that might mean that Christians will lose eternal life. I replied (no response) that there are Christians who will be saved yet so as by fire (I Corinthians 3:15)..
Bill R had claimed that "the Scriptures clearly portray the Eucharist as the on going New Testament sacrifice. Then he expounded on Hebrews 10:23 - 29, "After Baptism, if I sin, the Blood of Christ does not atone for them until I repent and bring them to the foot of the cross at the Mass. This is exactly what Paul is telling the Hebrews. How are they "deliberately sinning?" The are giving up meeting together. That is they are not going to Mass! In neglecting to meet in Christian communion they are, "trampling the Son of God under foot, and treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him." Paul is warning his readers (and us) that if we reject the sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is "no more sacrifice for sin, but only a fearful expectation of judgment."
Certainly this was a powerful argument. But he did not respond to my question, Does this mean that for people who "are not going to Mass" there is no more possibility of being saved? How many Masses do you have to deliberately miss in order to be damned forever? If there "remains no more sacrifice for sins" and the only valid sacrifice for sins is "re-presented" in the Mass, they cannot go to the "sacrifice for sins" if they have deliberately missed Mass. An identical warning is given in Hebrews 6, where we are told of the one who has fallen away "it is impossible . . . to renew them again unto repentance." Are you teaching Eternal Insecurity, Bill R.?
Please answer this, Bill R. Is it true, as the leading Roman Catholic apologist has written that "There are only two ways of having sin removed - Baptism and Penance. Does the Mass remove sin?"
I have been saved for over 52 years, and am still working on infallibility. There may be statements or questions Bill R. raised which he feels I have not adequately addressed. Since our e-mail debate is almost over (Bill R's next rebuttal will be his last) please list anything that you feel has not been commented upon. I don't mean things about which we still do not agree, but things that I have not tried to answer.
Priest John O'Brien said, "It is the Mass that matters. With its validity Roman Catholicism stands or falls.
Bill Jackson
Bill Rutland
Please allow me to begin by thanking Dr. Jackson for his kind willingness to debate me on this most important subject. I pray that what has been said here will help to clarify the issues involved and lead to a better understanding of those things not only that divide Protestants and Roman Catholics, but those in which we are united also.
Dr. Jackson, in his second rebuttal poses many questions, some of which I will address and some I will not. I do not feel obliged in this short debate to defend what somebody else has written. My task here is to defend the official Church teaching, so let me state for the record that I am in full agreement with EVERYTHING the Church teaches on the Eucharist (or any other doctrine for that matter). I will be more than glad to discuss these side issues later, but I feel that we must stick to the primary proposition here: The Bible teaches that Jesus is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist.
Much has been made of the Greek word anamnesis. Dr. Jackson states in his second rebuttal:
I quoted my source for stating that Mark 11:21 uses the Greek word anamnesis. Bill R. said that Mark 11:21 uses the Greek word anamimnesko, "as any good Greek text will show." But he failed to mention a source for this information, and if he comes up with one, I guess we will just have to say it is Strong's Greek Dictionary or his, and I don't believe either of us has access to an original Greek Manuscript. But let him at least show his source.
I admittedly do not use the Strong’s Concordance. This is not because of some deficiency on its part but personal preference. Dr. Jackson asks for my sources, so here they are. The Greek text that I use is the 21st edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece. It has the verb "remembered" of Mark 11:21 as anamimnesko. The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament lists anamimnesko as the verb used in Mark 11:21. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible lists the verb used here as anamimnesko. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words tells us that Mark 11:21 uses anamimnesko. Each of the above mentioned sources as well as The Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament tell us that the word "Remembrance" as is used in Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24 & 25 and Hebrews 10:3 is the NOUN anamnesis. Where as the New Strong’s Concordance does list anamnesis as the word used in Mark 11:21, even the "Blue Bible" on-line Strong’s Concordance agrees with the sources cited above that anamimnesko is used in Mark 11:21. I hope this clears the air.
A closing statement is supposed to be a summation of what had already been said and it is customary not to introduce any new information at this point. Although there is much that I would like to say I feel the argument that I have made is solid and that nothing Dr. Jackson has said thus far refutes it. In the following, I will attempt to discuss what I view as the primary issues that have been raised in this debate and some of Dr. Jackson’s objections.
1. The Old Testament Passover celebration is a type that finds its full fulfillment in the Eucharist. The Passover is the structure on which Jesus establishes His New Passover the Eucharist. In the Old Testament Passover there were two parts. First, the killing of the lamb and then the eating of the lamb. So too, in the Eucharist we have the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Calvery in which the Lamb of God, Jesus, is slain; and the second part which is the feast in which the Lamb (Eucharist) is eaten. St. Paul references this when he says to the Corinthians:
Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. (I Corinthians 5:7-8 NIV)
Dr. Jackson objects by saying:
To sum it up, Exodus 12:27 tells us that the Lamb is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover (or deliverance). This Passover was to be commemorated forever - verse 24, and answers to the Lord's Supper, when we commemorate our deliverance. What was to be commemorated forever? Blood on the doorposts while the destroying angel passed over? No. The memorial feast to be kept forever included, under the old covenant, unleavened bead, a holy convocation, a sabbath, the lamb to be slain. But the blood of this lamb was not painted on the doorposts and did not deliver from death.
I completely agree with what Dr. Jackson says. The Passover is a perpetual celebration. But the Old Testament Passover was as Hebrews says, only a "shadow" of the good things to come. The shadow points to the reality which is Jesus. So in the Mass we have unleavened bread, a holy convocation, a Sabbath and a Lamb that is slain. But we have more than the Old Testament Passover, we have not shadows but the reality.
Again in his opening statement Dr, Jackson writes:
"The Exodus events are made present." Does that mean that the result of the Passover was continued year by year or that the Passover was to be commemorated. If we try to equate the Mass to this, if the Mass is a continuation of the one sacrifice of Christ, then it should accomplish the same result as the original sacrifice. There is no credible connection.
Again I agree with Dr. Jackson’s premise but not his conclusion. The Mass, as a re-presentation of the sacrifice of the cross must of necessity accomplish the same result as the original sacrifice because it IS the original sacrifice. But Dr. Jackson here makes the unsupported doctrinal assumption that the sacrifice of the cross atones at one point in time for all sins past, present and future. But to take this point of view is to make verses like 1 John 1:9 meaningless. Christ offers an on-going sacrifice because I am an on-going sinner.
2. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was promised in John 6:30-58 and fulfilled in the Upper Room. In John 6: 53-56 Jesus clearly states:
"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." (NIV)
In these three verses alone, Jesus tells us four times that we must "eat" His "Flesh" and "drink" His "Blood." I don’t see how He could be more clear. The disciples heard these words and many of them where so offended that they walked away. Dr. Jackson argues:
Bill R. makes the same mistake most Catholic apologists make, when he states that after Jesus spoke, in John 6:53-58, of eating His flesh and drinking His blood many disciples left him. In fact, it was not until verse 66, after verse 63 (when Jesus explained He was not talking about a fleshly partaking of blood) that the disciples left.
Dr. Jackson’s argument makes no sense in the context of this passage. The disciples were "grumbling" precisely because of what Jesus had said about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood!
Then Matthew tells us:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matthew 26:26-29 NIV).
Jesus tells His disciples that the Bread and the Wine have become His Flesh and Blood. At this Dr. Jackson objects:
"The very fact that after saying what the Catholic church calls the words of consecration, Jesus said it was still wine proves that He spoke figuratively. So there is textual evidence that it was not His Blood in the cup."
Bill R. said, "Jesus tells them that the Blood in the cup is the same Blood that will be, "poured out for many," that is, the blood shed on the cross." No he didn't. He still referred to the contents of the cup as wine.
Dr. Jackson argues that because Jesus says, "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine...", that Jesus is telling us that the contents of the cup is still wine. I stated in my second rebuttal that:
...when we compare the parallel texts this interpretation falls flat on its face! Mark records Jesus as saying "the fruit of the vine" (Mark14:25) as does Luke (Luke 22:18). Clearly Jesus is not speaking of the contents of the cup He holds in His hand, but a future celebration. The isolated "this" certainly does not carry enough weight to counter the impact of Jesus’ clear words, "this is My Blood." There is no textual evidence here to suggest that Jesus is speaking symbolically.
But even if we take Dr. Jackson’s argument at face value it still does not hold up. Notice that there are three "this" statements in the text; "this is My Body", "this is My Blood" and "this fruit of the vine." Dr. Jackson says "see Jesus said it was fruit of the vine (wine)." I just as well could say, "see Jesus says that it was Blood." Which is it? Jesus says that He will not drink "this fruit of the vine." What fruit of the vine? The special consecrated wine that has become Blood! We know that Jesus could not have been saying that the contents of the cup was wine because He said, "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." Yet, He did drink sour wine on the cross (cf. Matthew 27:48). If we see the reference to the "fruit of the vine" as meaning that the contents of the cup was wine, Jesus would then be contradicting Himself.
As I have said. I don’t believe that Jesus was making a specific reference to the cup, but was using the term, "Fruit of the Vine" to refer to the future celebration of the New Passover, the Mass. But even if He was referring to that physical cup it would prove nothing. I call the Holy Blood "wine" all the time, but no one accuses me of disbelieving the Real Presence.
3. The continuing Sacrifice of the Eucharist is portrayed in Hebrews’ description of the Heavenly Sanctuary.
My last evidence had to do with Hebrews 7:23-8:1-2 in which I pointed out that Paul tells us that Jesus is continually offering His Blood to the Father. Dr. Jackson objects:
The word intercession, once in its plural, is used 5 times in the Bible (Romans 8:27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25 and 1 Timothy 2:1.) It comes from a Greek word entugchano, meaning to entreat. It is also translated "dealt with," used once in Acts 25:24. I challenge Bill R. to find one of these scriptures that has to do with sacrifice.
To answer Dr. Jackson’s challenge, the text that we are considering speaks of "intercession" as a sacrifice. Dr. Jackson tells us that the word entugchano means "to entreat." Very well. How does a High Priest in a Sanctuary entugchano (entreat) God? By offering the Blood of the sacrifice! The image is inescapable. Paul tells us that Jesus our Great High Priest comes into the heavenly Sanctuary to offer not the blood of bulls and goats that never did anything any way, but His own Blood. Dr. Jackson accuses the Catholic faith as being a "sensual" religion. That we are. because our Lord is a "sensual" Lord Who "became flesh and made his dwelling among us." It is not the Catholic who "walks by sight and not by faith." We believe that the Eucharist which looks for all the world like bread and wine is the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. Nor because we can see it or even understand it fully, but because our Lord SAID THAT IT IS. Every Mass we celebrate, " the cardinal New Testament truth of faith vs. sight. ‘Blessed are they‘, said our Lord, ‘who have not seen, and yet have believed.’"
Final Statement by Bill Jackson
Please allow me to begin by thanking Bill Rutland for his willingness to debate me on this most important subject. I pray that what has been said here will help to clarify the issues involved.
Bill said, "some of (my questions) I will address and some I will not. I do not feel obliged in this short debate to defend what somebody else has written. My task here is to defend the official Church teaching."
In a closing statement, since all previous statements are on both of our Websites, I do not see the necessity of repeating all that he has said and excluding many important questions that were raised. I would think it Bill's responsibility to answer all of these so that his side could be adequately defended. This is especially true since many of the questions strike at the heart of the proposition he is supposed to assert.
Did he not want to open the inevitable can of worms by sidestepping, twice, my question which is one I specifically asked him to anser, "Does the Mass remove sin?"
I am glad he dealt with anaminesko. I respect some of the sources he cited, but it still leaves us with the truth that anamnesis is not a sacrificial word. It doesn't have that as its definition, which is recollection, and none of the 12 verses that use this and words from which it is taken speak of sacrifice, with the possible exception of Hebrews 10:3, and that is ineffective sacrifices.
He did not rebut my statement, "There is nothing in Malachi 1:11 that suggests nations are offering this sacrifice."
He did not rebut my conclusion that Zechariah 14:21, in the light of Ezekiel 40-48, presents a future visual remembrance of Christ's completed sacrifice.
He didn't answer me when I asked, "Will Bill R. tell his Catholic friends that if they go to Communion next Sunday they are sure of eternal life and being raised on the last day?"
He still did not comment on my statement, "An infinite sacrifice is by nature perpetual, and is not perpetuated by a remembrance."
He did not comment on Jesuit priest John Hardon's statement in his Catechism, that if "he offers himself as a victim as he did on the Cross (shedding His blood) how can the Mass be an unbloody immolation (which means killing the victim)?
He avoided a very important question ' "Was (the Passover) to be commemorated forever? Blood on the doorposts while the destroying angel passed over? The Passover memorial does not deliver from death, and the Mass does not deliver from sin."
The only deliverance from sin that is possible is when the Holy Spirit presents the truth of Christ's Atoning Death to the heart of a convicted sinner. When that sinner responds positively, he is baptized by the Spirit of God into the Body of Christ.
Probably the most important statement Bill R. made in his second rebuttal, and my answer to it, was completely ignored.
Bill R had claimed that "the Scriptures clearly portray the Eucharist as the on going New Testament sacrifice. Then he expounded on Hebrews 10:23 - 29, "After Baptism, if I sin, the Blood of Christ does not atone for them until I repent and bring them to the foot of the cross at the Mass. This is exactly what Paul is telling the Hebrews. How are they "deliberately sinning?" The are giving up meeting together. That is they are not going to Mass! In neglecting to meet in Christian communion they are, "trampling the Son of God under foot, and treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him." Paul is warning his readers (and us) that if we reject the sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is "no more sacrifice for sin, but only a fearful expectation of judgment."
I responded, "Certainly this was a powerful argument. Does this mean that for people who are not going to Mass there is no more possibility of being saved? How many Masses do you have to deliberately miss in order to be damned forever? If there remains no more sacrifice for sins and the only valid sacrifice for sins is re-presented in the Mass, they cannot go to the sacrifice for sins if they have deliberately missed Mass? An identical warning is given in Hebrews 6, where we are told of the one who has fallen away that it is impossible . . . to renew them again unto repentance. Are you teaching Eternal Insecurity, Bill R.?"
If Bill chooses to respond to all of these in a private e-mail, I will be glad to include them on my Website as an addendum to the debate.
Bill had said, "The Old Testament Passover celebration is a type that finds its full fulfillment in the Eucharist. The Passover is the structure on which Jesus establishes His New Passover the Eucharist. In the Old Testament Passover there were two parts. First, the killing of the lamb and then the eating of the lamb. So too, in the Eucharist we have the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Calvery (sic - I wish Bill would learn to spell this correctly) in which the Lamb of God, Jesus, is slain; and the second part which is the feast in which the Lamb (Eucharist) is eaten."
I would assume Bill R. is referring to the sacrificial part of the Mass (which is consummated when the priest consumes the Host) and the communal part of the Mass (individual Catholics eating the Host). Certainly Bill is aware that one must attend the sacrifice every Sunday and Holyday of Obligation, but must participate at Holy Communion only once a year.
Bill R says "in the Mass we have unleavened bread, a holy convocation, a Sabbath and a Lamb that is slain."
But you don't have one thing the Passover did have. They had assured deliverance, but the Mass can never give anyone assurance of salvation..
Bill says, " The Mass, as a re-presentation of the sacrifice of the cross must of necessity accomplish the same result as the original sacrifice because it IS the original sacrifice. But Dr. Jackson here makes the unsupported doctrinal assumption that the sacrifice of the cross atones at one point in time for all sins past, present and future. But to take this point of view is to make verses like 1 John 1:9 meaningless. Christ offers an on-going sacrifice because I am an on-going sinner."
Does anyone believe Hebrews 10:14, For by one offering he has perfected (past tense) forever (which has no end) them that are (present tense) sanctified (hagiazo, to make holy). As I pointed out before, the big problem is that Bill does not understand the infinite sacrifice of Christ which has completely satisfied God's judicial requirements (Isaiah 53:11)
Bill says that when the disciples heard these words (John 6:53-58), many of them were so offended that they walked away."
I had answered, "Bill R. makes the same mistake most Catholic apologists make, when he states that after Jesus spoke, in John 6:53-58, of eating His flesh and drinking His blood many disciples left him. In fact, it was not until verse 66, after verse 63 (when Jesus explained He was not talking about a fleshly partaking of blood) that the disciples left."
Bill says, "Dr. Jackson's argument makes no sense in the context of this passage. The disciples were "grumbling" precisely because of what Jesus had said about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood!"
Bill doesn't admit that he had said they walked away; and although they murmured or grumbled in verse 60, Jesus explained Himself in verse 63 and THEY WALKED AWAY IN VERSE 66.
I had said, "because Jesus says, "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine...", that Jesus is telling us that the contents of the cup is still wine."
Bill R said, "I stated in my second rebuttal that: "Yet, He did drink sour wine on the cross (cf. Matthew 27:48). If we see the reference to the "fruit of the vine" as meaning that the contents of the cup was wine, Jesus would then be contradicting Himself."
Although I did not see that in Bill R's second rebuttal, it is an interesting statement for which I have no infallible answer. The question would be to ask if Jesus considered vinegar (otherwise translated sour wine) to be the same beverage as that which He drank at the Lord's Supper. Further, did Jesus actually drink His own blood? Also, it is very interesting that the only Gospel that says that Jesus actually drank the vinegar is John's Gospel, and in the very same verse Jesus says, It is Finished, which Christians take to mean His work of salvation was complete. Did Jesus partake of the vinegar or sour wine as a prophetic symbol that the work for actuating the Kingdom of God was complete?
We do know that the doctrine of Transubstantiation, introduced late in the life of the Roman Catholic Church, and explained by her most eminent theologian with the aid of Aristotlean logic, is not biblical or necessary.
My last point of rebuttal is that I mentioned the five times in the Bible the word translated intercession was used. I challenged Bill to find one of these scriptures that has to do with sacrifice.
He answered the challenge, but did not use a scripture but a very human interpretation, as follows: "the word entugchano means "to entreat." Very well. How does a High Priest in a Sanctuary entugchano (entreat) God? By offering the Blood of the sacrifice!"
And yet not once is entugchano used in connection with sacrifice.
A boy in Catechism class was asked by a nun what was the definition of faith. He replied, "Faith is believing something that isn't true." That is the kind of faith demonstrated in many of Bill's responses. I do not doubt his sincerity. My prayer is that he will come to know the infinite Christ of the Bible (www.dodone.com/Infinite.html).
Seven reasons why the Mass is invalid.
It has to be repeated (Jesus said, It is Finished; the priest says, To be continued).
It is unbloody (without the shedding of blood is no remission of sins, Hebrews 9:22)
It dos not guarantee salvation (John 6:54 says that if you eat and drink, you have eternal life and Jesus will raise you up in the last day.)
It is unscriptural. The three main verses the Catholic Church uses to prove it, Malachi 1:11, John 6:53 and Matthew 26:26 all fall far short.
It has changed even though the Tridentine document Quo Primum says, "We grant and concede in perpetuity . . . (that) this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely," Paul VI did change it with the New Order of the Mass
It is idolatrous. If the Host is really not Jesus, the Mass "is the worst farce and blasphemy ever perpetrated upon God or man."
It blasphemes the infinite work of Christ, the once-for-all sacrifice of the Cross.
In my 44 years of Roman Catholic evangelism, I have spoken to many priests, apologists and laymen about the Mass. A priest in Portglenone, Ireland told me he could prove the Mass from the Book of Hebrews, and, after much prodding, all he could come up with was Hebrews 13:10, "We have an altar, of which they that serve the tabernacle have no right to partake."
He explained this by saying, "If you have an altar, you must have a sacrifice; if you have a sacrifice, it must be the Mass." I guess that is an example of walking by faith.
Another priest in Aberdeen, Idaho, assured us in a question and answer session that the Catholic Church had remission of sins just like Evangelicals do. When I asked him if the Mass was an offering for sin, he admitted that it was. Then I quoted Hebrews 10:18, "Where remission of these (sins, see verse 17) is, there is no more offering for sin." We heard nothing more from him.
But I know some of you have answers. Please feel free to contact me at do67done@aol.com
Bill Jackson