In my last post “Catholic Mom” presented very thoughtful dialogue I’d like to continue in a separate post. While I don’t want to attack the Catholic church or Catholics (I’m convinced Catholics go to Heaven every day!) the topic of communion is worth further exploration.
One of the links Catholic Mom provided discussed John 6:48-57…I REALLY wish the author would have included verse 58. Versus 48-57 say:
I am the the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread, will live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. The Jews quarreled among themselves saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.”
Why not include verse 58? Verse 58 states: “This is the bread which came down out of heaven: not as the fathers ate, and died; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” There’s a subtle yet important aspect to verse 58. Jesus called the bread…bread. When exploring the full context of applicable scripture you’ll discover Jesus used symbology several times in his teachings:
John 15:1 “I am the true vine”
John 10:9 “I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and go out, and shall find pasture.”
Luke 22:20 “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”
Was Jesus saying He was a literal vine? Was Jesus saying He was a literal door? Did Jesus mean the actual cup was the new covenant?
Wayne Grudem brings up an excellent point in his book “Bible doctrine”. It’s a good read I strongly encourage. Wayne states:
“The Roman Catholic view fails to recognize the clear New Testament teaching on the finality and completeness of Christ’s sacrifice once for all time for our sins. The book of Hebrews emphasizes this many times, as when it says, ‘Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world’.”
If continued sacrafices were necessary why would Jesus say “It is finished” in John 19:30? Wayne states, “it gives great assurance to us that our sins are all paid for, and there remains no sacrifice yet to be paid. The idea of a continuation of Christ’s sacrifice destroys that assurance that the payment has been made by Christ and accepted by God the Father and that there is no condemnation now remaining for us.”
Is it wrong to practice communion? Absolutely not…in fact we do every Sunday. What’s the difference? We practice communion to remember the ultimate sacrifice Jesus paid for our sins. Additionally, communion isn’t required for salvation as that would imply a “works based” means of salvation.
