29 July 2005 
Baptist Altar-ations
In his post “Fads and Fixtures: The Seven Deadly Trappings of Evangelicalism,” Joe Carter writes that one of the fixtures he finds troubling is the “altar call.” While I too find the altar call methodology troubling, this brings up a larger question in my mind for my own denomination:
Why do so many Baptist churches refer to the front of the church as the altar?
I’ve heard this terminology used in countless Baptist churches, even from pastors who should know better. The last time I checked, transubstantiation was not on any Baptist confessions of faith that I know of. Baptists believe that Christ was sacrificed once for all. In the Lord’s Supper Christ is not continually sacrificed, as Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and others believe. We don’t burn offerings, and I haven’t really ever seen any kind of elevated structure other than a pulpit.
It’s clear that in Baptist practice, the term “altar” has become synonymous with the front of the church sanctuary, but why do we retain the term? We’re Baptists, after all. We don’t do altars. Can any of you more studious church historians enlighten me?
This is an excellent post, brother. As usual, you nailed it.
This might surprise you, but Catholics and the Orthodox also believe that Christ was sacrificed once for all. The sacrifice of the Mass is the same, once-and-for-all sacrifice, re-presented. As a Catholic (and by the way, “Roman” Catholic is simply one kind of Catholic, and all Catholics believe that Christ was sacrificed once and for all)I could hope that you would inform yourself about Catholicism’s beliefs before stating them. You’d save yourself making an erroneous assumption, as you have done here.
Jean: Thanks for stopping by, and I apologize if I misrepresented your faith in any way. However, I think I may have made not so much an erroneous assumption, as a disagreement in doctrine. I’m well aware of the doctrine of the Mass. If you know anything about reformed views on the Mass, we see it as an affront to the once for all sacrifice of Christ.
The Baptist view, along with that of many other evangelicals, is that since Christ was sacrificed once, it does not need to be “re-presented,” as you say. His sacrifice was presented to us once for the ages. In our view, this “re-presentation” is akin to “re-sacrfice.” After all, we would argue, why is there a need for an altar if there is no sacrifice?
So, rather than an erroneous assumption, what I have is a historic disagreement with Catholic (Roman or otherwise) doctrine, which I’m sure you can appreciate, as you more than likely don’t see eye-to-eye with us on our view of communion.
Jared, thank you for your apology, but despite what you are suggesting this is, in fact, a misrepresentation of what Catholics and the Orthodox believe. The misrepresentation is that, as you state in your first post, “Baptists believe that Christ was sacrificed once for all.In the Lord’s Supper Christ is not continually sacrificed, as Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and others believe.” As I mentioned, we believe that Christ was sacrificed once and for all, and you’re implying that we believe otherwise. That’s not a “historic disagreement” as you say, but a misrepresentation. And it’s very cheeky to arbitrarily decide that “re-presentation” is akin to “re-sacrifice.” That’s a distortion of the words. It’s the SAME, once-and-for-all sacrifice, not a “new” one at every Mass. The prophet Malachi foretold of a sacrifice (singular) that would someday be offered in “every place” (Mal 1:10-11). This is what the Mass is—is it a sacrifice? Yes. A new one, or a repeat sacrifice? No. We believe the one and only propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is “re-presented” or “made present” for our benefit and application today. It follows from the mandate: “DO THIS IN COMMEMORATION OF ME” (Luke 22:19; cf. 1 Cor 11:24) that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is to be a permanent institution of the New Testament. So, with all due respect, you have in fact misrepresented the views of the majority of Christians living today when you imply that Catholics and the Orthodox don’t believe that Christ was sacrificed once and for all.
Jean: I think the key to our disagreement centers on transubstantiation. If I hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation, it follows that:
Therefore, while you believe it is the same sacrifice, you also believe that there is continuity in the sacrifice, i.e., the same sacrifice that occurred 2000 years ago occurs today in any instance of Mass in 2005. There is a continuity across time that links the Mass and crucifixion. Only with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in place is such a happening possible.
Baptists and other evangelicals reject the doctrine of transubstantiation. If you like, I could give ample evidence for this, but this is not really the point of our disagreement. In any case, my point of view is that the “once for all” sacrifce really means once, a single occurrence in time. This is the meaning of the Greek “ephapax” in Hebrews 10:10. BDAG, the standard scholarly New Testament Greek Lexicon, defines it: “taking place once and to the exclusion of any further occurrence.”
Reformed Christians see the continuity of the Mass conflicting with the historical sacrifice of Christ. The crucifixion was a moment in history which remains efficacious for all time, before the cross and after it. Without the doctrine of transubstantiation, what else could the Mass be but an attempt to sacrifice Christ again?
I never said in my post that Catholics didn’t believe that Christ was sacrificed once for all. I did juxtapose the reformed understanding of “once for all” with the Catholic view of continuity. This isn’t a misrepresentation of Catholicism — it is a disagreement with a Catholic doctrine. If I’m wrong, then it’s a misinterpretation rather than a misrepresentation, just as I believe that the Catholic view is a misinterpretation of Scripture.
You shouldn’t be surprised that a Baptist would disagree with the Catholic Church on the Lord’s Supper. We’ve been doing it for years.
Jared,
I am not “surprised that a Baptist would disagree with the Catholic Church on the Lord’s Supper”—in my Protestant years, I attended Bethlehem Baptist church in Minneapolis (the pastor was Piper). I’m very aware of the differences in doctrine, and from both perspectives. Perhaps one of the reasons I am taking you to task for how you have expressed Catholic doctrine is that I was guilty, prior to my conversion, of making very similar pronouncements about what Catholics believed. I was blissfully unaware of just how arrogant and condescending such misrepresentations are to Catholics, but, hey, now I know. Look, you can backpedal all you wish and construct different arguments, but like it or not when you write “Baptists believe that Christ was sacrificed once for all. In the Lord’s Supper Christ is not continually sacrificed, as Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and others believe”, you are misrepresenting Catholic and Orthodox doctrine and implying (I hope in ignorance) that Catholics and Orthodox do NOT believe in the once and for all sacrifice of Christ. I might respond with, “Catholics and Orthodox believe that Jesus is God, and thus eternal, and his sacrifice is the eternal sacrifice prophesied by Malachi. Baptists believe Jesus is not eternal, being unable to transcend time.” I wouldn’t say that, of course, because it would be a ludicrous and insulting interpretation of the Baptist view of Jesus, easily corrected by a complete understanding of Baptist doctrine. That is what you have done, and you wish to chalk it up to mere theological differences. I would have had much more respect for you if you had simply apologized instead of trying to explain it away.
Jean: I regret our misunderstanding, but I stand by my statements. You have mistakenly implied a misrepresentation from my disagreement with Catholic doctrine. I neither stated, meant, nor implied any condescention or arrogance to the Catholic view. I simply think that it is wrong on communion, just as you believe that my position is.
We’re viewing things from vastly different perspectives that are much more than “mere theological differences.” We’re obviously at an impasse here, so this will be my last comment on the matter.
If you wish to add anything, feel free. Again, I’m sorry that I unwittingly caused you turmoil. I’ve enjoyed the discourse and I hope that you would stop by again in the future.
May the Lord bless you and keep you,
Jared Bridges
Jared,
I will respect your wish to end this discussion, and so these comments will be my last as well.
Your latest post is an interesting nut to crack. You say that we are “viewing things from vastly different perspectives that are much more than “mere theological differences”,
but you haven’t given me any indication of what, outside of theological differences, are those perspectives that are so different than mine. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to just what those “different perspectives” are?
Our differences are obviously theological differences, which I accept: my contention has been (and nothing you have said ameliorates this) that you misrepresented the theology of Catholics and Orthodox: you implied that Catholics and Orthodox don’t believe that Christ’s sacrifice was the “once and for all” sacrifice. Don’t hide behind the flimsy excuse that you weren’t explicit, the implication is clear for all to see. I understand,(especially as a former Protestant), that you don’t believe in transubstantiation. But if one doesn’t believe in transubstatiation, then I would expect that the charge against Catholics and Orhtodox would be that of idolatry: look at those nuts who actually think that when Jesus said “This is My Body”, He meant it. But you accuse Catholics and Orthodox, by implication, of not believing in the once-and-for-all sacrifice at Calvary. We do. End of story.
I just stumbled on this site and would like to add/clarify a bit if I may, as an Orthodox Christian.
Orthodox do not believe in “substantiation”. We have NEVER attempted to determine when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. We just know that it does because that, in fact, is what Christ said and taught (Jn 6), and what the apostles believed and handed down through the epistles and oral teachings. Communion has, from the beginning of the Church (33 A.D.)ALWAYS taught that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ. In fact, there have been many, many Christians who were martyred because they would not disavow this very fact.
God is outside time. Orthodox Christians believe that we are celebrating the Last Supper with Him at THAT TIME. We also believe that we are celebrating not just the Last Supper but are also at the Banquet Table in the future. Just as I was saved when Christ died on the cross, I am being saved while I live, and I will be saved when I stand before the Judgement Seat of God, so it is Christ’s “once and for all” sacrifice when saving me He died on the cross in 33 A.D., today while I live, and when I am before the Judgement Seat of God. These are what the Orthodox call “Mysteries” and we have chosen to not attempt to explain them. Who, after all, can know God?
In addition, we believe that the whole entire Church, both the living and the “dead” (those Saints who have gone before us), along with the principalities and angels are worshipping together.
This is why, after receiving communion (for the reminssion of sins and life everlasting) we sing “We have found the true Light! We have received the heavenly Spirit! We have found the true Faith! Worshipping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!” And also “Let our mouths be filled with Thy praise, O Lord, that we may sing of They glory; for Thou has made us worthy to partake of Thy holy, divine, immortal and lifecreating Mysteries. Keep us in thy Holiness, that all the day we may meditate upon Thy righteousness. Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!”
We can all celebrate together Christ’s dying on the cross for the salvation of the world (cosmos), entering Hades, conquering sin, binding Satan, and releasing those faithful held captive and arising from the tomb on the third day!
I can also say that what I believe now, was what was taught 1000 years ago when there was but one (united), holy, catholic (for all - not Roman) and apostolic Christian Church, and what was taught 2000 years by Christ to His apostles! God is the same yesterday, today and forevever. I thank God that He brought me to the True Church whose gates Satan has not been able to prevail against!
Let us give a sacrifice of praise and worship the Undivided Trinity!
Good debate going on here between Jean and Jarred. On balance I think I have to agree with Jean. Not trying to be onerous in terms of Jarred honest opinions, but it seems to feel different than my growing up years in the Greek Orthodox Church and what I understand now as a believer now in a Protestant Church (the Vineyard). …….stevereenie