• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why Do We Have An Alter?

Jun 19, 2012
205
15
Gray, GA
✟22,930.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
CalledOutOne,
Incidentally, for reasons I'm not entirely clear on, they called their tables "altars." This would later become a sticking point during the Reformation, because the Roman Catholics could point back to antiquity and say, "See? Proof that the Holy Church has always regarded it as an unbloody sacrifice! It's an altar!" Thus, many Protestants, in reforming the practice, insisted on calling it the Lord's Table, as per the first letter to the Corinthians. Naturally, though, less reformed churches, such as the Church of England, the Methodists, and the Lutherans, had fewer scruples about calling it an altar, and they continue to do so to this day.

Excuse me, I will try to be respectful of the fact that this is a Reformed subforum and I'm the total opposite of Reformed here.

With that said, I'm not trying to proselytize or be antagonistic but I will give the reasons that I believe the altar goes back to the very cradle of Christianity!

Early Christian documents attest to them, as well as the idea of Communion as a sacrifice.

"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

I could go on, even to St. Augustine himself, but I think I've made my point.

I think your analysis about why some reformed churches have them is good, as many do trace their lineage back to the Church of England, and of course Calvinists are 1st-2nd (i think 2nd but I'm not sure) generation protestants, and thus have Rome as their Mother Church, so the fact that some have made Lord's Supper tables that looks like altars would make sense.

Once again, I'm not here to debate. I used to be Reformed Baptist and I love my old tradition; which is why I was browsing this forum. I just had to comment on that because I didn't think it to be historically accurate. Sorry if I've overstepped my bounds!

Buh-bye now, and God bless!
John :priest:
 
Upvote 0
M

mothcorrupteth

Guest
Once again, I'm not here to debate. I used to be Reformed Baptist and I love my old tradition; which is why I was browsing this forum. I just had to comment on that because I didn't think it to be historically accurate. Sorry if I've overstepped my bounds!

I note the conspicuous lack, however, of any language among the Fathers suggesting that what is being sacrificed is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as if he needed to (or could) be sacrificed again. Heck, I'll assent to the Eucharist being a sacrifice, but not in any literal sense. As Calvin explained in the Institutes (4.18.10),

John Calvin said:
They indeed use the term sacrifice, but they, at the same time, explain that they mean nothing more than the commemoration of that one true sacrifice which Christ, our only sacrifice, (as they themselves everywhere proclaim,) performed on the cross. "The Hebrews," says Augustine, (Cont. Faust. Lib. 20 c, 18,) "in the victims of beasts which they offered to God, celebrated the prediction of the future victim which Christ offered: Christians now celebrate the commemoration of a finished sacrifice by the sacred oblation and participation of the body of Christ." Here he certainly teaches the same doctrine which is delivered at greater length in the book Concerning Faith to Peter the Deacon, whoever may have been the author. The words are, "Hold most firmly and have no doubt at all, that the Only Begotten became incarnate for us, that he offered himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour; to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament, animals were sacrificed, and to whom now, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, (with whom there is one Godhead,) the holy Church, throughout the whole world, ceases not to offer the sacrifice of bread and wine. For, in those carnal victims, there was a typifying of the flesh of Christ, which he himself was to offer for our sins, and of the blood which he was to shed for the forgiveness of sins. But in that sacrifice there is thanksgiving and commemoration of the flesh of Christ which he offered for us, and of the blood which he shed for us." Hence Augustine himself, in several passages, (Ep. 120, ad Honorat. Cont. Advers. Legis.,) explains, that it is nothing else than a sacrifice of praise. In short, you will find in his writings, passim, that the only reason for which the Lord's Supper is called a sacrifice is, because it is a commemoration, an image, a testimonial of that singular, true, and only sacrifice by which Christ expiated our guilt. For there is a memorable passage, (De Trinitate, Lib. 4 c. 24, {On the Trinity}) where, after discoursing of the only sacrifice, he thus concludes: "Since, in a sacrifice, four things are considered, viz., to whom it is offered, by whom, what and for whom, the same one true Mediator, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, remains one with him to whom he offered, made himself one with those for whom he offered, is himself the one who offered, and the one thing which he offered." Chrysostom speaks to the same effect. They so strongly claim the honour of the priesthood for Christ alone, that Augustine declares it would be equivalent to Antichrist for any one to make a bishop to be an intercessor between God and man, (August. Cont. Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 8.)

But in any case, all I said is that your church pointed to the language of altars to justify the idea that it is an unbloody re-sacrifice of Christ. Which is not an inaccurate statement. You yourself are doing the same thing right now, but with the word sacrifice.
 
Upvote 0

cajunhillbilly

Regular Member
Jul 4, 2004
870
37
72
Dallas, TX
✟24,022.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Politics
US-Republican
I think that the problem is not seeing the Eucharist sacramentally and covenantally. Rome uses language that suggests they think Jesus is being resacrificed, but I think that is a misunderstanding. I see the Eucharist as a sacrament that unites us to Christ in His sacrifice on the Cross. That sacrifice was once for all time offered to the Father. But in the Eucharist we sacrementally join with Jesus is His one offering of Himself and so sacrementally it is a sacrifice of praaise and thanksgiving for that once for all sacrifice on the Cross. Jesus is NOT rescrificed, but we join with Him in offering praise and thanksgiving for the one sacrifice on Calvary. Does that make sense? I think both Luther and Calvin said similar things
 
Upvote 0