← Back to sermon library

Well, we're going to skip baptism. 
I think we cover baptism pretty thoroughly or regularly in our 
church. So we'll look at chapter 30 of the Lord's Supper. We do look at this as well each 
and every month, but it's nice to reflect upon this section 
of the Confession of Faith relative to the Supper. So I'll read the 
chapter and then we'll look at it in terms of an overview. So 
chapter 30 of the Lord's Supper. confirmation of the faith of 
believers and all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment 
and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties 
which they owe to Him, and to be a bond and pledge of their 
communion with Him and with each other. In this ordinance, Christ 
is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at 
all for the remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only 
a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon 
the cross once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise 
unto God for the same. so that the popish sacrifice 
of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious 
to Christ's only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the 
sins of the elect. The Lord Jesus hath, in this 
ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray and bless the elements 
of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common 
to an holy use, and to take and break the bread, to take the 
cup, and they, communicating also themselves, to give both 
to the communicants. The denial of the cup to the 
people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up or carrying 
them about for adoration and reserving them for any pretended 
religious use are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance 
and to the institution of Christ. The outward elements in this 
ordinance, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, 
have such relation to him crucified as that truly, although in terms 
used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the name of the things 
they represent. To it, the body and blood of 
Christ, albeit in substance and nature, they still remain truly 
and only bread and wine as they were before. That doctrine which 
maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance 
of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by 
consecration of a priest or by any other way, is repugnant, 
not to scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason. Overthroweth 
the nature of the ordinance and is the cause of manifold superstitions, 
yea, of gross idolatries. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking 
of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly 
by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, 
but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all 
the benefits of his death, the body and blood of Christ being 
then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the 
faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are 
to the outward senses. All ignorant and ungodly persons, 
as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy 
of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against Him, 
while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be 
admitted thereunto. Yea, whosoever shall receive 
unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating 
and drinking judgment to themselves. Amen. So chapter 30 of the Lord's 
Supper, Pastor Barcelos, my mentor and friend, has a book on the 
supper called More Than a Memory, the Lord's Supper as a Means 
of Grace. And one of the things he says in there by way of introduction 
is that at the time of the Protestant Reformation, more ink was spilled 
with reference to the supper than it was with reference to 
justification by faith alone. So typically when we think Reformation, 
we think justification. And we should, and that was certainly 
a major emphasis. But the Lord's Supper took up 
a lot of time in terms of debate and writing, because one's view 
of the supper reflects one's view of Jesus Christ. And as 
we look at this particular chapter, you'll see sort of the specter 
of Romanism in the background with reference to transubstantiation. That's the teaching that the 
priest consecrates the bread and wine and actually turns the 
bread and the wine into the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Well, if you maintain that particular position, the confession condemns 
it, and we'll see why. But in terms of Christ, what 
that does is it divinizes his humanity. So they argue that 
Christ is physically present, according to his humanity, in 
the ordinance of the supper. That's not a property of humanity. A property of humanity is not 
omnipresence or ubiquity. If we ascribe that to the humanity 
of Christ, then it's not true humanity, and we run into some 
serious problems theologically and Christologically. Now, what 
is not mentioned is the Lutheran doctrine called consubstantiation. So trans, the priest, turns the 
bread and the wine into the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus. In consubstantiation, it simply 
means that Jesus, again, according to his humanity, is within and 
by the elements. Consubstantiation is the view 
that the bread and wine of communion, or the Lord's Supper, are spiritually 
the flesh and blood of Jesus, yet the bread and wine are still 
actually only bread and wine. So they don't go so far as the 
Romanists to teach that there's this change, but they go as far 
as the Romanists to teach that the physical body of Jesus is 
present at the supper. So again, if we maintain the 
ubiquity of his flesh, we denigrate his flesh. We deny his true humanity. He does not have an omnipresence 
or immensity with reference to his humanity. That simply cannot 
be. So if we predicate of Jesus in terms of the humanity, this 
omnipresence or ubiquity, we've denied the true humanity of Jesus. 
So with reference to the person of Christ, we have one person, 
two natures. We've got divinity and humanity, 
but we don't divinize the humanity and we don't humanize the divinity. 
You cannot do that. And so this chapter of the Confession 
makes that clear. Again, the backdrop is what we 
find specifically in chapter 8 of the Confession of Christ 
the Mediator, where it talks about, specifically in paragraph 
2, the hypostatic union of our Lord. So we can't make the body 
of Jesus, according to his humanity, physically present everywhere 
that the Supper is celebrated. That's not what Scripture teaches, 
and that's not what our Confession teaches. Now, in terms of the 
overarching approach to this particular chapter, you've got 
a general introduction to the Lord's Supper in paragraph 1, 
and then you have the detailed explanation of the Lord's Supper 
in paragraphs 2 to 8. So under paragraph 1, you have 
the institution of the supper and the purpose of the supper. 
So we'll look at that. And then the next section, the 
detailed explanation of the supper, you see first, under that head, 
the nature of the supper in paragraph 2, the celebration of the supper 
in paragraphs 3 and 4, the elements of the supper in paragraphs 5 
and 6, and then the recipients of the supper in paragraphs 7 
and 8. So it's a pretty comprehensive 
statement concerning what we find in scripture. So in terms 
of the general introduction, notice the institution. The supper 
of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night wherein 
He was betrayed, to be observed in His churches unto the end 
of the world, for the perpetual remembrance and showing forth 
the sacrifice in His death. And so in terms of the institution, 
we notice that in 1 Corinthians 11, we rehearse this typically, 
or Matthew 26, when we take the supper. So in 1 Corinthians 11.23, So that covers or shows or demonstrates 
the institution. It wasn't brought about by men, 
it wasn't convened by an assembly of churches, but rather it is 
a divine ordinance. It's ordained by the Lord Jesus 
Christ. In fact, if you look at chapter 
28 and chapter 29, it makes that same emphasis with reference 
to baptism. So paragraph 1 and 28, baptism 
and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution 
appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver to be continued 
in his church to the end of the world. And then in paragraph 
1 of chapter 29, baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament 
ordained by Jesus Christ. So these are ordinances of divine 
institution. It's not something man stumbled 
on, just like the Passover in Exodus chapter 12. Israel didn't 
come up with this. They didn't say, well, wouldn't 
it be a good thing for us to have this Passover feast, this 
celebration, so that we can remember in a special way the Exodus out 
of Egypt. No, it was divine institution. 
Yahweh commanded this. Same in the New Testament. We 
have the covenant head of the New Covenant, the Lord Jesus 
Christ, as being the one who sovereignly ordains and institutes 
the various sacraments that are associated with the New Covenant. 
So as I've said often in our study on Saturday morning, as 
I've said often in our study in sacraments in general, when 
we ask or when we want to know who is privy to or allowed to 
take the particular sacraments, we ask the head. We ask the Lord 
Jesus. In the New Covenant, we don't 
go to Abraham to ask. We don't go to Moses to ask. 
We go to Jesus because he is the head and the authority who 
instituted these particular ordinances. Now notice, not only the institution 
but the observance. It is to be observed in his churches 
unto the end of the world. So there is a present in terms 
of the supper. We partake in it. But there is 
a past element. We reflect upon what our Lord 
Jesus Christ has done. But there's also a future element 
associated with it as well. So this whole idea of to be observed 
in his churches unto the end of the world, we find the same 
thing, or the same emphasis, in 1 Corinthians. So in 1 Corinthians 
chapter 11, again verse 17, and giving these instructions, I 
do not praise you since you come together, not for the better, 
but for the worse. For first of all, when you come 
together as a church, So it's a church ordinance, not an individual, 
maverick, lone Christian on the top of Mount Champ. It is given 
to the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, baptism is unto 
the party baptized. Now, certainly we observe that 
in the Church, and we conduct that in the Church, But if there 
was no church, there could still be baptism. We have that in the 
case of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 8. But with reference 
to the supper, it is a church ordinance, and that's the emphasis 
here in 1 Corinthians 11, 17, and 18, and then dropping down 
to verse 24. I'm sorry, verses 23 to 26. Specifically notice in verse 
26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you 
proclaim the Lord's death till he comes. So the present reality, 
the observance of the supper, reflecting upon the past event, 
the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, with a future orientation. We 
do this until he comes again in glory to judge the living 
and the dead. John Gill says it leads forward 
to expect and believe He will come again to put us into the 
full possession of the salvation He is the author of, when there 
will be no more occasion for this ordinance nor any other, 
but all will cease and God will be all in all. Now, there are 
those in the history of the Christian church that deny baptism and 
the supper. They don't believe that these 
sacraments or ordinances are for us. But we find just the 
opposite in the New Testament. We find the positive institution 
of baptism, positive institution of the supper, and we see specifically 
that the churches of Christ are to eat this bread and drink this 
cup and proclaim the Lord's death till he comes. And so, such time 
as he comes, we are to be found engaged in this particular ordinance. Now, in terms of the purpose, 
notice what the paragraph says, paragraph one. It says, for the 
perpetual remembrance and showing forth the sacrifice of his death, 
confirmation of the faith of believers and all the benefits 
thereof, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further 
engagement in and to all duties which they owe to him, and to 
be a bond and pledge of their communion with him and with each 
other." So there is this perpetual remembrance. That's why Jesus 
ordains it. And we see the utility of bread 
and wine. We are physical people. We are 
physical creatures. We need help. We need assistance. We need things to sort of move 
us along. And the supper does that. The 
bread and the wine. They are not changed. They don't 
become something other. They don't carry the actual body 
of our blessed Savior and the actual blood of our blessed Savior. 
But they, in a physical and emblematic way, remind us of the death of 
our Lord on our behalf. So there's this perpetual remembrance 
that is involved in the supper. And again, the emphasis, take, 
eat, this is my body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance 
of me. With reference to the cup, this 
do as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. So there's 
the emphasis. It's not us that we're remembering, 
it's Christ that we're remembering. It's not us that we're pondering, 
it's Christ that we're pondering. It's not us that we're reflecting 
upon, it's Jesus that we're reflecting upon. And then as well, notice 
it shows forth the sacrifice. In again, a physical and emblematic 
way, without the physicality of a genuine sacrifice, it demonstrates 
that. The broken bread reminds us of 
the broken body. The wine reminds us of the shed 
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. That's the emphasis that we see 
behind this. As well, it goes on to say it 
confirms the faith of God's people. It's here that the divines would 
recognize it as a means of grace. They emphasize this memory part, 
they emphasize this remembrance part, but with reference to the 
memory and remembrance, it is nevertheless a means of grace. Look at what the text or what 
the confession says. It says it confirms the faith 
of believers in all the benefits thereof. It's not magic, it doesn't 
happen like that, it's not formulaic, but it's a means that God's ordained 
for the good of His people. And very often the people of 
God will absent themselves from the supper because they believe 
themselves to be unworthy. Now 1 Corinthians 11 addresses 
the unworthy participant. The unworthy participant isn't 
the person that's seeking to deal with his or her sin. The 
unworthy participant isn't the one who's seeking, by the grace 
of God, to maintain a conscience void of offense toward God and 
man. No, the unworthy participant is one that has sin against God 
that's not willing to deal with it, or has sin against man that's 
not willing to deal with it. And in the context of 1 Corinthians, 
there was a lot of things going on in that particular church. 
In particular, with reference to the supper, they had a meal 
in conjunction with it. And at that meal, people were 
not acting biblically to one another. They were not acting 
out of love and charity. They were not expressing that 
communion, not only with God, but with one another. And it 
betrayed their worthiness in terms of the supper. But there 
is this confirmation of the faith. So if we are struggling and we 
need grace and help, the emphasis in scripture is on attendance 
to the means that God has ordained for our benefit. If we are having 
a difficult go of it spiritually, it might be the case that the 
supper is calculated to do us genuine good. We don't want to 
absent ourselves from something that the Lord commands. We don't 
want to absent ourselves from something that the Lord has ordained 
for our positive benefit and for our good. So this confirmation 
of the faith is a most blessed sort of purpose involved in the 
supper. Then notice as well spiritual 
nourishment. If you go back for just a moment 
to 1 Corinthians 10. 1 Corinthians chapter 10. Specifically at verse 14, therefore, 
my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men, judge 
for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we 
bless, is it not the communion or the fellowship of the blood 
of Christ? The bread which we break, is 
it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, 
are one bread and one body, for we all partake of that one bread. 
So in terms of spiritual nourishment, It's not physical nourishment. 
I mean, you know, I've thought in the past, and I still think 
it'd be great to take a month or two and work through some 
of these particular issues and bring our church into further 
conformity to what I think this chapter is suggesting in terms 
of the actual act. I think that, you know, personally, 
a goblet of wine a hunk of bread, something that does represent 
the nourishment involved. You know, we get a thimble full 
and we get a little piece of a cracker and I get that and 
it's great and all that sort of a thing, but there's something 
communicated in the supper in terms of spiritual nourishment. 
There is a nourishing that goes on, again, not physically, the 
bread and the wine and the amount of all of it, It's not, I think, 
we're sinning or we're not rebelling in terms of it, but there is 
that sort of corollary in terms of the nourishing impact of the 
supper itself. So there is this spiritual nourishment 
involved. But as well, notice that there's 
this promotion of obedience. Notice that it goes on to say, 
after their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him. What does 
growth in Him look like? Growth in Him looks like further 
conformity unto Him. It's interesting, today in the 
sermons, both the morning and the evening, we're going to see 
some overlap in terms of Jesus' teaching with reference to the 
church. And with reference to the church, specifically tonight 
in Ephesians 4, we are to grow up in terms of maturity. We are 
to be that new man in Christ Jesus that is envisaged or talked 
about in chapter 2. And then practically in Ephesians 
4, we're not to be children. We're not to be toddlers. There's 
nothing wrong with being a child and a toddler, if you're a child 
or a toddler. You know, I don't think I'd ever 
say to my two-year-old grandson, quit acting like a two-year-old. 
But I'd say to my 22-year-old or 32-year-old son, quit acting 
like a two-year-old. So with reference to the perspective 
of growth in the church, it is further conformity unto our Lord 
Jesus Christ. interestingly, in the flow in 
Ephesians, that's specifically how it goes. We've got the teaching 
ministry of the church and what it's supposed to do in terms 
of the church, and then in 417 and following, he points out 
our conduct as new men and new women in Christ Jesus. So this 
teaching ministry in the church isn't abstract, it isn't sort 
of ethereal. The teaching ministry in the 
church is to seek to promote and produce the sorts of people 
that are described in 4.17 and following. Well, there is that 
remedial effect in the supper also. Yes, we remember Jesus. 
Yes, we see in a sort of physical or emblematic way his sacrifice. 
Our faith is concerned. Our souls are nourished, but 
it should promote in us obedience. Notice what it goes on to say. 
Their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe 
to him. and to be a bond and pledge of 
their communion with Him and with each other. So yes, we come, 
we're reminded of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, we're, 
you know, not scolded as to, you know, you better be better 
so that next time you can take the supper. But communion with 
Jesus has, as a positive result or application, conformity unto 
Jesus. The more we're with Christ, the 
more we should look like Christ. And I don't mean physically, 
I mean spiritually. We should indeed partake of that 
godliness and that holiness and that righteousness. So the general 
introduction in paragraph one. Let's move on to the detailed 
explanation of the supper. Does anyone have any questions 
or comments before we move on? We can do that? Okay. I mean, I know we can, but I 
mean, in terms of the internet, I don't want to lose anybody. 
We're good? Oh, okay, great. Anyone, questions, 
comments? All right, so notice in terms 
of the detailed explanation, you have the nature of the supper 
in paragraph two. There's a negative statement, 
a positive statement, and then a polemical statement. Notice, 
the negative statement, in this ordinance, Christ is not offered 
up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission 
of sin of the quick or dead. So the Lord is not offered up 
to the Father. This is not an unbloody atonement. This is not an actual sacrifice 
of the Mass. So this, the vines are very pointed 
in, in terms of the polemic against Roman Catholicism. and perhaps 
against Lutheranism, though they don't teach an unbloody atonement. 
So in this ordinance, Christ is not offered up to his father. 
So what we're doing is not a re-sacrifice. It's not a perpetuating of that 
sacrifice. It's not a duplicating of it 
in some unbloody way. So in this ordinance, Christ 
is not offered up to his father, nor any real sacrifice made at 
all for remission of sin of the Quaker debt. This does not atone 
for our sin. This does not remove our sin. It's not that we have the supper 
once a month to sort of deal with the sins that we've piled 
up in that month or the month previous. We don't come the first 
of March or the second, the first Lord's Day in March to sort of 
deal with the sins that we accrued in February. There's not an atonement. There's no offering up. There's 
no sacrifice. And we know the reason why. The 
biblical emphasis is on the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. The book 
of Hebrews is very specific and conspicuous in that regard, because 
the book of Hebrews is dealing with sacrifice. It's dealing 
with the old covenant sacrificial system, and it's calling, or 
the apostle is calling upon the people of God, Not to go back 
to that. Don't go back to Moses. Don't 
go back to the Levitical system. Don't go back to the temple and 
duplicate these sacrifices. Christ has come, the Lamb of 
God, who takes away the sin of the world. So why would you think 
that you need to go backwards in redemptive history? Why would 
you think you need the blood of bulls and goats? Why would 
you think you need to replicate what Christ, or attempt to replicate 
what Christ has accomplished? So that's why the emphasis in 
Hebrews on this once-for-all sacrifice. So the Lord is not 
offered to his father, the Lord is not offered as a sacrifice, 
then notice the positive statement. But only a memorial of that one 
offering up of himself by himself upon the cross once for all. Again, you can turn to the book 
of Hebrews. Hebrews chapter 9, where this emphasis is obvious. 
And again, the polemic thrust isn't, you know, future Roman 
Catholicism and their emphasis on actual unbloody atonement 
in the Lord's Supper, but it's specifically relative to the 
Mosaic system that was still in play at the time that the 
Apostle wrote. So in Hebrews chapter 9, specifically at verse 
25, notice, not that he should offer himself often, as the high 
priest enters the most holy place every year with blood of another. 
He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of 
the world. But now, once at the end of the ages, he has appeared 
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed 
for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ 
was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly 
wait for Him, He will appear a second time, apart from sin 
for salvation." So if we believe this is an unbloody sacrifice 
of atonement, We are denying the once-for-all sacrifice of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. It's a pretty inescapable concept. And again, look at chapter 10, 
verse 14, or verse 12. But this man, after he had offered 
one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of 
God, from that time waiting till his enemies are made his footstool. 
For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. Now, I don't doubt that they 
try to tool it in certain ways as to avoid that obvious discrepancy, 
but nevertheless, the language of Romanism, and I was brought 
up in that system, it's an unbloody sacrifice of atonement. When 
that host or that bread is lifted on high and that altar boy rings 
those bells, the devotees are supposed to be worshipping that 
bread. because that bread has been changed 
into the actual body of our Lord Jesus. And then when the priest 
moves to take the chalice or the cup, and he lifts that, and 
the altar boy rings the bells, again, the faithful are supposed 
to be expressing worship. Well, if there is not a change, 
then this is not Jesus. So therefore, to worship it is 
an abomination or idolatry. And to suggest that they have 
that power to change the actual body and blood of our Lord into 
bread and wine, as the Confession will go on to say, this is an 
offense not only against Scripture, but against common sense and 
reason. So the negative statement, not a unbloody sacrifice. Positive, 
the ordinance is a memorial of Christ's once-for-all offering 
of himself, and then the ordinance is a spiritual offering of praise 
for his once-for-all offering of himself. Notice, but only 
a memorial of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon 
the cross, once-for-all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible 
praise unto God for the same. So that's a very appropriate 
response when we gather together for the supper. Gratitude, thankfulness, 
praise to God for what our Lord Jesus Christ has accomplished 
on our behalf. It's not a change, it's not a 
transubstantiation, there's no sort of magic involved in all 
of this, but there are the benefits associated with paragraph one. 
And then there is that sort of end result in the thankfulness 
of the people of God expressing praise for that once-for-all 
sacrifice that was accomplished by our Lord. And then the polemical 
statement is found at the end of paragraph two. So that the 
popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, 
injurious to Christ's own only sacrifice, the alone propitiation 
for all the sins of the elect. And there are several passages 
that are indicated there. It is not that act in the supper 
that atones for our sin. It's Christ on the cross that 
atones for our sin. And to sort of take away from 
that by suggesting that the supper has some remedial benefit in 
terms of actual sin is ultimately to repudiate the once-for-all 
sacrifice. There's a similar sort of a situation 
that obtains in dispensationalism. I don't want to get too off the 
field there, but they have a view that there'll be animal sacrifices 
reinstituted in the Millennial Kingdom. But again, that's to 
go backwards in redemptive history. Why in the world would you have 
animal sacrifices in a future Jewish millennia? You've got 
the once-for-all sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. Why go 
back to temple? Why go back to sacrifice? Why 
go back to that earthly altar? And then in the book of Ezekiel, 
which deals with the Millennial Temple, that doesn't specify 
or doesn't say that these are sacrifices that are only for 
remembrance. No, if we're going to follow 
the Millennial Temple as our template for a future Millennial 
Temple in which the Jews are preeminent, the sacrifices specified 
in Ezekiel are sacrifices of atonement. It's not sacrifices 
simply to remember. It's not we're going to bring 
this bull or goat simply to remember our Lord Jesus Christ. That's 
not the design in the Millennial Temple or in the Latter-day Temple 
in the prophet Ezekiel. It is sacrifice of atonement. 
And so in both systems of thought, in Roman Catholicism and in dispensationalism, 
in some weird sort of way, you have this backward movement in 
redemptive history. And so the confession is against 
that. So that the popish sacrifice 
of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious 
to Christ's own only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all 
the sins of the elect. Now notice the celebration of 
the supper in paragraphs three and four. The proper celebration 
in paragraph 3. Notice the Lord Jesus hath, in 
this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless 
the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart 
from a common to unholy use. Again, that doesn't necessitate 
transubstantiation. It doesn't necessitate a change 
from the actual bread into the actual body of Jesus. But there 
is this movement from the profane, that means a common use, into 
the sacred or religious use of these particular elements. And 
that's the emphasis here. So thereby to set them apart 
from a common to unholy use and to take and break the bread, 
to take the cup and They communicating also themselves to give both 
to the communicants. So that's the pattern. That's 
the particular procedure. And again, paragraph four is 
going to look at the negative. I know that in my time as a young 
Roman Catholic, there was a bit of change. I don't know if they're 
still changing. But when I grew up, there was 
no cup for anybody but the priest. In other words, the only one 
that got the cup was the priest. Maybe the altar boy got the cup. 
I don't remember. It's been a long time since I 
was an altar boy. But they denied the cup to the 
laity. So the laity would get the bread, 
but they would not get the cup. Now again, as life moves on, 
perhaps they've changed. I haven't been in a Roman Catholic 
Church in many, many years. But notice in paragraph four. 
So you've got this proper celebration in paragraph three, which is 
pretty simple. I think one of the elements or 
aspects, rather, elements is the particular things we do in 
New Covenant worship. But an aspect, or perhaps observation, 
of New Covenant worship is its simplicity. It is a simple thing. Old Covenant worship wasn't so 
simple, was it? If you've been here on Wednesday 
nights, it's probably not simple to receive detailed instructions 
from on high on how to build the tabernacle just so. How to 
get priests to minister in that tabernacle just so. How to make sure that nobody 
other than those authorized priests minister in that tabernacle just 
so. As we move on in the Pentateuch, 
we're going to get into the book of Leviticus. And chapters 1 
to 9 deal with the legislation concerning sacrifice. I don't 
know that I've ever met anybody who's read those sections and 
said, wow, Old Covenant worship was really simple. No, it was 
very detail-oriented. As we've talked in terms of Covenant, 
it was what you'd expect a child to receive. With your child you 
have to be more detailed in explanation. With your child you have to tutor 
him along in such a way as to keep him in check. With a child 
you have to give him robust instruction so that he doesn't go astray. 
That's Israel. They're a child under the tutelage 
of the old covenant system. We get into the New Covenant 
and we're new men in Christ Jesus. So we don't have that tutelage 
of the Old Covenant system. When we get into the New Covenant 
system, it's it. It's simple. As I've said many 
times, you pray the Word, you preach the Word, you read the 
Word, you see the Word, you sing the Word. It's very much Word-oriented. You don't get detailed legislation 
in Romans 17 on how to build your church and how to orchestrate 
the worship in your church. You get the broad aspects in 
terms of element. You do these things, but you 
don't get all these detailed circumstances involved in terms 
of worship. Paragraph 3 is very simple. The 
Lord Jesus hath in this ordinance appointed his ministers to pray, 
bless the elements of bread and wine, thereby to set them apart 
from a common to an holy use, to take and break the bread, 
to take the cup, and they communicating also themselves, to give both 
to the communicant. Very simple approach. But then 
notice in paragraph 4, the denial of the cup to the people. Again, 
that's what was in vogue when I was a young papist. They didn't 
give you the cup. You came up, and if you've never 
been involved in Roman Catholicism, it's pretty detail-oriented. 
Again, reflecting not new covenant worship, but reflecting old covenant 
worship. They have a priesthood. They 
have sacrifice. They have incense. They have 
modeled themselves on the Aaronic priesthood versus the new covenant 
emphasis in terms of simple worship. So when you come up, you kneel 
down, they put a little plate under your chin, I think they 
still do this, so that if the thing falls out of your mouth, 
the body of Jesus doesn't hit the ground. They're hardcore 
and they act consistently with their conviction. If this thing that the priest 
has made into the body of Jesus, if it really is the body of Jesus, 
you better get a plate under your chin in case it hits your 
lip and falls off so that Jesus doesn't fall on the floor. The 
thing behind the altar, they call it the tabernacle. That 
is a gold box that has a lock and the priest has the key. That's 
where the bread and the wine are stored. That's where the 
body and blood of Jesus are stored. So there is this denial of the 
cup. So when you came up, you got 
the wafer or you got the bread, but you didn't get the thimble 
or the goblet or the chalice. You were not given the cup. So 
it is difficult to understand how that evolved in Roman Catholicism 
in light of the clear teaching of 1 Corinthians chapter 11. 
Why they ever thought to deny the cup to the laity, I don't 
know. I'm sure they hopefully have 
a rationale behind it, but I can't imagine that it would be biblical. 
So then notice in paragraph four, the denial of the cup to the 
people, worshiping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying 
them about for adoration. As I've said, when that priest 
lifts that bread, or when that priest lifts that chalice, the 
altar boy rings the bells, and the faithful are supposed to 
be worshiping. At that time, in a Catholic Church, 
they have kneelers. Everybody's kneeling at that 
particular time. And honestly, kneeling in church, 
I don't have a problem with that. I think that'd be wonderful. 
But in terms of having these sort of rote responses, and in 
terms of kneeling, so that you can express adoration or worship 
to the Lord Jesus Christ, who apparently is now this bread, 
this is what the confession condemns. Worshiping the elements, the 
lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration. And 
then notice, and reserving them for any pretended religious use 
are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance and to the 
institution of Christ. If you doubt, you know, the rigmarole 
involved, I got a Catholic Bible you're welcome to take home with 
you. It's a big Marian edition from the 1950s and in detailed 
high gloss pictures, they play out the mass 
and every step along the way and all of the things that are 
involved with that. And you cannot come away from 
that with the conclusion that this is exactly what Paul was 
speaking about. No. For Paul and for Jesus at 
the Last Supper, it was a very simple thing. This is my body, 
this is my blood. And the thought that the original 
disciples sitting there at table with Jesus would have for a moment 
assumed that he actually was telling them that this is my 
body, that would have been an offense to them. And then drink 
my blood? That was strictly prohibited. 
The Book of Leviticus prohibits the ingestion of blood. I don't 
think for a moment they would have said, oh, he's talking about 
transubstantiation. He's talking about having changed 
the bread and the wine into his body and blood, though they sort 
of remain not body and blood. They kind of are, but they're 
not. They wouldn't have thought that. They would have seen it. 
This is. This represents. This was the 
sort of key emphasis at the time of the Reformation. How do we 
translate You know, how do we interpret, this is my body? Well, represents, emblematic, 
symbolizes, is the obvious way he's speaking metaphorically. 
Just like when he says, I am the vine. When he says, I am 
the door. When he says, I am the good shepherd. These things are metaphorical 
in terms of use. And so, when it comes to the 
proper and improper or perverse celebration, this is what paragraphs 
3 and 4 deal with. Now notice the elements in paragraphs 
5 and 6. Paragraph 5. The outward elements 
in this ordinance, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, 
have such relation to Him crucified as that truly. Although in terms 
used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the name of the things 
they represent. To wit, the body and blood of 
Christ. Albeit in substance and nature, they still remain truly 
and only bread and wine as they were before. So in other words, 
the figurative application, you know, when you look at the bread 
and the wine, you say the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Again, I think we all assume that we're speaking metaphorically. 
I think we all assume that we're speaking figuratively. I think 
that we all assume that we don't actually mean that that bread 
and that wine is actually the body and blood of Jesus. So the 
confession says that's okay. You can do that. That's acceptable. I think it sort of corresponds 
with what you find in chapter 2. You can turn there in the 
confession in terms of the communication of idioms. Chapter 2. I'm sorry, 
chapter 8. Chapter 8. I was thinking 8-2, 
but 8-7. 8.7 speaks concerning what's called 
the communication of idioms or the communication of properties. 
Christ in the work of mediation acts according to both natures, 
by each nature doing that which is proper to itself. The humanity 
does humanity's stuff, the divinity does divinity's stuff, but it's 
the one person that does it according to that nature. So again, this 
is why you can't divinize the humanity, you can't humanize 
the divinity. You can speak concerning the 
person as divine and human, but you can't speak concerning the 
divinity as being human or the humanity as being divine. You 
can go nature, nature, nature to person, but you can't go nature 
to nature. And that's what this is saying. 
So Christ in the work of mediation acts according to both natures, 
by each nature doing that which is proper to itself. Yet by reason 
of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature 
is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by 
the other nature." It says you can do that, John 3, 13, Acts 
20, 28 are instances of that. So with the one person acting 
according to the natures, it is sometimes seen in scripture, 
that what is true of the divine nature is said of the person 
of Christ. And so I think the same sort 
of emphasis is here. So when it comes to paragraph 
five, it's the ordinance, the elements have such relation to 
him crucified, is that truly? Although in terms used figuratively, 
they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent. 
To wit, the body and blood of Christ, but then notice, albeit 
in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread 
and wine as they were before. So we see this recurring emphasis 
on the way that the Romanists do transubstantiation is wrong. 
And we might think, that seems like overkill. But we're not 
living in the 17th century, you know, on the heels of the Protestant 
Reformation when we're articulating our doctrine in terms of how 
we understand church and ordinances and Jesus. So the specter of 
Romanism loomed large over them at that particular time. And 
I would suggest if we went to just about anywhere in the world, 
where Roman Catholicism was predominant and primary, I think we'd see 
the reason for the repetition and the emphasis on this sort 
of anti-Romanist polemic. And then it gets specific in 
paragraph six. It's a refutation of transubstantiation. So that doctrine which maintains 
a change a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance 
of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by 
consecration of a priest or by any other way. I don't know what 
that any other way means. I would imagine Jim Renahan probably 
knows. I don't. But is repugnant not 
to scripture alone. So if the scripture teaches anything, 
we should obey, right? If the scripture teaches transubstantiation, 
then we should take it. But the scripture doesn't teach 
that. The scripture shows us a metaphorical use of, is my 
body, is my blood, shows us a metaphorical or physical use of that in John 
chapter 6, eat my flesh, drink my blood. Again, in the context 
of John 6, nobody there in that synagogue in Capernaum probably 
thought that meant to actually ingest the physicality of Jesus 
as he was standing there. It was metaphorical for belief. It was metaphorical for trust 
in our Lord Jesus Christ. So it's repugnant not to scripture 
alone, but even to common sense and reason. In other words, common 
sense and reason. The Confession highlights that. 
We don't live in a world where you can change bread and wine 
into the actual body and blood of Jesus. There's miracles. Chapter 
5 of God's providence legitimizes and authorizes and demonstrates 
and shows that there are miracles in this world. Now, of course, 
the Romanists call this a miracle. This is a miracle of the mass. 
This is a miracle every single time that the priest does it. 
That's not the biblical doctrine of miracles. Miracles aren't 
sort of predictable. Miracles are unpredictable. They're miracles. They don't 
typically jive with what we see in the ordinary government in 
Providence. They're extraordinary. They're 
out of the norm. And so common sense and reason 
says, no, this isn't the actual body and blood of Jesus. That's 
why I highlight the disciples at that first Lord's Supper, 
that last supper. They are probably not thinking 
he's turning this into him so that we can eat it and drink 
it. It is an offense to common sense and reason. It overthrows 
the nature of the ordinance because it becomes something central. 
You know, if you go into a Roman Catholic church, there is a difference 
in terms of structure and architecture. And this was not haphazard. At 
the time of the Protestant Reformation, they moved the furniture around. 
In a Roman Catholic church, you have the altar as the primary 
focal point, and then the pulpit is off to the side. Again, at 
least when I was growing up, you had the Altar, that was central. And then you had the pulpit where 
the priest did his homily. And the homily simply meant the 
sermon. And I'd love to think back, or I'd love to go back 
in time to hear some of those homilies. As I remember, they 
were like 10 or 10, 15 minutes, which seemed to be forever. I 
doubt they were 45 minutes of rigorous exegesis and that sort 
of thing, but kind of humanistic and moralistic. You know, the 
sort of Roman Catholic version of just do good, do good. But when the Protestant Reformation 
obtains, what happens? There's no more altar in the 
churches, is there? Why? Because you don't need an 
altar in the churches. Christ, once for all, sacrificed 
himself. And what becomes the primary 
focal point in a Protestant service? It's the proclamation of the 
word. So there was this change in terms of the way we do the 
furniture in the context of the church. So it overthrows the 
nature of the ordinance and has been, and is, the cause of manifold 
superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries. So if we believe 
that this host is the body of Jesus, or we believe that this 
wine is the blood of Jesus, and we worship that, It's akin to 
the gold calf in Exodus 32. They said it was Yahweh. They didn't say, oh, this is 
the great golden calf that led us out of Egypt. No, this is 
Yahweh who led you out of Egypt. They had the proper object of 
worship, Yahweh, but they had the wrong manner of worship. 
Let's picture him, or figure him, or let's see him in this 
golden calf. So just because you say you have 
the right object of worship, if you engage in the worship 
of that right object in the wrong way, you're guilty of the second 
commandment violation. So the first commandment defines 
who we worship, the second commandment defines how we worship. And if 
how we worship goes against what we find in scripture, then we 
are in big trouble. And that's what the confession 
highlights. And then notice lastly, in terms of the recipients of 
the supper, paragraphs seven and eight, you've got the worthy 
and then the unworthy. So paragraph seven, worthy receivers, 
outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do 
then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally 
and corporally, but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ 
crucified, and all the benefits of his death, the body and blood 
of Christ being then not corporeally or carnally, but spiritually 
present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements 
themselves are to their outward senses." Again, there's this 
worthiness, and then there's this proper way to approach the 
supper. And behind this paragraph, and 
much of what we find in this supper, is another debate. Mentioned 
in the very beginning, Barcello says that at the time of the 
Reformation, more ink was spilled over the supper. There was another 
big issue in terms of the presence of Christ. So you can imagine, 
with the Catholics and the Lutherans, if you denied transubstantiation 
or consubstantiation, you might be accused of having no Christ 
present in your service. So then comes Calvin. So you 
have these various approaches to the supper. You have Zwingli, 
who saw it only as a memorial. You had Luther and the Roman 
Catholics, who saw it very sacramentally. And then you have Calvin, who 
comes along and sort of synthesizes it. He repudiates the Roman version. He repudiates the Lutheran version. 
But he also repudiates the Zwingli version. That it's not just a 
memory. Christ is really present in the 
supper. He's not really present because 
the priest has made the bread in Julian. He's not really present 
because the Lutheran guy, I don't know if they call them priests 
or pastors, probably, the Lutheran pastor, you know, puts Christ 
in by and with the elements. But Christ, locally present, 
according to his humanity, at the right hand of the Father, 
is really present at the supper by the Holy Spirit. And so Jesus 
is present with his people in the supper, just not according 
to his humanity. And then paragraph eight ends 
with all ignorant and ungodly persons. Ignorant there shouldn't 
be interpreted as, you know, not the brightest bulb in the 
chandelier. Ignorant means somebody who is ignorant of the Christian 
faith, somebody that does not know the truth as it is in Jesus, 
somebody that is outside that sort of understanding of the 
significance behind. So all ignorant and ungodly persons, 
as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy 
of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against Him, 
while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be 
admitted thereunto. Yea, whosoever shall receive 
unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating 
and drinking judgment to themselves. And so when it comes to the supper, 
As I mentioned before at the supper, there are those in the 
history of the church that thought that it was for unbelievers, 
that you could give the supper to unbelievers and that it would 
be a converting ordinance. You've probably heard of Jonathan 
Edwards. Jonathan Edwards was probably 
one of the foremost minds in America in the 18th century. 
in terms of pastoring and philosophy and theology. He didn't believe 
that, but his father-in-law did. It was a father-in-law, right? 
Solomon Stoddard. Yeah, he believed that. And as 
a result, I think this is why Edwards got fired from his church. 
If you fire Edwards from your church, there should be good 
reasons. We just got rid of probably one 
of the smartest guys that ever lived, a godly, faithful man, 
as far as you can tell. Lots of positive impact on the 
church, but it was over this quash check. No, it is for the 
unbeliever. It is for the ungodly. It is 
to be a means for their conversion. But as mentioned earlier, it's 
given to the church. Who enters the church, now there's 
obviously those who make a false profession, but the church is 
the people of God bought by the blood of Christ and brought together 
to engage in this particular ordinance. Well, any questions 
or comments on anything there? Okay. would think that the bell would 
change. But it was, I couldn't believe 
it. And then you think back to the Reformation, and you think 
of all the people there that were living in ignorance and 
darkness. In a sense, it's the same thing 
today. They're living, even though they're 
intellectually so smart, but they actually think, like, it's 
like a kid's magician play. Absolutely. What's that? Abracadabra. Yeah. Hocus Pocus is the actual language 
in Latin in terms of the change. It is. Yeah. You know it, don't you? You should 
know this. You just think about this stuff, 
don't you? What's Hocus Pocus? Look it up there. When in Latin. That came from the Protestant 
Reformation, and they were making fun of the Latin mass and the 
words that were said over it. Yes. But I mean, I don't want 
to say in their defense, but you have to understand in a Roman 
Catholic system, you're born, you get baptized before you know 
what's happening, you go to Catholic school, you take what they tell 
you, you don't question it, in second grade you go do your first 
Holy Communion, And then seventh grade you do what's called confirmation. You're indoctrinated. And along 
the way you pick up some good things. Honestly, when I became 
converted, I didn't have to, what's the Trinity? I mean, we 
recited the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed. I mean, these 
things were very much emphasized. So it's easy to see and go, man, 
that's terrible. Well, there's a lot of terrible 
aspects, but, you know, there are some decent things that come 
out of it as well. But you're basically indoctrinated 
from your youth, you're taught a particular approach to the 
system, and you just don't question it. So, you know, when you walk 
into a Roman Catholic church and you see, you know, people 
that are brain surgeons and rocket scientists and they're bowing, 
you know, to this host, There's a rationale, a reason behind 
that. They just, they don't know any 
better. They typically haven't questioned it. They haven't pursued 
any sort of investigation into the matter. They just receive 
it. They assume it as far as they're concerned. This is truth. And if you suggest otherwise, 
you've got the problem. It's your, you know, denial. It's your rejection. You are 
the one that is the bad person for questioning that. How does he believe that? To 
me, it just seems so. Same sort of a thing. Tradition, 
yeah. So just to speak from the Anglican 
tradition, which I think would be concepts down to Asia. Just a comment about the bread, 
because the Anglican tradition receives the wine from a common 
cup. And of course, in modern times, 
people have become very germophobic. So there are some people who 
don't want to receive the wine from the common cup. So I had 
to do a background check into that. Both Anglican and Catholic, 
if you receive the bread, the bread encases the body, encases 
the blood. So it's important that you receive 
both. But even in the Anglican tradition, if the wine was spilt 
on the carpet, you were actually supposed to rip up that piece 
of carpet and burn it, because that was spiritually. And in 
the altar guild, the purificators, of course, wiped the chalice. 
Well, they had to be taken home and soaked, and the wine soaked 
presumably out of them, and then that had to be disposed of on 
clean ground. Well, of course, That's quite 
impractical for a lot of housewives that are on altar gild with little 
animals running outside. I think the, but the big part 
of the communion was do this in remembrance of me. So I think 
a lot of the common sense part and the practical part of the 
altar gild, most of the housewives cared for it like they would 
a, you know, a cherished piece of, for God's house, but they 
didn't go insane because it's not common sense. So on one level 
you've got all this debate, that's important, but on the other level 
you've got people that went to communion for a few weeks at 
age 13, or catechism, or I forget what we call it, preparation 
for confirmation. There really was not a lot of 
teaching done, there was recitation of the creeds, but not a lot 
of exposition on what that means, so it sort of becomes almost 
meaningless. Yeah, it's rote, it's indoctrination. So there's sort of, I mean, you 
go into a Catholic church, count the beings, right? People seem 
to assume that what is up here is believed down here, but there's 
all kinds of... Sure. I appreciate the endorsement 
of my Latin skills, which are next to nil, but it seems to 
me, at least on the outside looking at Romanist circles, that there's 
the seminaries and there's a whole academic discourse that goes 
on that not even all priests have access to, but as far as 
rationale, I think the biggest thing would be, as was covered 
in this paper on scripture, that if you don't have soul scripture, 
you're not using scripture as the infallible, final, ultimate 
authority, and you're trying to synthesize certain biblical 
passages, like John 6, with what you believe to be apostolic succession, 
or this huge historical precedent, where it's like you're reinterpreting 
the majority of church history as supporting transubstantiation. 
and as well there's a philosophical piece that's built into it, some 
of the metaphysics that are involved there. I think that's where people 
get, at least the priesthood, I would imagine. Well yeah, practically 
you're just brought up in it. You don't ask questions, you 
don't challenge anything, you just take it because that's what 
you've always been told. You know, it would have been 
inconceivable in a high school Bible class for somebody to say, 
You know, you guys say you're changing the bread, it just would 
never happen. At least in my experience, you 
just wouldn't even think that way. It's not until you sort 
of come under the preaching or teaching of God's Word that you 
start to then think, wow, this is really bizarre. I never, never, 
you know, pondered it or reflected upon it. I mean, you know, it 
would be the odd time along the way as a kid thinking, this seems 
a bit different, but, you know, you had Protestant friends in 
your neighborhood and they did things a bit different. You knew 
that, but you didn't really explore it, you didn't examine it, you 
didn't sort of discuss it at any level that would bring you 
to the place where you go, yeah, that is odd. You just, you were 
brought up in it. This is the way we do things, 
and you just don't question it. So I think practically, yeah, 
that's just how it seems to go. And I mean, the rigmarole with 
the altar boys, I mean, before the priest does his thing, there's, 
you know, water, little vessels of water that the priest puts 
his hands over, you know, this little plate to catch the water. 
The altar boy's pouring water on the hand. It's very much like 
you would assume that sort of Old Covenant model. But again, 
when you're a kid in potpourri, you don't say, wow, this sounds 
a lot more like Old Covenant religion than it does the New 
Testament. You just didn't think that way. 
You just taught or learned or lived what you got. And so I 
think Mormonism, I think, is the same way. If you know what 
Mormon theology actually teaches, how does anybody with common 
sense and reason go through that? Well, they don't. They say it's 
about the burning of the bosom. It's how it makes me feel. But Mormonism has the view of 
you becoming a god and populating your own planet with the multitude 
of wives that you've amassed. How do you believe that? Well, 
you've got to suspend some common sense and reason and all that 
sort of things. The power of religion and the 
power of bad doctrine is very powerful, and this is why you 
have several, you know, throughout Scripture, not just in the New 
Testament, why does God forbid Israel to go mess with the gods 
of the nations around them? It's a powerful and, you know, 
heady influence, and people go after what they want. People, 
you know, Baal offered certain things that the worshipper wanted. It wasn't they were forced into 
Baalism. We're going to read that in Numbers 
25 tonight. Baalism offered something that 
the Israelite wanted. Mormonism offers something that 
the worshipper wants. The Romanists offer something 
that at some level they want because they're there. So, you 
know, what is the word I'm looking for? The power of religion is 
very strong. That's why there's so many cautions 
in the Bible against or about avoiding those things which are 
false and contrary to the truth. Anyways, we need to close in 
prayer here. Our gracious God, we thank you for the confession, 
we thank you for this summary of Christian doctrine that we 
have, and we thank you for our rich tradition and history in 
the Reformed tradition, and as well, going back to the fathers 
and the apostles and the prophets before them, we see consistency 
and we see the blessing of sound doctrine, of the truth of God's 
Holy Word. We pray for your blessing now as we enter into worship. 
We pray that you would be glorified and honored. We pray that your 
kingdom of grace and glory would come. And we pray through Jesus 
Christ our Lord. Amen.