The Criteria of Communion Part 1

All right, so what we're going to do today, we're going to talk about, we're going to do a little mini study on the Lord's Supper

and what is it that makes it the Lord's Supper.

So you're going to note something.

We Lutherans, we are in the unenviable position, it seems like, to

be somewhere between Rome and evangelicalism.

It's kind of weird.

We condemn them both, and we'll have to explain why we do that.

And we'll take a look at some biblical texts and then talk about what is it, you know, how does

one have a valid consecration?

What do Lutheran confessions say in this regard?

So we're going to be doing some very scandalous teaching today, so brace yourselves, best

way I can put it.

Let's pray.

Lord Jesus, as we open up your word and consider the sacrament of the altar, we pray that through your scriptures, through

your word, we may rightly believe, confess, and do according to what you have revealed there, so that we may take

comfort in the gift that you have given us in the Lord's Supper.

We ask this in Jesus' name.

Amen.

All right, now real quick.

Uh -oh, Bruce has a question.

Bruce Burns is in the house.

My apologies, we may not be getting to this until next month.

Yes, Bruce.

Yes, in today's sermon.

Well, he wasn't reincarnated.

He had the spirit of Elijah, you can talk about that.

Right.

No, he says no.

Okay, so the idea here is that the prophecy in Malachi, the Italian prophet,

I believe, is regarding the idea that John the Baptist comes in the spirit of Elijah.

Okay, let's use some of the NAR terminology.

He had Elijah's mantle.

I think I just caused too much brain pain for Bruce.

The idea here is that the scriptures are very clear that it is appointed once for man to die, once.

Now, granted, Elijah didn't, but that doesn't mean that John the Baptist is literally the

reincarnation of Elijah.

That's not the right way of putting it.

Does he come in the same spirit, the same power as Elijah?

Yes.

In fact, you'll note that Elijah's garb that he wears is

practically the exact same uniform that John the Baptist wears.

The connections and callbacks are for sure.

This is part of the reason why the people of Israel are saying he's Elijah.

Now, if by Elijah you mean reincarnated, no.

Does he come in the spirit of Elijah?

You betcha.

I think that's kind of the imagery that we get then.

If you remember, it was Elisha who received Elijah's mantle.

This is a biblical concept.

He asked for a double portion of it, and he received it.

The idea here is that the same power and the same spirit that Elijah operated on

is shown in the Old Testament to be something that is transferable.

But it's transferable only when God transfers it to another person.

So it's in the spirit of Elijah that John the Baptist comes.

And Jesus is even cautious.

He says that if you're willing to accept it, that's kind of the Roseboro paraphrase, he

is the Elijah who was to come.

That's the point.

That doesn't mean that we're teaching reincarnation.

And that was my reference.

But by the way, great question.

Great point.

What's the spirit by which Elijah operated?

It's the Holy Spirit.

That's the idea.

And you'll note that John the Baptist, unlike Elijah, was not a miracle worker.

John the Baptist performed no signs, no wonders, none.

I'm with you on that one.

So Marilyn pointed out that the fact that he was able to eat locusts is a miracle.

One that we pray never to have to be repeated in human history again.

Although I will say this.

In Asian countries, they sell bags of locusts like we sell potato chips.

Yeah, so if you're into that, if you're into strange forms of the keto diet, just so you know.

All right.

So let's talk.

Yeah, Ezekiel bars.

Oh, that's hilarious.

Yeah, that's kind of a whole other story.

I mean, years ago, I was very, for a time in my life, I was very

prolific in putting out exhibits in what we call the Museum of Idolatry.

And putting those things out was just so, it's another version of the swamp of sadness

is the best I can put it.

But one of the things that was, I mean, this thing that happens that Christians think they have to come up with

their own Christian products all the time.

And so somebody thought it would be a great idea to come out with what they call Ezekiel bars.

Bread, bread.

Yeah, but it turns out to be it was real.

What we put out initially as a spoof, you know, why don't you make Ezekiel's bread.

Because you have to cook it over poop.

Turns out there is an actual bread product, you know, called Ezekiel

bread.

And their big marketing point is it's the same recipe that's given in scripture.

Is it cooked over manure?

I pray God no.

I think that they would end up breaking a lot of laws if they ended up cooking it over manure.

And the thing is, is that when you read the prophet Ezekiel, God initially required him to cook it over human

excrement.

And Ezekiel complained and said no.

And God said, all right, well, you can use cow patties instead.

Well, thanks, God, you know.

So, you know, it's really not authentic Ezekiel bread unless it is actually cooked over excrement.

So, you know, it's just weird when you think about it.

And so I will never purchase Ezekiel bread.

I can't do it.

All right, let's talk about, let's do a little bit of reminder work here.

So reminding you of our covenants, the Gnoadic covenant, what is the sign of the Gnoadic covenant?

Rainbow.

What is the promise of the Gnoadic covenant?

Not to flood the earth, you know, the entire earth again be a flood.

Okay, the Abrahamic covenant, what is the promise of the Abrahamic

covenant?

The seed of the Jesus, through Abraham's descendant, his seed,

the whole world would be blessed.

What is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant?

Circumcision.

Mosaic covenant.

It's a land lease agreement.

So God promises that you can stay in the land if you obey.

So it's a tenant agreement.

What is the sign of the Mosaic covenant?

Sabbath.

New covenant.

What is the promise of the new covenant?

Forgiveness of sins.

God remembers to forget your sins.

What is the sign of the new covenant?

Body and blood of Christ.

The Lord's Supper.

Every time we have the Lord's Supper, you visibly see bread and wine.

And we recognize that it is what scripture says it is, what Christ says that it is.

The body and blood of Christ.

And the Lord's Supper is established then as a covenantal meal.

And the body and blood of Christ are the signs of the new covenant.

And when you see the signs of the new covenant, you remember that God remembers to forget your sins.

But more importantly, God sees the signs of the new covenant and he remembers to forget your sins.

That's kind of the gist of how that all works.

So we recognize first and foremost that the Lord's Supper is a covenantal meal.

Now Lutherans, we get shot at from two sides.

It's just loads of fun.

And so if you think about evangelicals, if you were to ask the average evangelical, somebody who attends

some strange, bizarre, freedom -ish, Gracie church, vague

names that they have now, the church of the narcissistic, me, myself, and I,

what do they say that the Lord's Supper is?

Huh?

It's a symbol.

So the bread and wine, they what?

They symbolize the body and blood of Christ.

According to them, and there's varied opinions on this, what does it mean to take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner?

Unconfessed sin, yeah.

So if you have unconfessed sin in your life, then you can't have the Lord's Supper.

Yes, James?

It's just grape juice and gluten -free bread.

So grape juice and gluten -free bread, right.

And then you'll note that in some weird instances, they think it's okay to have the Lord's Supper with

Doritos and Coca -Cola.

Cheetos and Dr. Pepper.

Cheetos and Dr. Pepper.

Doesn't it say on the soda bottle?

Bruce, Bruce, stop the self -harm.

They don't care.

Yeah, and oftentimes when they have the Lord's Supper, they don't

even say the words of Christ.

They'll say, we're going to have communion together right now, we've set up stations, and as you feel led by the Spirit, come up

and consume the elements.

And the emphasis is on what?

Do this in remembrance of me.

And so the focus is on remembering Jesus' suffering and what he did, which isn't a bad thing in and of

itself, if you think about it.

But that's actually kind of missing the whole point of what remembrance is.

So the reason why I mention the covenants first is because in the Gnoadic Covenant, we see kind of the

first example of a covenant as it's laid out.

It's between two parties.

God in the Gnoadic Covenant is a unilateral covenant, and covenants always have promises or

curses.

They don't all have curses, but they do all have signs, and the signs invoke the promises of the covenant.

And the idea then is that when something is done in remembrance in a covenantal context, it's

always to remember the promises of the covenant.

So it is absolutely true that we remember that Christ suffered.

In fact, in the liturgy, there's what's called an anamnetic prayer as part of the communion

liturgy where we walk through the different sufferings, the different pieces of

Christ's passion and suffering for our sins.

And there's an absolute concept, anamnesis means to remember, an anamnetic concept regarding

it.

But all that being said, the real action though is at what it is.

So we've talked about the evangelicals.

It's pure symbol.

All right, what about Rome?

What are you getting in the Lord's Supper in Rome, in the Mass?

Yes?

The actual bread.

Is there bread and wine still there?

No, it changed.

Okay, it's transmogrified.

No, it's transubstantiated.

I want to say transmogrified.

Okay, so in Rome, the Roman belief is that you only

receive the body and blood of Christ, and they're going to use Aristotelian logic and philosophy

to basically say it tastes like bread, it feels like bread, it tastes like wine, it feels like wine,

but it's not.

That the texture and the taste are what are called accidents.

Not that they're something that's accidental.

They're called accidents.

And the idea behind an accident is that that is an attribute of it that is

there, but it's not at the core of what it is.

So it accidentally, not because it's an accident, smells,

tastes, feels like bread and wine.

And so irony of ironies, we're closer to Rome than we are the evangelicals,

but we still actually condemn Rome for a few things on this as

it relates to Scripture, because when we look at the biblical text, if you were to tally it up,

we don't receive two things in the Lord's Supper, we receive four.

And so we will say to the evangelicals, you're not listening to Jesus, and what the church has always understood,

and then we'll say to Rome that you've taken Thomas Aquinas' philosophizing and

dogmatized it.

Because at the end of the day, it's Christ that makes it the Lord's Supper, not me, not anybody

else.

And the best that we can come up with is, and you'll see this as we explain it.

So all that being said, let's take a look at 1 Corinthians 11, and we're going to look at the presenting

problem.

If you've ever read 1 Corinthians, then you're going to note the church at Corinth was really messed up.

I mean, they were abusing the gifts of the Spirit, misusing them.

The rich people in the congregation were keeping the poor from having the Lord's Supper

because to eat a meal with somebody who's of a lower class than you puts them on the same level as you, and that's

scandalous for the rich.

They are not interested in that.

And, of course, you had that guy who was sleeping with his dad's wife, and they were, praise the Lord.

Isn't the grace of Jesus great?

And Paul's like, bleh.

So here we've got the presenting problem, 1 Corinthians 11, 17.

In the following instructions, I do not commend you because when you come together it is not for the better, it is

for the worse.

From the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you.

I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

But when you come together, it's not the Lord's Supper that you eat.

In eating, one goes ahead with his own meal.

One goes hungry, another gets drunk.

Okay, what's going on here?

Huh?

Not grape juice.

Well, yeah.

So note, I highlighted the word.

Good point, James.

Yes, it's not grape juice.

You can't get drunk on grape juice.

In the most cases.

Yeah, yeah.

So here you've got a faction within the church who is making it so that people are going

hungry because they're not getting any of the Lord's Supper, and other people are actually

consuming the consecrated wine in such copious amounts they're actually getting

drunk at church.

These are clearly not Norwegians either.

So...

Sorry, I always have to take a swig.

Okay, so you get the idea here.

And yes, you can point out that, yes, it was actually, you know, wine.

It doesn't matter how many glasses of Welch's you have.

And by the way, grape juice did not exist.

That was not a thing until pasteurization.

Because if you ever looked on the outside of a grape, I mean, just, you know, this is the time here in

North America.

Grab some grapes, look on the outside of the grape.

What do you got there?

You got that white little frosty thing on the skin.

That's the actual fungus.

That's the, you know, what...

Huh?

It's yeast. It's yeast.

It's what...

So when you smash up grapes, all that yeast is released into that high sugar content

juice, and the fermentation process begins immediately.

And that's how that works.

And so that yeast is going to gobble up the sugars, and when it's done gobbling up the sugars, you know,

what the yeast puts out after it's gobbled up the sugar is the alcohol.

And carbon dioxide.

And carbon dioxide.

That's right.

So you do not want to ferment your wine inside of a pressure cooker.

So that would go poorly.

But the idea then is until the pasteurization process was invented, there

was no way to stop the fermentation process.

None.

There was no way to do it.

So, you know, is drinking alcohol a sin?

No.

And anyone who says it's a sin is not correct.

Is getting drunk a sin?

Oh, you betcha.

Okay?

Absolutely.

So it's a gift that we are given that we must use responsibly the way God intends and not

to our destruction.

Okay?

But in this particular case, you have people getting drunk on the communion wine, and Paul just goes, what?

Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?

Do you despise the church of God?

And watch what they're doing.

Humiliating those who have nothing.

So the rich are humiliating the poor.

And that's kind of the big scandal of Christianity because when we come to the Lord's Supper, do the rich

get served first here at Kongsvinger?

Are the poor excluded?

Do we have anybody who's rich here?

Think about it.

If anyone shows up who has actually some money.

Yeah, right.

So never mind.

We don't have anybody like that here.

We're all happily, like, in the lower middle class.

Anyway, all right.

But the point is that you'll note that historically and to this day,

the wealthy like to put on airs as if somehow their wealth makes them better than other people.

But in a Christian church, everybody comes to receive the Lord's Supper as equals, as

sinners saved by the grace of Christ, the spiritually poor and

destitute, bankrupt if you would.

But here, the wealthy of the Roman Empire, and in this time period, the middle

classes, we know it really wasn't that strong of a thing.

You either had money or you didn't.

You either were wealthy or you weren't.

And most of the people in the lower classes are going to be slaves anyway.

So as Paul says, what shall I say to you?

Shall I commend you in this?

No, I will not.

So what's the problem here?

And this is where Paul's going to get at the nubbins.

It's time to go back to catechism class.

And we're going to have to work out what the problem is.

And the problem is that they are treating the bread and wine as common things, not seeing them

as the sacred things that they are in the context of the Lord's Supper.

So going back to his catechism, Paul says, For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,

that the Lord Jesus, on the night that he was betrayed, he took bread, and when he had

given thanks, he broke it, and he said, This is my body, which is for

you.

Do this in remembrance of me.

Now, I'm not going to get into the finer points of how predicate nominatives work, but just understand that when Christ says, This is my

body, that's a predicate nominative construct.

And the question is, what does Jesus mean by that?

That's the question.

This is my body.

This is my body.

What does he mean?

Jesus could have used the word symbolize because that's a completely legitimate word in

Koine Greek.

He could have talked about how it was an archetype or a type of shadow or an antitype.

He could have used symbolic language in this nature,.

But he didn't.

He just straight up says, This is my body, which is for you.

Do this in remembrance of me.

So in remembrance here, so it's anamnesis, this is, again, that concept of, you know, this

is a remembrance in a covenantal context, and you'll see this in the next part of it.

In the same way, also, he took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant.

There it is.

In my blood, do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.

So now the question is, what does Jesus mean?

This is my body.

This is my blood.

Does he really mean that?

And what has the church historically said?

Yeah.

Okay, the church has historically said that's exactly what it means.

And so the church historically has always believed that they are consuming the body and

blood of Christ when they have the Lord's Supper.

Now, Thomas Aquinas came up with a theory as to how it becomes the Lord's Supper, and

his theory is based upon Aristotelian logic, and it's the concept of transubstantiation.

Rome has dogmatized that theory, but Scripture doesn't give us anything like that.

But here's the other issue.

So the question now is that if this is truly the body and blood of Christ, immediately we're going to ask the question,

well, how does it become so?

How does ordinary bread and wine cease being ordinary bread and wine, but now also have

attached to it somehow the body and blood of Christ?

Rome's answer is quite unique, and it has to do with what they call the sacrament of ordination.

And they overtly teach that when a man is ordained into the priesthood, that

by virtue of the sacrament of ordination that there is an indelible change in his character.

And according to that indelible change in his character, he now has been granted the power

to basically create the mystery, so that when he speaks the words

of institution, then by the change that's been changed in the pastor and the

priest, that he now has that power to turn ordinary bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Yes, sir?

Okay, I'm going to tweak your question because the ordained pastor doesn't create the sacrament.

Our confessions are clear that Christ creates the sacrament.

But the question is that why in the Lutheran church is it only the pastors who can

preside over the Lord's Supper?

So two passages, or two concepts in particular.

Number one, Scripture is clear that it is the presbyteroi who, along

with the apostles, are the stewards of the mysteries.

And so that's one aspect.

But the word steward is your big picture there.

The reason being is because it's part of the understanding of the office of the keys

being publicly practiced by the pastor.

The keys belong to the church, but are publicly practiced by the rightly called pastor.

Because when somebody receives the Lord's Supper, they receive an overt absolution

for their sins.

It falls under the office of the keys.

And so my job as the pastor is to make sure that Christians who should be receiving the

Lord's Supper are, and those who are under discipline or who have been excommunicated or who are not

baptized or who do not rightly believe or confess what the Lord's Supper is, that they should not

receive it or it should be withheld.

Yes, sir.

Yes, okay, you're getting way ahead of me.

Yes, you're getting way ahead of me.

You're getting way ahead of me.

We're going to address this.

Okay, so the point was this, and that is that there has been, how shall we say,

public argumentation by some within the leadership of the AALC that it's not a valid sacrament

unless the pastor physically holds the elements.

And there has to be an altar.

Yeah, that's a whole other issue.

Okay, you're getting way ahead of me.

But we'll address this.

Okay, and I'm looking at my time.

What was that?

It doesn't.

It doesn't.

And so you're going to note here is that we're immediately going to take note that people who make a requirement

that the pastor must physically touch the elements, though Scripture doesn't say that, nor do our confessions,

and we will note that during COVID, we practiced no -touch communion, all right?

In fact, there are churches within the association, our association, who not

only practiced no -touch communion, they actually, to make sure that no

diseases were spread, they handed out the elements in boxes that can only be described as lunchables,

and, you know, as people were coming into the congregation, and at no time were they ever on an altar or

touched by the pastor.

And yet the pastor never said, that is the body of Christ.

He always said this.

Okay, so we'll talk about this.

Okay, so, yeah, let's just put it this way.

There are certain people who, for whatever reason, seem to have very strong

personal opinions that they're exalting into dogmas in relation to the Lord's Supper,

and I would admonish them to come back to what the Scriptures say in our confessions.

Yeah, I am.

I'm absolutely not even suggesting.

I'm overtly admonishing, beseeching, that we stay with sola scriptura.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Now, we continue then.

Note here, Christ says, this is my body.

This cup is the new covenant in my blood.

Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.

And we noted, remembrance is an invoking of the covenantal promise.

You'll find that promise in Deuteronomy chapter 31, where God promises that in the new covenant, he will

remember our sins no more.

So the sign of the new covenant is the body and blood of Christ.

And so every time we have the Lord's Supper, it's a covenantal meal.

And then Christ says, as often as you eat this bread and you drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes,

and everyone says, Amen, come Lord Jesus.

Right?

Okay, so you'll note then, there's something more going on there.

And then here's where he talks about what it means then to take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner.

Whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be

guilty concerning the blood, the body and blood of the Lord.

Now this is an important aspect here.

So we say to the evangelical, you have not gone far enough.

Because scripture says, this is my body.

And if you take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, you're actually guilty of sinning against the real

body and blood of Christ.

How does one do that if they're not present?

Okay?

And this is what they were doing then.

They were not recognizing that Christ's body and blood are truly present.

And as a result of it, they were treating the holy as unholy.

And thereby they were sinning against the very body and blood of Christ.

And in the Rome we say, but watch what it says.

Therefore, whoever eats the what?

Bread.

Okay?

If transubstantiation were true, then why does scripture tell us that there's bread

present?

So the Lutherans, here's where we go with this.

And this is an important bit.

Is that because this is a mystery, that's what a sacrament is.

That's what sacrament means.

It's a mystery.

Because this is a mystery, we recognize that somehow when we consume the bread and

we drink the wine, that we are also receiving the body and blood of Christ because they are what Christ says they are.

And so we don't know how the attachment works per se.

So what we do is we just throw a bunch of prepositions onto it.

And so here's the prepositions we use.

In, with, and under.

All right?

Well, which is it?

Well, pick one.

Use them all.

Okay, the point is you are actually consuming, receiving in your mouth, bread, wine,

body, blood.

Importance, given and shed for the forgiveness of your sins.

That's the whole point.

And so this invokes faith in the promises.

And so you'll note, the Lutherans run the Lord's Supper through the gospel, not the law.

All right?

So in the Baptist churches, the Lord's Supper is called what?

Ordinance.

And ordinance has to do with law.

Why do you have the Lord's Supper?

Because Jesus said to do this.

Okay.

And you'll note, when you take it and you turn it into law, are you prone to wanting to have the Lord's

Supper very often?

Not really.

It becomes a work, right?

And so you'll note that when you're running it in this connection, then the tendency is to

have the Lord's Supper with very limited frequency, several times a year, once a month, or something like this.

When you run it through the law, it's the work that you've got to do.

And then what happens is that you'll note that in some pietistic settings, then

people who are considered unworthy of having the Lord's Supper, the people who are not holy

enough, they're sat down or they're encouraged.

If you have any unconfessed sin.

In your life,.

You have to exempt.

Well, do I?

I don't know.

You shouldn't have it.

It's like, okay.

Yeah, we're all unworthy.

So how is one worthy to take the Lord's Supper when you recognize you're a sinner?

And that Christ has bled and died.

For your sins.

Because this is his body and blood given and shed for the forgiveness of your sins.

Yeah, it's like,.

I need this bad, okay?

And you'll note that at the beginning of every divine service, how do we begin?

By confessing our sins and hearing an absolution.

That's the truth.

So do we have to worry about unconfessed sin?

No.

So what happens is is every time we have the Lord's Supper, that is a wonderful, wonderful,

personal experience, if you would, of the forgiveness of sins.

Now, granted, it tastes like, you know, some really cheap, super sweet wine, you know,

such as Moog and David.

And then I like the wafers we use here at Kongsminger because there's a little substance to them.

I mean, have you ever been to a church where, like, they're super wispy and as soon as it hits your tongue, it melts and you don't even know if you had it or not?

You know?

You like wafers?

The what?

The paper wafer.

The paper wafer, right.

Okay.

I know somebody who says it's easier to believe that the Lord's Supper is the body and blood of Christ than it is to believe that that thing is

actually bread.

You know?

It's fire -filled.

Yeah.

It just, as soon as it hits your tongue, it's gone.

It's like, you know.

So, but the thing, but the thing is, is that what you're experiencing when you have the Lord's Supper is

an individual absolution by Christ.

Because Christ is saying to you, this is my body, this is my blood, given and shed for the forgiveness of your

sins.

And, you know, you'll note that in the context of when I speak the general absolution to all who are present,

that sometimes sin, death, the devil, our own flesh, the world gets the better of us and it's easy for us to

sit there and go, you know, I wonder if that absolution applied to me today because, you know, if the pastor knew.

What I was doing,.

Okay, yeah, I know what you're doing.

You're sinning every week.

So that being the case, what the Lord's Supper allows is for you to

receive that absolution where you can tell the devil to just take a hike because the devil always comes along, you really think

you're a Christian, you really think you're saved, you really think Jesus forgives you.

Well, yeah, didn't you hear?

That was the body and blood of Christ given and shed for the forgiveness of my sins.

Not everybody's, mine in particular.

And so we oftentimes just like in Romans 6, we use our baptism as a weapon against

the devil.

So the Lord's Supper then, the promises of the covenant, the forgiveness of sins are used as a weapon against the temptations

to despair of Christ's mercy that the devil throws at us because you are

individually receiving this forgiveness.

Yes, Michael,

yes.

Three hour tour.

You're showing your age, Mike.

Okay, great questions.

Okay, number one, I have to challenge your history.

Okay, so I'll challenge your history because there's something that I would argue biblically is incorrect about

your statement.

And that is that the apostles explicitly set up both presbyteroi and

episkopos.

And so episkopos are bishops and presbyteroi are your pastors.

Okay, now they get called priests, but I'll show you this from the Epistle of Timothy.

And we're going to need our Greek for this.

And that's got to be bigger because my eyes are getting older.

Okay, so watch what Paul says to Timothy.

He says, this is why I left you in Crete so that you might put what remained in order and

appoint elders, presbyteros, in every town as I directed you.

If anyone is above reproach and the husband of one wife, children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery and

subordination for an episkopos, note that he uses the word

interchangeably here, okay, presbyteroi and episkopos.

So Titus has an apostolic authority given to him by Paul to remain in

Crete for the purpose of, if you would, appointing the ground floor of the

priesthood, of the pastors, who are going to be moving forward with the death of the

apostles, responsible and tasked with the job of preaching the word and correcting those and rebuking those who

contradict it.

Okay, so here's how this works then.

So he appoints the overseers and the bishops.

They're on the ground level.

And here's then how the church continues it.

And you can see this in the writings of the church fathers.

There were bishops who were also pastors who appointed pastors

over smaller congregations.

And what ended up happening is within each city there was a seat of the bishop, if you would.

And what would happen upon the death of the bishop, the individual congregations.

Would vote.

One of the men who was the pastors of the smaller congregations in the city to become the bishop.

So there was this wonderful symbiotic relationship that existed all the way going, and you can trace this back.

Really far,.

Into the early first, actually early second century,.

Late first.

And here's how it worked then.

So they were initially appointed using apostolic authority, and then upon their

deaths the bishops were chosen by the congregation.

So you always get this wonderful symbiotic thing.

And what they would do is then appoint the pastors.

So they were in charge of training.

They were in charge of watching over the doctrine and theology of the pastors.

And then upon their death of the bishop, the congregations would appoint from among one of them who the next bishop

would be.

It's not a perfect thing.

But you're going to note in that particular ecclesiology, and we can see this clearly laid out in the New Testament, the head of the

church is Christ.

And so we recognize then that the bishop of Rome, that was a legitimate

bishop, seat of the bishop that was established in the times of the apostles.

And that the bishop of Rome, and we'll note that historically you can make the argument that Peter was the bishop of Rome, and that the

apostle John became the bishop of Ephesus.

Very strong cases in both cases.

But the point is this, where Rome has erred, and you can see this creeping at the time of Gregory the Great, was to

assert that the bishop of Rome had dominance over the other bishops.

They wanted to create a primary bishop.

And that was a big problem.

And the nice thing is is that early on, that the bishop of Rome, he was a really powerful bishop, but so was the

bishop of Alexandria, so was the bishop of Ephesus, so was the bishop of Antioch.

And those guys were constantly fighting all the time.

And you know what's funny is that the bishop of Alexandria, the bishop of Antioch, and the bishop of Ephesus,

they were also called papas.

Which is exactly what a pope is.

But there was no head over them.

And so what the apostles established was an ecclesiastical order, if you would, that

really had a symbiotic relationship.

The congregations had absolutely a say in who their bishop was, and the bishop, once appointed and elected

by the congregations, he would then send pastors into congregations.

And if a pastor was sinning or misbehaving or teaching heresy, he'd yank them out.

He would discipline them, and that was his job.

But that's the authority, that's how this was set up in the early church.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

Now, and here's the thing, Augustine says this very thing, and this actually is in the Lutheran Confessions, this particular story is

alluded to.

So Augustine, in talking about this ecclesiology, makes it clear that wherever two or more are gathered,

you have a church, and the church then can appoint somebody to be their pastor.

And so he gives an account of two Christians who were on a long sailing journey.

And in this, they were both sailors, and in this journey, one of them

actually, they started off with only one Christian.

He preached the gospel to one of the fellows, to different sailors, and one of them became a

Christian.

He baptized him, and then between the two of them, that guy who was the

new Christian called him as his pastor, and he was then able to absolve him and other

things like this.

And when they got to shore, then what happened is the Christian who was the mature Christian who was

called to be the pastor in this scenario, he went and talked to the bishop.

And said,.

Is this legit?

The bishop said, absolutely.

Every one of your absolutions stood.

And so the idea then here is that we recognize then that where you have a

congregation, and the only number required is two.

So in your S .S. Minow, in your S .S. Minow analogy, right?

So we'll say that, who would be the Christian among them?

Gilligan?

Gilligan.

God chooses the foolish things.

Of the world, right?

To shame the wise.

So Gilligan is your Christian.

He preaches the gospel to the skipper.

The skipper becomes the Christian, and between the two of them now, they're able to call one of them as the pastor.

And that's how this works.

Okay?

And so, yeah.

Yeah. Yes.

Yes.

Right.

And so the idea then here is that you recognize where two or more are gathered,.

You've got a church.

You're sitting there going, it's a pretty sparse church.

Okay?

What if it's two women?

No, no pastors then.

You've got to talk one of the men into, you know.

Yeah.

But the important thing here, if you have a congregation of two women, the office of the keys can

still be exercised between Christians.

You can still absolve each other.

But there are certain things you can't do in that regard.

Yeah.

You said but.

That means you're going to.

Okay.

All right.

Got it.

All right.

So does this answer your question then?

Okay.

Good.

How are we doing on time?

Wow.

Terrible.

Okay.

We're going to end up, this is going to be a multi -week thing.

This is part one.

Okay.

This is part one.

So then if you were,.

In fact,.

I have to kind of land the plane here because I've got another church to serve.

So here's the idea then.

When we talk about the Lord's Supper, the Lutherans, there's a

term that we loathe when it's used for us because it doesn't quite capture it.

So if transubstantiation is the term used for Rome, it's

transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

And the evangelicals and the Reformed, it's just a symbol.

People have described our position as consubstantiation, but every time you hear it, we just go,.

Okay, okay.

Because con means with.

It's not the proper way to describe it.

So we prefer to refer to it as the doctrine of the real presence.

That Christ's body and blood are truly present in, with, under, we don't know how it works, bread and wine.

That's the doctrine.

It's the doctrine of the real presence.

And here's the fun part is that when you do the historical work on this, you'll note that the early

Christians all describe what we believe.

And it wasn't until later philosophical and theological developments that you end up having

some kind of a dogmatic concept as to what it is.

Christians just for centuries, for millennia, easily disbelieved.

I'm receiving the body and blood of Christ.

And oh yeah,.

There's bread and wine there, so I don't know how it works.

It's a mystery.

That's what a sacrament means.

Okay, given and shed for the forgiveness of your sins.

So we're not Rome.

We do not believe in transubstantiation.

But we're also not Reformed.

We don't believe it's mere symbol.

And so coming back then to our text, we'll answer the question then.

So whoever drinks the cup of the Lord and eats the bread or drinks the cup, notice it's bread and it's still wine, drinks the cup

in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of Christ.

So here's the answer to the question.

What does it mean to do that?

So let a person examine himself.

And this is an important part of it is that you're gonna note then that this idea of self

-examination being an important part of having the Lord's Supper, this is why historically we do

not commune infants because an infant is not capable of this.

But I would note, I do not personally agree with the practice of waiting until somebody has

finished eighth grade catechism to be communed either.

I really would like to see that change.

And some of my brothers that are confessional pastors, when a child

is able to explain and understand what they're receiving in the Lord's Supper, this sometimes happens as

early as age five, seven, eight, something like this, and they're able to really say that is the body and blood of

Christ given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.

They're capable of that examination and those pastors do not bar them from the Lord's Supper.

And I would note that historically the practice of waiting to commune somebody until they've finished catechism class, you always

run the risk of making the child think they've graduated from Christianity.

That's a real practice.

I remember the first year that I was here in 2014, it was after

a Sunday school and a barn swallow, somebody had opened the door and a barn swallow got into Kongsvinger and was

circling in here.

And a bunch of guys were trying to get that thing out and Isla Lynn shouted out, confirm it, because

once you confirm it it'll never come back.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Like you must be catechized.

Parents seem to think that,.

Oh, the kid's catechized, they're good now.

Yeah.

Catechism's for life.

Yeah.

And that's,.

And James will tell you, that's what I drill into his head.

You're not graduating from Christianity, you've just got the basics.

You're now into full membership.

So then watch what the text says.

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning, diacrino here,

you could make a case that diacrino could be translated as recognized.

Some translations will translate it that way.

That's not quite the gist of diacrino, but for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and

drinks judgment on himself.

So note that it doesn't say unconfessed sin that makes you take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner.

It's not recognizing, it's not discerning, not understanding that the body and blood of Christ are present.

And that's exactly what the Church of Corinth was doing.

The rich in the Church of Corinth were treating these things as rather than sacred, they were sinning against the body and blood

of Christ by not recognizing that these elements now being used in this context, that the

body and blood of Christ are present.

And then it says that's why many of you are weak and ill.

Some have died.

And so you'll note that God took vengeance on some of these rich people for this great

humiliation of the poor, but also by sinning against the very body and blood of Christ.

But if we judge ourselves truly, we would not be judged, but when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may

not be condemned along with the world.

So kind of step one in a right understanding of the Lord's Supper is staying within the bounds of Scripture

and letting the Scripture tell you what it is.

And don't let your reason rob you of what it is, because it is what Christ says

it is.

Straight up.

Now let's check questions here.

It's a frozen break.

I've seen it in stores.

Oh, man.

Okay, what's the deal with Rome's former belief that spilling the Lord's blood, the wine, was blasphemy?

They only served the lay people, the body, for centuries.

Yeah, that's true.

They did.

I think it had less to do.

With spills and more to do with the fact that in medieval times, wine was really expensive.

But they're doing what.

The church of Corinth did.

Yeah, and I know the Lutheran confessions condemn that practice and serve both elements.

What do Lutherans believe about spilling the wine with regard to being the Lord's blood?

So it's real simple.

We basically say that, and here's the important part.

I want you to just consider the question for a second.

This is not a magic trick.

We always talk about consecration in terms that almost turns it into a

hocus -pocus, abracadabra magic trick.

You snap your finger, you say the words, and blammo, whammo,.

It is this.

Okay, here's the thing.

Yeah, I know.

That's why I used them.

Okay, here's the issue.

Is that when you understand the scriptures, you cannot have the Lord's Supper apart from

not only the presence of Christ, but also His active and in -the -moment will.

So the thing is, is that the person who makes it the Lord's Supper isn't the pastor,.

It's Jesus.

And because Jesus is actively and involved in it, or two or more,.

He is gathered,.

Two or more are gathered, He is present, then let's stop talking about the Lord's Supper as if somehow, what happens if

I spill it?

Because now you're thinking.

You're going to sin.

Against the body of Christ.

Do you think for a second that the Lord Jesus Christ is going to allow His body and blood to

be spilled on the floor?

No.

That's not how this works.

So we always recognize that it is the body and blood of Christ within the context of the supper.

And accidents happen.

So you know what happens here at Kongsvinger?

It happens sometimes.

Somebody hits one of the shot glasses and a little bit of wine spills out on the rail of the altar.

You know what I do?

I grab a paper towel.

And I wipe it up.

Okay?

I don't get down on all fours and lick it up like a dog or something.

Oh no,.

The body of Christ has fallen.

And I would note that Rome, they're really weird on this.

So I always refer to this, and I won't tell the whole story now, but when my grandmother who was an Irish Catholic was,

when she had her funeral mass, which was really weird because they decided to have the funeral mass

at St. Hedwig's in New Hyde Park in Long Island, which is a Polish parish.

The Polish priest who was there, I mean, he was kind of.

Old school,.

Before Vatican II kind of legalist when it comes to these things.

And when it came time for the Lord's Supper, he'd already chewed us out a few times during my grandmother's

funeral mass.

But what happened is my uncle, when he went up to receive the elements, he had his granddaughter on his hip, and she was three years old.

And so he held out his left hand to receive the body of Christ, and the

female deaconess who was distributing at that time put the wafer on his hand, and he basically

took his hand.

And rolled it up.

And grabbed it with his thumb and went to put it in his mouth.

And when the priest.

Saw that,.

He lost his mind.

He goes,.

No!

You don't flip Jesus!

You know, you can drop Jesus on the floor!

You know.

It's like,.

Oh, man.

So here's the thing.

Is that.

We recognize that Christ's active,.

Involved will.

Is involved.

Okay, he makes it the body and blood of Christ.

And if somebody is misusing it, abusing it, or drops it on the floor,.

Jesus just is able.

To say that.

Well, it stops making it.

What it is.

Alright?

You cannot discuss these things as if somehow we're dealing with a magical worldview.

No,.

We're dealing with an active, present Jesus.

And I think that gets lost in this conversation.

A lot.

Alright?

And if Christ.

Is actively present with us, he's always the guest who is with us,

and he's the host at the table.

I'm just a stand -in.

He's the chef I'm just the waiter.

Okay?

And so we recognize that Christ is present.

Now,.

I will say this in this regard, and we'll stop for today.

Next week, we'll talk more about what it is that makes a valid sacrament.

That some people have said that it's required that the pastor hold the elements.

No scripture says that.

And to say so invalidates every observance of the Lord's Supper during COVID.

That's ridiculous.

So we stay within the bounds of scripture.

And the other thing is that some have argued that you have to have an altar in order to have a valid sacrament.

That's an actual.

Public argument on a particular YouTube video, to which I would say,.

I have yet.

To make a portable altar to take with me when I bring the Lord's Supper to visit people.

Who are shut -ins,.

Or somebody who's in the hospital.

Okay?

And nowhere in scripture does it say I have to have an altar.

This is, these are the traditions of men.

And anybody who speaks this way needs to be rebuked that they are adding to the scripture and adding to our

confessions as far as what is required to have a valid sacrament.

If you think you have to have an altar, then you've got another thing coming.

All right?

Because I would like to know.

Where,.

Did the Christians who worshipped in the catacombs when Christianity.

Was illegal,.

Did they have altars?

Yeah. Yeah.

They actually are arguing for a physical altar being required.

Yeah.

Yeah,.

I think.

I don't,.

I don't recall Jesus having an altar in that upper room.

None is mentioned.

There were dining couches,.

Though.

And they were reclining.

What makes something an altar?

Huh?

What makes something an altar?

I have no idea.

It's just an altar.

Okay.

We have,.

I mean that,.

That big large piece of wood out, you know, in the center, we call that the altar.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But there,.

There is no required ecclesiastical furniture in the new covenant.

Okay?

There is no required ecclesiastical furniture.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

So, that, let's,.

Let's just put it that way.

Let me check questions real quick here.

So,.

I used to dread the Lord's Supper.

Yeah,.

I know,.

I did too.

I hated it,.

To be honest with you.

The professor made communion ware out of coconuts.

That's interesting.

I mean, you could drink the Lord's Supper under the wine out of a coconut.

That would be interesting.

Is it okay to commune with Rome?

Here's the issue.

Um,.

I don't, and I don't think it's wise because in Rome, in 1 Corinthians 10, we learn that

having the Lord's Supper is a visible sign of unity with the church body.

Um,.

And so,.

I,.

I do not commune with Rome and when Roman Catholics show up at Kongsvinger, I politely request that they not have

the Lord's Supper.

Um,.

Same with the ELCA that's an apostate group.

Um,.

If someone's an active member of the ELCA, then I, I don't commune them.

Um,.

If they've abandoned ship on the ELCA, and want to transfer their membership,.

Then we,.

We have,.

Then more than likely they're going to have it.

So,.

Uh,.

You know,.

So the idea then is that you want to be careful in those regards that you're not telegraphing that

somehow you're in unity with a group that's apostate.

Or, you know,.

So since Rome has anathematized the gospel, I figure it's probably a bad idea to,.

You know,.

To show visible unity.

So whenever I'm in a Roman Catholic mass,.

You know,.

My wife and I, we never go up.

So, and no,.

I did not have the Lord's Supper at my grandmother's funeral,.

But I was.

Quite concerned watching as my family was being chewed out.

But that's a whole other story.

The,.

The actual story.

Is way worse than that.

Okay.

So let's see here.

So are sacramentarians condemning themselves in mass in light of verse 29?

So Eric,.

The answer to the question.

Is,.

In the broad sense.

Is yes.

Um,.

And then the, the people are going to ask the question, then why doesn't God strike them down?

Um,.

That's like asking the question, why doesn't God send a meteorite to destroy,.

Uh,.

San Francisco?

Okay.

Uh,.

The idea then is, is that in scripture when God strikes somebody down, they stand as an example for

the rest, even if God doesn't judge in that same way in the present or in the future.

Uh,.

The idea is, is that their punishment.

Is,.

Is a signal of what God's going to do on the day of judgment.

So,.

You know, you'll note that San Francisco is quite a healthy city right now,.

Um,.

And God hasn't struck it down like he did Sodom and Gomorrah, but Sodom and Gomorrah serve as an example.

So in the same way, when God caused some to actually get sick and die by sinning against the body and blood of Christ,

it's not an ongoing threat per se,.

Uh,.

But it does express the seriousness of the sin.

It is a,.

It is a grave,.

Grievous sin against the body and blood of Christ.

So, um,.

You know,.

We need to recognize that it is what Christ says it is.

And so, always and again, when we have the conversation with those who are denying it, we let them know that that's actually

what the text says.

It means to take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner.

And you should ask the uncomfortable question, doesn't it bother you that that's what.

You're doing?

Okay?

And then let, let that, let them sit with that tension.

Okay?

Weren't altars.

For sacrifices?

Yes,.

They were.

They were,.

Which,.

Uh,.

Which is part.

Of the problem is that sometimes what you call a thing can lead to theological confusion because in

medieval Rome,.

Um,.

They actually believed.

That the,.

Um,.

The,.

The Lord's Supper was a resacrifice.

Of Christ.

Okay?

They, they've, they've,.

They've disavowed that today.

They don't, they say they don't believe that,.

But it's weird.

What they still believe.

Hey,.

Our island worked.

Okay.

All right.

Very good.

Uh,.

Yeah,.

That's right.

The Venets,.

Yeah, we,.

We had an altar at the house and we,.

We,.

I was able to baptize,.

Uh,.

Dana and,.

Uh,.

Bryce, and then we had the Lord's Supper together and they, they had a kitchen island, so we used that as an altar.

Yeah,.

But it was more out of convenience,.

Though.

So,.

What was that?

What?

Nothing.

No,.

I've answered the questions.

So,.

All right,.

This is where I have to leave off because I have to go serve another congregation.

So,.

We'll pick up next week with part two,.

You know,.

What makes a valid sacrament.

Peace to you.

Lord willing,.

We'll see you next time.