LBCF Chapter 30: Of The Lord's Supper

All right, we're up to chapter 30 of the

Confession, the London Baptist Confession of Faith. Just to let you know, we only have one more week.

We'll cover the last two chapters, both of them, next week, hopefully, depending, since it is on eschatology, it could go, it could spin out of hand very quickly.

But anyway, that's the plan. For tonight, we're up to chapter 30, the Lord's Supper.

Now, remember, we've looked at baptism in the Lord's Supper as ordinances ordained.

So one of the reasons why these chapters are a little bit shorter is because it's spread over three chapters of the

Confession. So last week, we looked at what baptism was, and today, we're going to look at the

Lord's Supper. The chapter is divided into five parts, eight paragraphs. This chapter is essentially the same as the information contained in the

Westminster Confession of Faith. There's very little difference between the Reformed Baptist view of the

Lord's Supper and the Westminster Confession. What's different is how the material is arranged in the chapters.

In a lot of the other chapters that we've looked at, the paragraphs are almost identical all the way down and in the same order.

But in this chapter, you'll find that all the information is essentially there and very little difference, but just it's organized differently for whatever reason, all right?

And I can't even give you a cogent reason as to why, it's just the way it worked out.

One of the differences is the term sacrament. Westminster Confession of Faith uses the term sacrament.

The Baptists prefer the term ordinance only because they don't want to be classified as being sacramental or sacramentalism, all right?

But other than that, the terms are pretty much synonymous in these two confessions.

You'll also notice that as we go through, in a positive and negative sense, you're going to see the reputation of the doctrines of the church in Rome, okay?

And you'll see that very clearly. Sometimes they actually mention it, sometimes you'll just pick up based upon the doctrines in Rome and you'll see that why they put in certain paragraphs, okay?

And I just threw this, this is out of Sam Waldron's book, I just thought it was an interesting quotation from A.

A. Hodge, who again is an early 20th century, late 19th century, early 20th century theologian.

And this was his quotation of the fact that it was instituted by our Lord in person on the night he was betrayed, there can be no doubt.

It remains to this day a monument of the truth of the gospel history with which it is associated, okay?

So, without further ado, the way it's broken down, part one, the confession is broken down, it says it's institution, and paragraph 1A, the original circumstances of its institution.

So here we have the supper of the Lord was instituted by him in the same night when he was betrayed, okay?

And we read that from 1 Corinthians 11 every Sunday when we participate and celebrate the

Lord's Supper, so this is no big surprise to us. Why do we celebrate the Lord's Supper? Because it was instituted by him and we're told by him to continue.

The second thing is the prescribed observation, its location first, to be observed in his churches, okay?

This is an important little phrase or clause. I guess that's more of a clause than a phrase, and, right, am

I English, right? No? Okay. Anyway, and it's the same phrase as in the

Westminster Confession. The reason that's in there is to highlight the fact that this is a church ordinance and is only rightly to be administered by the officers of the church, and pretty much all

Reformed scholars are in agreement on that. I don't know, I'm sure you can always find somebody who disagrees, but it is to be observed in the church.

It's a church ordinance, not a family ordinance, it's not a governmental ordinance. This is specifically a church ordinance, all right?

Its duration, until the end of the world. And again, we try to give that impression when we celebrate usually the last words of the ordinances, till he comes.

In other words, we're celebrating this until Christ returns, okay? Paragraph 1C is its multiple purposes.

The primary design, and again, this is something that you'll see every time we celebrate the supper, the primary design of it is for the perpetual remembrance and the showing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death.

Again, that should really go without too much explanation. I don't think we need to do that.

That's its primary design, but it does do other things, and there are other functions of the other purposes.

Confirmation of the faith of believers and all the benefits thereof. In other words, this is why, in fact, let me just back up a minute.

This is why we insist that a person is baptized before they take the

Lord's Supper, all right? Baptism is the sign, the seal of your entrance into the covenant, okay?

We know that you're in the covenant at the moment you are regenerated, you know, when you repent of your sin, you are in the church, you are in, in fact, in the covenant.

And baptism is the outward sign where you're testifying that you are, in fact, that this is true, and you give testimony before you're immersed in the tank, okay?

So that's the significance of that is that you are now entering into the covenant and becoming a member in the church.

That's also why we link baptism and church membership. Those of you who have been baptized in this church know you've probably been given a book called

Baptism and Church Membership. What a coincidence, all right?

And the reason for that is we link that because you're really being baptized into the church, that's what happened, that conversion, and the baptism in the church is a signal and a sign of that.

The sacrificial meal, the Lord's Supper, is a covenant renewal.

It's where you constantly, week by week, we are renewing the covenant and affirming that we are, in fact, members of this covenant.

And so it's confirmation of the faith of believers and all the benefits, all right?

And their spiritual nourishment. Now this, you have to be a little careful here that we don't lapse into mysticism, but it is, in fact, mystical.

There's a difference between mysticism and being mystical. So, when you partake of the

Lord's Supper, by faith, and I think that's probably in a subsequent slide, but by faith, you receive grace from God.

It is, in fact, spiritual nourishment that you receive. That's why one of the things in excommunication, one of the bad things about excommunication is you're cut off from the

Lord's Supper. The theory behind it or the biblical message behind that is, if you're going to act like a non -believer, we're going to treat you like a non -believer.

And part of that is you're forbidden from coming to the Lord's table. That in itself is a means of grace.

What's the purpose for this? Why would somebody be cut off from the Lord's table? Because you're cut off from the grace of God, and hopefully, if you're a true believer, that should cause you to respond, to repent, and come back in.

The loss of the Lord's table, if that doesn't affect a person, their salvation has to come into severe question.

Does that make sense? The whole point is that by taking of the

Lord's Supper, you are receiving grace, spiritual nourishment, and growth in Him, and their further engagement to all the duties that they owe

Him. This is all symbolized. But you are, in fact, receiving grace, and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him.

Now, notice it's not only communion with Him, but with each other. We have communion with each other through our relationship to Him.

Remember, we went back, go back to the section on the communion of the saints. That's why this is all so important.

That's too why it's a church ordinance, because it's a symbol of our oneness that we have, not only in Christ, but we are one body, okay?

So that's part one, it's institution. Part two, the nature, starts in paragraph two, it's described.

First, negatively, all right, remember I said watch for both the negative and the positive description.

And this ordinance, Christ is not offered up to His Father. Now why is that in there?

Yeah, but why did I put it specifically? It's because the church in Rome, church in Rome says that specifically, and we're going to get even a little bit more specific in the confession about this later on.

Nor any real sacrifice made for all remission of sin of the quickened or the dead. Why?

Because that was done once for all, that's the cross, all right? And we're going to see that in just a minute.

Just hold that thought, because in a subsequent paragraph, we're going to see, they're going to carry through on that even a little bit further, right?

So that's negatively. Positively, but only a memorial of that one offering up of Himself by Himself upon the cross.

Now when it says memorial, and a memorial only, that's to differentiate it from transubstantiation or consubstantiation, which

I'll show you the definition to those in a minute. But not that there's no benefit, spiritual benefit, we just saw in the previous chapter that there is a real spiritual benefit.

So in one sense, it's more than a memorial, but we have to be careful, but not in the sense of transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

Okay? Does that make sense? Okay, all right. But only memorial of the offering up of Himself by Himself upon the cross, once for all, once for all time.

That's why the Roman Catholic view of the Mass is an abomination, all right?

And we'll get to that in a few minutes. And spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto

God for the same, so that the Pope's sacrifice of the

Mass, as they call it, is most abominable, all right?

And if you understand, especially how our brothers who wrote the Confession, taking that word right from Scripture, that is a strong word.

It's not merely inappropriate, it's an abomination to God, all right? And it's injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, the alone propitiation of the sins of the elect.

What is that saying? Somebody want to venture a guess? What is that saying? Injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

It's making less of itself, I guess. Yeah. What they're saying is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross wasn't enough.

He's got to do it over and over again. Yeah, that's exactly right. If Christ has to be sacrificed over again every time the

Mass is celebrated, then that means that His work on the cross was not finished, okay? There's also another meaning, and I don't know if they meant it or not, but it occurred to me, and that is that by this, it's holding the true grace of salvation from people who think they have to do this in penance over and over again.

So it's keeping people from actually participating or getting the grace, all right?

Part three, it's celebration. Firstly, we start at its proper celebration.

The Lord Jesus hath in this ordinance, all right, appointed

His ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine. A couple of things. Notice confession is very consistent.

Who should be serving this? The ministers of the church, all right? And as we do it, the elders assume charge over the table, and the deacons assist in the administration of the table exactly as the biblical model would be.

And notice also in this, bread and Welch's grape juice, all right?

No. In fact, back when this was written, there was no such thing as Welch's grape juice.

If you crushed grapes, you got wine. You didn't get grape juice. And that's why a couple of years ago we made the switch, as we studied it more and more, that plus wine has some very specific biblical and eschatological meaning to it.

So you're actually demeaning from the ordinance if you're not using bread and wine, okay?

All right. And thereby, they set them apart from a common to holy use. They are sanctified.

When the elders pray for them, they are sanctified. Not that the elders' prayer does anything except set them apart.

Remember what sanctified means, set apart for holy use. And that's what we do. We're not taking the bread and the wine for temporal, physical benefits.

They're set aside for the spiritual use of the Lord's Supper, all right?

And that's what it's talking about. And so to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and they are communicating also to themselves.

That means the elders are involved in it, and to give both to the communicants, okay?

You can see how we strive to be as biblical and, of course, holding to the confession as possible, okay?

Still under celebration, it's proper celebration. The denial of the cup to the people.

Now, this isn't true any longer. In most churches now, most

Roman Catholic churches, they do offer the cup to the people. But for years, when I was growing up, if you went to a

Catholic church, you did not get the wine. Only the priest got the wine, all right?

And the people would only get a wafer, okay? All right.

So the confession, the writers of our confession are denying that. Worshipping the elements, all right?

In other words, the elements themselves are not to be worshipped. They are a symbol pointing us to Christ.

Christ alone is to be worshipped in the Supper. And the lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration.

Has everybody here been to at least one Catholic Mass, Roman Catholic Mass? Anybody has not been to a

Roman Catholic Mass? Okay. Good for you. Because if you've ever been to a

Roman Catholic Mass, you know then that before they serve the bread, what do they do? They bless it, give it the sign of the cross, they hold it up, and what do they do?

They walk all over the platform, holding it up so that everybody can worship and adore the body of Christ.

Then they do the same thing with the cup, okay? And the confession says no.

And reserving them for any pretended religious use. All right. Now this might be something that some of you don't know.

What happens to all the bread? Well, the wafers is what they use.

All the wafers that are not used during the celebration of the Mass. You know how they do that?

They put them in a little, they call it a temple. They put it in a temple, and they save that.

Why? It's the body of Christ. Now, here's something, and I found this out through my days as being a police officer.

If there should be a fire in the church, the priests are told before they take any people out, to take the temple out with the host in it.

Because that's the body of Christ, and he's more important than any other person there. So before they can help little kids and everything else, they have to get the temple out of the church.

How can they possibly think that it's God when the

Roman Catholics have been around for how many years? Well, don't forget, this is the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Well, you know what? Well, we'll get to that. All right.

All right. And are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance and the institution of Christ.

In other words, what our confession writers say, none of this, of what the

Roman Catholic Church is doing, is consistent with Scripture. Okay? All right.

Now, its elements. Firstly, the true doctrine defined. The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the things they represent.

To with the body and blood of Christ. In other words, it's not wrong for a pastor to say, the body of Christ, take and eat.

As long as he doesn't mean it in a Roman Catholic sense. In other words, it's so closely, the symbol is so close, that it's okay to call it what it symbolizes.

Okay? As long as we understand that it's a spiritual designation, it doesn't change into the body of Christ.

It's not the physical body of Christ. There's albeit in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

Okay? All right. Now, the false doctrine refuted.

Paragraph six. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood.

All right. That's the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or any other way, is repugnant, not only to scripture, but even to common sense and reason, and overthrow the nature of the ordinance, and has been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea of gross idolatries.

As we said, you know, once, according to Roman Catholic theology, once the priest prays and that element is changed, it is now the body of Christ.

That's what they hold to. Okay? You know, in fact, do you realize an interesting fact here?

Nothing to do with the ordinance. If a priest is defrocked, in other words, for gross immorality, whatever else it happens to be, he still has the power to turn the bread into the body of Christ, according to them.

Okay? So you can see how, talk about superstitions, idolatries.

Here's a man who is no longer fit to function as a priest, and yet that power wasn't due to him, and they can't take that power away from him.

How much of the Catholic traditions have foundation in pagan practices?

Was there a pagan practice that this was adopted from? Well, some were clearly, you know, influenced by some paganism.

Others by them trying to reason things out in some way apart from Scripture.

As soon as you depart from Scripture, you know, you're on shaky ground, and we see that even in Protestant churches.

Look at how many doctrines have come up because people have tried to logically take a logical conclusion without staying within the bounds of Scripture.

Okay? All right. What I did here,

I just wanted to, here's basically the definition of transubstantiation, the shortened version.

The substance of bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. That's just the shortened version. Now, there's also another view that's held by the

Lutherans and many Anglican churches. It's called consubstantiation. Does anybody know what consubstantiation is?

It's closely related to transubstantiation. It's to what Martin Luther held to. In fact, this was a break between the

Lutheran and the Presbyterians. It was in many regards because of this view.

Here's what consubstantiation is. The substance of the bread and wine coexist with the body and blood of Christ.

In other words, that bread, yes, it has been changed somehow into the body of Christ, but it still maintains the element of bread, the substance of bread.

You have two substances that are coexisting. Hence, you get the name con, being together.

All right. Because you will often hear, especially from a

Roman Catholic, well, you believe in consubstantiation. We do not. That's the Lutheran and some

Anglican church. Not all Anglican churches either, by the way. You have some very good

Reformed Anglican churches out there. Okay, it's reception.

The benefits of worthy reception. Worthy receivers. Now, again, this should be.

Yes, I was just wondering how you would come up with that word, whatever that comes.

When Luther. Well, that's

I'm glad you brought that up because that's a very good point. Luther, if you know, if you've done any study on Luther, Luther was a very.

How can I say this? Well, one, he was a very earthy man. Very colorful man.

A passionate man. Yes. Volatile.

There's a I like that's a good that's a good one. All right. When Jesus says, this is my body.

Luther took that phrase and started pounding. This is my body. This is my body.

When people when the Presbyterians and those other reformers would come to him and say, but it doesn't change.

This is my body. And so he took that to be literal.

All right. Not in a sense that we take it. And that's where he comes from. So he he believed passionately that he was following scripture.

But there's a case where he was taking something literal that probably was not literal.

OK. Good question. Worthy receivers. And that should be familiar because we take time every time we celebrate the

Lord's Supper to make sure we admonish people and warn people that this this table is only for those who are worthy.

How are you worthy? Not we're not talking about that. You've done so many good things, but that you have repented and confessed sin.

Worthy receivers outly partaken of the visible elements in this ordinance. Do then also inwardly by faith.

This is important. Inwardly by faith. Right there.

OK. Really and indeed. Yet not carnally or corporally.

All right. Notice how they notice how they're writing this confession. OK. They're being very cautious.

It's real. And indeed. Spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death.

Not in a crass, not in a corporal or a temporal way, but spiritually you're feeding upon Christ.

All right. And that's exactly what Christ meant. Take and eat. This is my body. All right.

So the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present.

There's where there's where we talked about it. Right. Spiritual presence to the faith of the believers in the ordinance.

In other words, you get spiritual benefit. From participating in the

Lord's Supper. As the elements themselves are to their own outward senses. So when you take it and you eat the bread, it's bread.

When you drink the wine, it's wine. But it is said that Christ is spiritually present. And therefore, it is a means of grace.

You are spiritually fed. When you partake in the same, you know, in a similar way, we talk about being fed by the preaching of the word, which is also a means of grace.

All right. But this very specifically having to do with the elements as remember this in ordinance instituted by Christ.

Paragraph eight lists the liabilities of unworthy reception. All ignorant and ungodly persons.

As they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ. So are they unworthy of the

Lord's table? And this is what we try to do. By what we call fencing the table, and that's by giving that warning.

There are some churches who try to adhere to this by serving communion to members only.

And most Reformed Baptist churches don't do that. A lot of Presbyterians, some of the

Netherlands Reformed Dutch Reformed churches do hold. They if you go and visit you, you're not a member.

You can't partake of the Lord's Supper. And the reason they do that is the elders say that they're responsible for who partakes of the supper.

And if they don't know you, they can't guarantee. So you just forbid

Luther. The Brethren churches practice closed communion as well.

Those who serve unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Eating and drinking judgment to themselves.

Which is exactly what we read in the scripture. Questions? Yes.

Did you say Lutherans were also closed communion? No, I didn't say Lutherans.

No. I started to say Lutheran brethren, but that's actually my background.

And my family's background I should say. But I meant Plymouth Brethren, not Lutheran Brethren.

Plymouth Brethren hold to closed communion. Lutheran Brethren do not. That was a slip of the tongue.

You caught it. If you're saved and you receive unworthily, what type of judgment?

Some of you are sick and some of you sleep. If you are a believer and you continually partake.

If you're living in persistent sin and you continually come and partake, you could get ill.

You may die. Serious warning. Not my words.

It's the Apostle Paul's. Any other thoughts or questions on the

Lord's love? Next week. Yes. I was just going to say, I grew up in a Lutheran church also.

And I remember you could only participate if you were a member. Different churches have different.

Like I said, my family was Lutheran Brethren. They kind of had open communion. So you will even find some

Reformed Baptist churches that hold a closed communion. So it's not a denominational wide thing usually.

Some, yes, like Plymouth. I don't know of any Plymouth Brethren churches that will give you open communion. I don't know.