Lord's Supper - Who Shall Bring A Charge?

All right, we actually will step out of the church history series this morning.

That's a first for quite some time for us, but that's okay.

And we'll look at a text of Scripture and also look at a section from the

Confession. You will note in your bulletin that you have announcements that we have each month.

The ordinance of the Lord's Supper will be observed during the evening worship service tonight. Continue to prayerfully prepare for the special service of remembering the

Lord's death till he come. Non -members present should speak to an elder regarding partaking of this ordinance of the church.

And sometimes things that we see over and over again in the bulletin, we sort of ignore.

It doesn't really enter into our conscious thinking. But we will be partaking of the

Lord's Supper this evening. You'll notice we call it an ordinance of the Lord's Supper. There are

Reformed folks, even Reformed Baptist folks, who refer to it as a sacrament.

That gives me a little bit of hives. But actually, Dr. Renahan has defended the idea that it is certainly a historically defensible use for Reformed Baptists.

But that's okay. I'm still not going to use it. Dr. Renahan doesn't debate Roman Catholics around the world, and I do.

So there's a reason for that. But the

Lord's Supper is this evening. And the reality is for many people who have been raised in a non -Reformed tradition,

Easter Sunday would be a Sunday for having what we called, when

I grew up, communion. And in many churches that's done maybe once every three months.

Easter and Christmas and maybe a couple times thrown in between. In many

Baptist churches it's an add -on, somewhat of an annoyance for some people.

Certainly the idea that being kept away from that celebration, and it is meant to be a celebration, the idea of that being a bad thing would not occur to many folks.

So in other words, church discipline, where one is kept away from the celebration of the

Supper, for a large portion of evangelicals, would be irrelevant for a couple reasons.

One would be, just go down the road. You don't like me at that church? Well, we can church hop all we want.

There's lots of churches, nobody ever asks a question. We do. One of the reasons we ask non -members to talk to an elder regarding partaking in this ordinance is we have some questions we want to ask you.

And one of the questions is, are you under -disciplined from another like -minded church? And one of the reasons we do that is to show respect for other churches.

Because if you just decide you can just go popping down the road to another church to partake in the Supper, then what's the discipline of that other church?

How is that relevant? But the vast majority of Baptist churches do not what we call guard or fence the table.

And there's different levels of that. There are some churches, if you're not a member of the church, you're not going to partake.

But we take it seriously. And I had never seen the Lord's Supper taken as seriously as we take it here, in my experience, before I came here, coming up on, it won't be too long until it'll be 30 years ago.

And why might that be? Well, we'll look at a couple sections in the

Confession, but the primary reason is because of what we believe it is reminding us of.

And in evangelicalism today, there are many celebrations.

For the first time, I don't even remember this happening, to be honest with you, but I had three different people ask me if we had a sunrise service this year.

And I just don't remember anyone ever asking me if we had a sunrise service before, so I found it somewhat unusual.

But I certainly grew up with sunrise services. It wasn't every single year.

It's hard enough to get Baptist here at 930, let alone 530. That'd be pretty tough.

It'd be a rough thing. And if we have trouble finding the right key for the Amen at 930 in the morning,

I'm really not sure I want to hear it at 530 in the morning. I'm not sure the neighbors would want to hear it either, to be perfectly honest with you. But I had people asking about that.

Right now, churches have more people in them than they probably normally do.

The Sunday around Christmas, the Sunday around Easter, all of a sudden everybody gets religious for a little while, and so there's a lot of extra seats in the pews today.

All right. Why? Why? Well, obviously today is, from the world's perspective,

Easter Sunday. We Reformed Baptists like to say every Sunday is Easter Sunday. But there is obviously more of a focus upon things at a certain time of year.

And in the West anyways, this is when we celebrate Easter Sunday, Resurrection Sunday, the recognition of that day upon which

Christ rose from the dead. But we don't obviously look at that alone.

The significance of the Resurrection cannot be separated from the significance of what took place on the preceding

Good Friday. And I'm not going to spend the time I've spent in the past going through the three days, three nights, dating,

Jews taking any part of a day as a full day, etc., etc. I'm not going there today.

I want to stay fairly theological today and point out that the reverence that we are to have for the

Lord's Supper this evening is because of what we are proclaiming in our participation in that Supper.

And I think part of the reason that many people within evangelicalism see the Supper as just merely an add -on thing you do once in a while and you don't really think about it.

I can guarantee you that the number of churches that specifically make announcement of the upcoming

Lord's Supper. We made announcement in the Bulletin last week that actually encouraged people to make preparation for doing something, spiritual preparation, possibly reading some scripture, some prayer, some self -examination.

The number of churches that do that within the broader scope of evangelicalism is very, very small. Very, very small indeed.

But why? Why is that? Well, because a large portion of evangelicalism has what

I would call a primarily emotional doctrine of the cross rather than a theological doctrine of the cross.

That is, most people, their understanding of what happened upon the cross is derived from a particular number of hymns rather than from seeing the biblical teaching of the atonement of Christ as a part of the full fabric of Christian revelation.

And because of that, then the resurrection is just an added -on thing after that.

The resurrection isn't an added -on thing. It is necessary. It is central.

Indeed, once you start realizing how intimately connected all of the

Bible's teachings about salvation are, then it becomes obvious that the resurrection is the continuation of that great work of the cross.

Why? Well, think of it from just one perspective, the perspective of union with Christ.

The fact that God has united a particular people with Christ Jesus so that His death becomes their death,

His burial their burial, His resurrection their resurrection, that union of a specific elect people with Christ, when you understand that, when you understand the specificity of the act of atonement, that the

Father, Son, and Spirit were accomplishing a particular thing, then you recognize that the resurrection is not only the vindication of Christ.

It gives meaning to one of the sayings on the cross. Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, my

God, my God, why have you forsaken me? The beginning of Psalm 22, which

I will probably read this evening as I read the scriptures prior to the partaking of the

Lord's Supper, Jesus is quoting, beginning the quotation of the 22nd

Psalm, and it's clearly the most messianic psalm, and it's the most suffering

Messiah psalm in all the Psalter. It is prophetic, and yet it finishes with the justification, the vindication of that suffering servant.

And this is what Jesus is bringing to mind in the minds of any of His audience when

He begins quoting those words. And so you have the vindication of the suffering servant in the resurrection, but then because He rises from the dead, then those who are united with Him likewise will experience resurrection to eternal life.

And so this idea of seeing the many threads of divine truth that are woven together in the beauty of the

Gospel, you see in the offering of Christ, the work of the high priest. The high priest must give the offering, then he must present that offering, the mercy seat, sprinkle the blood.

You see how seeing those things together is so important in seeing the specificity of the atonement. Then when you start thinking about the issue of union with Christ, then the specificity of the atonement becomes extremely important there, because you would have a fundamental breaking of the unity of the work of Christ if the intention of Christ in His death is different than in His resurrection.

And you see what I'm referring to here, in that there are many people who will look at the cross and say, well that's a general universal thing and it just makes salvation possible, but ah, the resurrection, that's a particular thing because only those who are in Christ are going to be resurrected.

So His work on the cross becomes a distinct thing, a separate thing in the mind of the individual from the impact of the resurrection.

And so, with these things in mind, I want to just remind you of the words of Romans chapter 8.

Romans chapter 8, I just want to look at this briefly, and then give some consideration for your preparation for this evening and the

Lord's Supper. Romans chapter 8, after the golden chain of redemption, in verses 28, 29, and 30, where you have

God's action of foreknowing, that's an action on His part, that's not

God looking down the corridors of time and seeing what's going to happen, going, oh, look at that, look at all these people who believe in me, isn't this wonderful?

That's not what foreknowing is. Foreknowing is a divine action. It's not taking knowledge in. When Adam knew

Eve, she begat a son. It is an active thing on God's part.

Those whom He foreknew, then He predestines, predestines, He calls, those He calls, He justifies, those

He justifies, He glorifies. These are all things that God does, and we do not enable

Him to accomplish these things. And then, in light of that golden chain of redemption, we are asked, what shall we say to these things?

If God is huperhemon, is for us, who will be against us?

There is an us here, and these words struggle for understanding amongst those who have not made profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

In other words, a person who has not bowed the knee, a person who has not felt the weight of their sin, a person who has not repented of their sins, these are not words for that individual.

Some people find that to be a terrible, horrible thing to say, but yes, there are many words in Scripture that are specifically for those who are in Christ, those who have repented of their sins.

And then it says, he who did not hold back his own son, but for us, and it's the exact same phrase that was used in the preceding verse, if God is for us, here it's, but in our behalf gave him over, it's the

Greek term that is used of Judas betraying Jesus. It's the same term used liturgically in the

Old Testament of the offering of sacrifices. And so, he does not hold him back, but he delivers over his own son in our behalf, in behalf of all of us, but it's of us.

He gives him over. How will he not also together with him all things to us, and then in English we render it as freely give or something like that.

It's the same, it's the root word for grace, to graciously give as a gift.

And so, the statement that is being made is, well look, if the father does not hold back his own son, but gives him over for us all, how will he not also together with him, freely give us all things, graciously give us all things.

Incredible words to consider. There's a reason why Romans chapter 8 has been described as the cathedral of Christianity, the highest arch in that cathedral, especially at this particular point in the

Revelation. And then he asks the question, who will bring a charge against who?

Against the elect of God. This is the us of this text.

This is a specific people. And the question is being asked, who can bring a charge against the elect of God?

And we are ushered here into a law court. We are brought into the courtroom.

And there is no question of this because we can, there's never been a question of this down to the history of the church, but in our day there's even less question than there's been in the past.

Why is that? Because we can demonstrate beyond all question, the utilization of the same terms and language, contemporaneously with the

Apostle Paul, in secular documents relating to legal things, forensic things, judicial things.

We have papyri from this time period where they're talking about cases in courts of law. And Paul is purposely borrowing from that language.

And he's saying, in the court of law, who can bring a charge? Who can come in and bring a charge of condemnation against a specific people, the elect of God?

And it's a rhetorical question because the answer is found is, God is the justifying one.

And again, this is legal language. The Dikaios, Dikaiosune, realm of this beautiful Greek term, literally it simply says,

God, the justifying one. God is the one who brings down the gavel and says, this individual is in right standing with me.

So God, the father specifically here, the normal term for the father for Paul is theos,

God. The normal term for the son is kurios, Lord. Or Christos, depending on the context.

But here, God the father is the one who has justified. And the same terminology is used back in John chapter 3,

John chapter 4, faith in the God who justifies. God is the one justifying.

Who is the one? And then the opposite of to justify someone is to condemn them.

And so if God is the one who has said innocent, then who, it is asked, is the one who's going to say guilty?

It can't be God the father. He's already said innocent. Well, how about Christ Jesus is the one who died?

Just as you had in verse 33, you have the word God, and then you have this participle, the one justifying.

Now you have Christ Jesus, the one who died. That's the basis upon which the father has been able to say, not guilty, just.

Christ Jesus is the one who died, and then immediately, malonde, rather, was raised.

So as soon as he says died, then he wants to emphasize, but rather, was raised up.

Was raised up. So he gave his life.

He died, but it didn't end there. And so even in the apostle's understanding, immediately, but rather was raised up.

Because Paul has already explained before, he was raised for our justification. God has demonstrated that his death was accepted.

It was accepted before the father. It was sufficient in and of itself. Who also is at the right hand of God.

Who also intercedes, who per haemon. Same phraseology we see in the preceding verses.

It's the same people in sight. It's deeply disturbing to me how many people there are in our churches today who so as to venerate and exalt the will of man, will teach that the death of Christ was a merely theoretical mechanism whereby we could bring about our own salvation by the exercise of our mythical free will.

Because in so doing, you destroy the consistency and the strength and the beauty of what we're seeing right here.

Because here you see the entire work of Christ strung together in one sentence.

He died. Much rather, he was raised. And he wasn't just raised up, but he is now at the right hand of God who is also interceding for us in our place.

This is one of the reasons I think that the Apostle Paul, though not the direct author of, is the one who is behind the book of Hebrews.

Remember my theory of that is that it was a sermon preached by Paul in Hebrew written down in Greek by Luke.

Because the terminology in the language is Lukean. The theology is Pauline. And here is

Paul, the one who intercedes for us, seated at the right hand of the Father.

That's Hebrews 9. That's Hebrews 10. And so this is all in answer to the rhetorical question, verse 4, who is the one who condemns?

Can't be the Father. He's the one who's justifying. Can it be Christ Jesus? Can't be Him. He's died.

Rather, He's been raised up. And since He's been raised up, He is at the right hand of the

Father where He is interceding. Not interceded once, but interceding for us.

Some people think, well this is some separate work. So the cross wasn't enough. No, the fact that He is seated at the right hand of the

Father helps us to see this is not some separate action that is necessary to somehow be added to the cross.

See, there is no place in the holy place to sit down.

The high priest could never sit down there. There wasn't any place to sit. Because His work was never done. But since He's seated at the right hand of the

Father, what it means is His work is completed. The fact that it is

He who has risen from the dead, who has given Himself, who is exalted to the right hand of the

Father, that is the full demonstration of not only the perfection of His work, but the fact that the

Father, Son, and Spirit have accomplished what they determined to accomplish in eternity past. Remember the picture given to us in the book of Revelation.

That revelation of Jesus Christ given to John when he sees the

Lamb in heaven, how does he describe Him? The Lamb standing what?

As if slain. The blood clearly visible.

That Lamb shouldn't be standing. But that Lamb has been resurrected. So the payment has been given.

The payment has been accepted. And new life, resurrection life, is now seen in Him.

And so, this intercession is the reality of the finished work of Christ.

And it is for a specific people. Huper Heimon. For us.

And who is the us? There is only one us. Back in the context. The elect of God.

It is specific atonement. And it is perfect atonement. And it accomplishes what

God intended it to accomplish. And that is why, my friends, that is why verse 35 then says, who will separate us from the love of Christ.

And we have all the beautiful pictures and everything else on bathroom walls all around the world with beautiful pictures of lakes and mountains and everything else with the words of verses 35 and following.

And the only thing that makes the rest of it make any sense is to recognize the theology of the preceding verses.

And as you look through verses 28 through 34 you will not see mankind adding a single action to the work of God.

Not a word, not a thing. Nothing. So isn't it amazing that we have so much theology today that is focused upon what man does and leaves

God's actions in the theoretical to fail in behalf of those that he tries to save and somehow fails to save.

An amazing, amazing thing. So with that in mind, with that background in mind, this evening we will gather in the other room and as we do each month we will partake of the

Lord's Supper. Chapter 30 of the Confession, it's not in the hymnal that you have in front of you.

Sorry, that's not the Baptist version. That's our old taped up, been here longer than I have, version of the

Trinity hymnal. But some people like Sean, of course, have this upon their phone.

I have it upon mine as well, actually. But here is what the

London Baptist Confession says of the Lord's Supper. 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 of himself in his death confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof their spiritual nourishment and growth in him their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him and with each other.

Now there is enough there for Reformed Baptists to preach for at least eight weeks.

There really is, if you know how we do things. Because there's commas. And we figure a comma is a good place to break for an entire sermon.

That's how it works. But you will notice, perpetual remembrance.

We always need to be reminded. Because we forget so easily. Showing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death.

The focus always remains on Christ. Confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof.

Forgiveness, adoption, sanctification. Their spiritual nourishment.

That's where Reformed Baptists differ from almost all other Baptists. Let's be honest. Because historically, as we will see,

Calvin and Zwingli had different views of the supper. Oh, they agreed on many issues.

But Calvin has what I would consider a more spiritual. That says here remembrance.

So there's clearly the Zwinglian element as well. There is nothing about perpetuatory sacrifice or anything else.

But there is plainly in these words the idea of a spiritual benefit in obedience to the command of Christ and in participation of the gathered body in the participation of the

Lord's Supper. Their spiritual nourishment and growth in him.

How many people in Baptist churches today would say that they've experienced growth in Christ through the

Lord's Supper? Their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him.

How many times? We have a little tradition around here. Who dismisses in prayer at the Lord's Supper?

When I'm here. Could be gone more than two months overseas this year. Ridiculous.

But when I'm here, I generally close the service, right?

It's okay. It's not that bad. And what do

I always pray? Almost always. Lord, because of this, may we be better servants of yours.

May we be more focused upon being servants of Jesus Christ this upcoming week. This is where it comes from.

And to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him and with each other.

Every time I've preached on this subject, I've pointed out that we all, when we participate, are actively proclaiming the

Lord's death until he comes. We gain encouragement from seeing others professing their faith.

That's why baptism is a public thing. The Lord's Supper is a public thing. Public in the sense that we are proclaiming the

Lord's death. Not public in the sense that we just throw it out to anybody. Section 2.

In this ordinance, Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of the sin of the quick or dead, living or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all.

Now why emphasize that? Well, we all know. Because of the teaching of the

Roman Catholic Church, which becomes the negative context in those times after the

Reformation. Understandable because of what Rome teaches.

Necessary to correct error. And so, salvificly, it's only a memorial of that one offering up of himself, hapax, ephapax, one time, repeated often in the book of Hebrews, upon the cross, once for all.

Then, and this is where you see the influence of Calvin, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto

God for the same. So, there is the assertion that there is a high order of worship and praise being given to God when his people, in obedience to his command, partake of the supper and give thanks for what has been done for us.

A spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same, the single sacrifice.

So, 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.

My topic, teaching toward the end of May, at a conference in Wittenberg, Germany.

It is the German version of the Shepherds Conference, we just don't call it the German Shepherds Conference, because that would sound weird.

But, Dr. MacArthur will be speaking, I'll be speaking, and my subject is the biblical doctrine of the atonement as the fullest refutation of the

Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass. I think

I'm in line with the confession here. I think so. I think so. Number three.

The Lord Jesus hath in this ordinance appointed the ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break bread, and to take the cup, and they communicating also themselves to give both to the communicants.

Now, why even emphasize any of that? Well, because at this time there had been in Roman Catholicism the withdrawal of the cup from the laity, etc.,

etc., etc. The idea is that the ministers are participating in this and proclaiming their faith in the same way as those in the congregation and are not in some special category unto themselves.

The denial of the cup to the people, which I just mentioned, worshiping the elements, continues to be a dogmatic teaching of the

Roman Catholic Church to this day. You go to any Roman Catholic Church to this day, when you walk through the door, watch every

Roman Catholic as they come in, they're going to cross themselves, they're going to bow. Why? Because Jesus is physically present up in that monstrance, the tabernacle, up at the front of the church, because the miracle of transubstantiation.

They're bowing to God, they're worshiping the elements. Yeah, yeah, I'm afraid so.

But without the scholastic, Aristotelian idea of transubstantiation, it's much more mystical.

There is a difference. They'll argue with you about it, there's a difference. Worshiping the elements, the lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration.

You'll see parades where it's carried about through the city streets and the

Orthodox do the same thing along those lines. And reserving them for any pretentious religious use are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance and to the institution of Christ.

Number five, 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.

Now I know that the confession would not have time to go into the background here, but the easiest way

I can explain this to people is to remind you of what took place in what's called the

Passover Seder today. We don't know exactly what it would have looked like in Jesus' day when people do

Passover Seders and stuff. They're doing stuff that was hundreds of years after Jesus, but we know that on the table would be numerous things and part of the

Seder was the reciting of what these, the bitter herbs representing the suffering of the people of Israel and Egypt, and so on and so forth.

The point was that the Passover, everything on the table, represented something else.

And so when Jesus institutes the supper, at that same time, in the midst of that representation, but now in the new covenant, none of His disciples were sitting there going, when

Jesus breaks the bread and says, this is my body, they're going, oh, transubstantiation, we understand that like Aristotle taught us.

Right. Of course not. That's not what they're thinking. In the context of the

Passover, this is my body. They had just been eating bitter herbs that represented what?

This was representational. That's what it's talking about here. The body and blood of Christ described in these things.

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, overthrows the nature of the ordinance, and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

Well, if we had more time, I could tell you the stories that Philip Schaff, and we will once we get to this time period in church history.

But once transubstantiation developed, you start getting, and this is around the turn of the millennium, so a thousand years after Christ, once that doctrine developed and became a physical doctrine, then you start having not only bleeding hosts and things like that, but you have bees.

One of my favorite stories is of the hive that was producing all this honey, and when they opened up the hive, they had found that the bees had stolen a piece of the consecrated host, and it was in the center of the hive, and all the bees were worshipping it, and this kind of stuff.

This is the gross idolatries and manifold superstitions, of which the confession is speaking.

One last thing in the last few moments we have here. Were the receivers outwardly partaking of the visible elements of 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 their outward senses.

Here is where the confession goes beyond Zwinglianism, and is very much in line with Calvin.

And I know there are people who take exception at this point, even though there is an obvious, almost belabored attempt, in the language, to avoid any concept whatsoever, of any connection to the idea of transubstantiation, changing the elements, making the elements anything superstitious, etc.

My understanding here is that what is being said, is to spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death, in the same way that John chapter 6, very plainly says, eat my flesh and drink my blood.

Yet Jesus says, it is not the flesh that gives life, but the spirit. So, when you recognize that Jesus Christ is the sole source of spiritual life, that there is nothing that you can do, that outside of him you have nothing, then the proclamation of his death, and by your participation, you are claiming to be one of those.

That specific group, not some general group, not some nameless, faceless group that he tries to save.

The specific elect of God spoken of in Romans chapter 8.

That's why the supper is for believers, not for unbelievers. Big movement today.

That's terrible that you don't invite unbelievers to the table. Totally misunderstands what the supper is all about.

The supper is not for evangelism. The supper is a proclamation of a reality.

I figure if you try to turn the supper into some evangelism, you might as well make baptism some type of evangelism. Doesn't make any sense.

Completely misses the point. But that is what I understand the text to be stating.

And so, in just a matter of hours, we will have the opportunity of proclaiming the

Lord's death until he comes in the one way that he himself established for his people.

In other words, if you want to ask the question, what is the most pleasing way to God for the proclamation of Christ's death until he comes, he's told them.

He's told us what it is. And so we have the privilege of participating in that this evening.

We have a lot of visitors with us. Normally I don't preach through Sunday school, but this has been more of a sermon than a

Bible study. I recognize that. But to the members of this church, you'll know how unusual this is for me to say this, but I'm going to say it straightforward.

Unless you are providentially hindered, you need to be here this evening. You need to be here this evening, and you need to be prepared.

Do you hear me? Listen to what the word of God says. You've just had it explained to you.

You need to be here this evening with hearts ready. With hearts ready. That's how important it is, and it should be that way every time we do it.

Every time we do it. Let's close with prayer. Our Heavenly Father, indeed we do ask that in the course of the rest of this day, as we attend to the ministry of the word, and this evening as we partake of the supper, and proclaim the

Lord's death until he comes, that you would, by your spirit, indeed cause us to grow in Christ, to feed upon him, to be spiritually nourished, as we seek to be obedient to the commands of your word.

May we rejoice that indeed Christ is risen, because we know that Christ has died, and he said, it is finished.