This morning, I'm going to put our journey through Genesis on hold for a bit in order to explain a change that we're going to be making in the near future regarding our practice of the Lord's Supper. One of the principles that has guided Protestant Reformed churches is what reformers described as the church reformed, always reforming. A principle which asserts that until the church is presented pure and blameless to Christ, she is in need of regular recurring reform.
Now this principle doesn't mean churches ought to implement change just for the sake of change, but it does mean that a healthy church is one that is constantly comparing itself, measuring itself according to the scriptures. And whenever a belief or practice or tradition does not conform to the Bible's ideal, the church reforms. The church conforms to Scripture. The moment we begin saying to ourselves, we've got it right, we're the church that functions perfectly, we have need of nothing. Without ever holding ourselves up to the infallible scrutiny of the Word of God, we've begun to put ourselves above the Word of God and are endangering the health.
and the faithfulness. Of the church. The posture we ought to always maintain is one that joyfully asks, What saith the Lord? How can my life, my family, my church be more aligned with God's truth and instruction and values? The only sacred cows in a healthy church ought to be the cows that God says.
Yeah.
Some of the reforms that we've implemented here at Grace Presbyterian Church over the last 20 years have included things like the addition of scripture readings above and beyond the sermon text.
Sometimes a lot of extra scripture readings. We've also reformed in the area of including psalm singing regularly and frequently in our services. The intentional rejection of the modern trend to exclude covenant children from corporate worship by sending them to a different room during the sermon. And also, the praying of a corporate prayer of confession and the receiving of an assurance of pardon each Lord's Day. The motivation behind each of these reforms has been the desire to conform to both the explicit commands of Scripture and even the implied principles of Scripture.
If the Bible presents an ideal, we ought to be running to that ideal, not blindly following the world's norms. or our long-standing traditions. Unless, of course, those norms and traditions are themselves biblical. Scripture is the standard, scripture is the measuring stick. A church is a healthy church.
insofar as it conforms inwardly and outwardly to the Word of God.
Well, over the past several months, the session has been discussing and evaluating our church with the goal of improving what is weak and strengthening what is healthy. In my work at Presbytery, I have the opportunity to talk to a lot of sessions and church officers, and I'm so grateful for the elders and deacons that God has raised up at Grace Presbyterian Church. Our leaders are men who are willing to hold themselves in our congregation up to the mirror of scripture and pursue reforms when reforms are necessary. That's a good trait, that's a rare trait, I can assure you. And our congregation is blessed to have such men to lead us.
So where is all this going? One of the areas that the elders have identified as an area that could use some scriptural reforming is in our practice of the Lord's Supper. More specifically, in the frequency with which it is observed and in the elements that we use when we take communion. I'm going to take two Sundays, Lord willing, to teach on the Lord's Supper with the goal of deepening our understanding of the sacrament biblically and historically. And then we intend to make some alterations in our practice of communion at grace moving forward.
Let me begin by telling you what those changes will be, and then I'll spend the next couple of Sundays explaining why these changes are important for us as a congregation. The first change in our practice is that we intend to begin observing the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day. We currently observe it. Every other Lord's Day on the first and third Sundays of the month, we'll begin observing it every Sunday, alternating between morning and evening worship each week. Secondly, we intend to begin using leavened bread instead of unleavened bread, as we have traditionally done.
And rather than using only grape juice for the cup, we intend to begin using wine. Our intention is to implement these changes on the first Sunday of September. In order to give our congregation ample opportunity to understand the changes and to give our deacons ample opportunity to work out the logistics involved in making these changes.
So, weekly communion using leavened bread and wine. Beginning in September. Those are the intended changes to our practice of the Lord's Supper as we seek to be a church that is reformed and always reforming according to the word of God.
Well, let's go to God's word then. And study this topic of the sacrament of communion. There are several texts that we'll consider over the course of this Sunday and next, but let's begin with Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper. I was gonna read 1 Corinthians 11 since we've heard that already this morning. Let's read Luke 22.
There are several passages, in fact, that we could go to. Let's go to Luke 22, and I'll read. The scene there in the upper room shortly before Christ's resurrection. Let's read verses 14 and following. Luke 22, beginning at verse 14.
And when the hour came, He reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it. and gave it to them, saying, This is my body. which is given for you Do this in remembrance of me. And likewise, the cup, after they had eaten, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant. In my blood.
This is the word of the Lord. Thanks be to God. Let's go to the Lord in prayer. Lord, we desire to be a church that honors you and that heeds your word.
So to that end, I pray that you would give us understanding to know what to believe. Give us submissive hearts that rejoice in your truth. Give us pliable wills. That obey all that you say, I pray in Jesus' name. Amen.
We've got a lot of ground to cover, so I want to be as organized and orderly as possible. We'll begin by looking at the meaning and purpose of the sacrament of communion as it's presented in Scripture, and then from that foundation of the biblical meaning of communion, we'll be in a position to consider how the church historically, with special emphasis of course on the Reformed Church, has practiced the sacrament of communion. Hopefully, this will then put us in a great position to think about our own practices here at Grace Presbyterian Church.
So, biblical foundation, historical survey, and then evaluation of our own traditions and practice. Let's begin with the foundation of Scripture's teaching. What does Scripture tell us about the nature of sacraments? When you want to better understand a particular theological principle in Scripture, there are several ways you might go about it. One of the most efficient ways is to consult a reliable confession of faith.
A confession of faith, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, provides a short summary of the key ideas and principles, along with scripture references that support those ideas and principles. It's a great way to study theology. Chapter 27 of the Westminster Confession of Faith addresses the doctrine of sacraments in general, and then chapter 29 addresses the Lord's Supper in particular.
So let's start there. Westminster Confession, chapter 27, begins with the biblical definition of a sacrament. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. Immediately instituted by God to To represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our interest in Him.
So Westminster uses two descriptors, signs and seals. Those terms come from Romans 4.11, which describe the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision as a sign and a seal. The word sign refers to a marker, an indicator, something that draws attention to something else by way of pointing to it. A seal refers to that which authenticates or confirms something.
So a name tag, for example, would function like a sign, identifying the person wearing the name tag. A fingerprint would function like a seal, authenticating the identity of the person. Both the name tag and the fingerprint point to the person by drawing attention to the person's identity and by confirming the person's identity. Sacraments are signs and seals, then, that point to Christ and His benefits. Galatians 3:27, for example, says of baptism: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
1 Corinthians 10, 16 says of communion: the cup of blessing that we bless is a participation in the blood of Christ. The bread that we break is a participation in the body of Christ. Of Christ.
So we begin to see in the New Testament that there is a union between the sign and the thing signified. There's an inseparable connection between the sign and the thing the sign points to. As well as between the seal and the thing being authenticated by the seal. Westminster puts it this way. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation.
Or sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. This is why Peter, for example, says very bluntly in 1 Peter 3:21, baptism now saves you. He's not saying that baptism automatically, magically saves a person from hell. He is saying, however, that the thing baptism points to, which is Christ, As he is offered to us in the gospel, is so interconnected to the sign and seal of baptism that we can rightly say the one implies the other. Baptism washes the one being baptized.
The Lord's Supper spiritually nourishes the one receiving the supper.
Now, the way we Presbyterians understand the connection between the sign and the things signified by the sign is distinct from the way some others understand that connection.
Some make less of that connection, while others make more of that connection. Westminster asserts that God has so tied these signs to their corresponding spiritual realities in such a way that to participate in the sign is to participate in the thing. In the spiritual reality. Actual grace is given from God to the faithful receiver of the sacrament. But does this mean, according to Westminster, that all one must do to get saved is to be baptized and eat communion?
Well, no. That would be to make more of the connection between sign and reality than Scripture makes. Westminster asserts, with regard to the sacraments, that their effectiveness. Depends on the Spirit of God applying the promises of God to the child of God. Their effectiveness depends on the Spirit of God applying the promises of God to the child of God.
The very next paragraph of the confession explains these questions. qualifications or limitations of the sacramental signs. It says, The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used. is not conferred or given by any power in them neither does the efficacy, the effectiveness of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it. but upon the work of the Spirit and the word of institution, which contains a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
It's a lot of words. We could paraphrase the confession like this: the thing that makes God's sacrament work is God. The thing that makes God's sacrament work is God. The Holy Spirit takes the promises that Scripture attaches to baptism in the Lord's Supper and makes them do in the life of the believer what God intends them to do.
Well, this brings us to our next question. How have the sacraments been misunderstood historically. At various times in the history of the church, there have been a couple of misunderstandings regarding the nature of the sacraments that have persisted, misunderstandings or extremes that we obviously want to avoid. On the one hand, there is the extreme of downplaying the significance and effectiveness of the sacraments by reducing them to a mere memorial of Christ and the gospel, as if grace is not actually given in the sacrament. And on the other hand, there has been the extreme of elevating the significance and effectiveness of the sacraments by thinking that grace is automatically given in the mere observance of the sacrament, whether or not the Holy Spirit and the Word of God and faith are present and active.
The position of Westminster And I believe the position of Scripture lies between these two extremes. And so, to be biblically balanced, we need to affirm that grace is actually given in the sacrament, and secondly, that this grace depends not on the sacrament in and of itself, but on the Holy Spirit and the promises of God and faith.
Now of these two extremes, the more prevalent one, at least in our day and age and our culture, is the one that reduces the sacraments to something that's less than Scripture says they are. what we might call the memorialist view. In this view, the Lord's Supper is nothing more than a memorial of Christ's death. An opportunity to remember what Jesus did on the cross, but nothing more. Those who hold this view are willing to affirm that communion is a sign that points us to Christ, but they would not go so far as to say it's also a seal.
An authentication of that communion with the Lord is actually occurring in the sacrament. It would not say that grace is objectively given. in the Lord's Supper. For the memorialist The real benefit of the sign is in the knowing and remembering what the sign points to. What matters most to the memorialist is what their mind is thinking about in the sacrament.
The sacramental signs, like the waters of baptism or the elements of communion, might help them remember better, but their value is only in the remembering. There's not any sealing or authenticating happening. No grace is being conferred through the sacrament. If grace is experienced in baptism or the Lord's Supper, according to the memorialist, it's a grace that's grounded in my cognitive participation in the sacrament, my profession of faith in the Lord, my remembering the Lord. And if I have a good profession of faith or a good rememberer, the signs themselves are somewhat peripheral.
Now it stands to reason that if this is one's view of communion, It will affect the priority and importance one places on the sacrament. If I'm simply being called upon to remember Jesus, I don't really need bread and wine or the gathered church to do that. I certainly don't need the hassle of frequent communion if I can just as easily stop and think about Jesus' crucifixion on any Tuesday afternoon. If, however, God is doing something for me when I observe the sacrament, Well, that's a horse of a different color. If communion is a means of actual grace being given by God to his children, then the true child of God will want as much of it as he can get.
Now for whatever reason we seem to have no trouble thinking sacramentally when it comes to God's word. Scripture, like the sacraments, is a means of grace. If we would experience more of God and live lives that are more pleasing to Him, we need to be reading and studying and meditating on the Word. We get that and we affirm that. But does this mean that the reading of the Bible automatically confers grace?
In other words, does someone who accidentally opens a Bible and reads a verse receive grace?
Well no. We understand that the Holy Spirit must take those words and make them effectual in the soul of the reader by giving that soul the capacity to receive and benefit from the reading of Scripture. But when God's Spirit does that in a person, actual grace is given in the reading of scripture.
So much so that we Have no qualms of saying God's Word saves.
Well, the same is true of all God's means of grace. including the sacraments. When a soul receives God's means of grace, whether in word or sacrament. And that means of grace is received in faith. And in the power of the Holy Spirit, it does the thing God intends it to do.
It imparts grace.
Now, I'll say there are two extremes to which the church has often gone. The other extreme is in granting more. Effectiveness or power to the sacrament than Scripture allows. This is the view held by the Roman Catholic Church and to a slightly lesser degree by the Lutheran Church. Rome teaches that grace is given in the mere observing of the sacrament automatically.
In other words, the effectiveness of communion, for example, lies in the physical bread and wine. If you eat and drink, you will receive the promised grace automatically and without fail. The thing that makes the sacrament work, in Rome's view, is not God working through the sacrament, but the sacrament itself.
So much so that They're willing to say and sort of have to say the bread and wine transforms into the physical body and blood. of Jesus. And once again, we can see that if this is one's view of the Lord's Supper, it will affect how the sacrament is observed. If the bread of communion is the body of Christ, when I break that bread, I'm re-sacrificing Christ. When I take that physical bread, I'm taking Jesus, whether or not I believe the invisible reality.
To which the bread points.
So the memorialist sees Christ as being figuratively present in communion in the minds of believers as they remember Christ. Rome sees Christ as being physically present in communion in the bread and wine. Both extremes locate the sacrament's effectiveness in something outside of Christ. Either in the believer's mind as it remembers, or in the believer's mouth. as it receives the bread and wine.
So, what is the proper biblical balance between these extremes? The Bible teaches that in the Lord's Supper Christ is truly present. Not figuratively, as the memorialists say. and not physically, as Rome and Lutherans say. And it teaches that grace is truly conferred.
though not in the absence of faith. And if Christ is truly present and grace is truly conferred, then the believer is truly fed in the Lord's Supper. Let's think about these three things that are happening. First, Christ is truly present. Though not physically, in communion.
We see this in Jesus' words of institution that we just read when he took bread and he said, This is my body. He took wine and said, This is my blood. Christ Himself tied the sign to the thing signified, so much so that Paul warned the church that eating these elements in an unworthy manner makes a person guilty not of eating wrong. but guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
So, we dare not diminish the connection that Christ Himself establishes between the Lord's Supper and the Lord of the Supper. But neither dare we elevate that connection between the means and the substance. Between the sign and the thing signified, so as to make more of it than Christ says it is. When Christ connects his presence to the supper, He cannot be referring to his physical presence. unless we're prepared to say that the physical body of Jesus is omnipresent.
That is, that his body is Present at every communion observance that has occurred since the institution of the Sacrament of Communion. If the physical body of Jesus is omnipresent, it is not of the same substance that our physical bodies are. And if we believe that Jesus' body is not of the same substance that our bodies are, we are confusing the very nature of the second person of the Trinity and flirting with a great heresy that Scripture soundly condemns. John 1:14 says, The word became flesh. That word is the most physical, earthy...
description of the human body. Christ became muscle and bone. and dwelt among us. Had he not become fully human, He could not have represented the human race by dying on the cross. When He ascended, He physically ascended.
When He sits enthroned in heaven, He sits physically enthroned in heaven. When we take communion, Christ is truly present in the sacrament, but He is not physically present. If he were, he would not be truly man, because man is not omnipresent. And if he were not truly man, he could not have atoned for man's sin. Secondly, grace is truly conferred.
though not in the absence of faith. Grace is truly conferred, though not In the absence of faith. We read it earlier, 1 Corinthians 10:16. The cup of blessing, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
Means of grace then is more than a mere mental note to yourself to think about Jesus. This means of grace is God's means of conferring grace. But how can a piece of bread and a sip of wine impart grace? It can impart grace because. God has attached his promise to it.
and because God's Spirit carries out the promise attached to it. It doesn't Impart grace because I perform it right. It doesn't impart grace because the bread and wine are magic. It imparts grace by virtue of the fact that God has objectively tied His grace to the sacrament and then makes the sacrament effective through the power of the Holy Spirit in the life of His child. It's God's Spirit taking God's word and making the sacrament effective in the faith of God's child.
to divorce the sacraments meaning from the promises of God is unwarranted. To divorce the sacrament's effectiveness from the work of the Holy Spirit is impossible. to pretend the sacrament is beneficial to the faithless. is futile.
Now, I realize we've been doing some pretty tedious. theologizing this morning, and this is good. We need to stretch ourselves and think deeply and precisely about our faith.
So perhaps I might just pause and offer an illustration that would, I hope, be helpful by way of summarizing the different views we've considered and try to capture what exactly our confession of faith is affirming and denying with regard to the meaning of the sacrament of communion. A few years ago, I took a mission trip out of the country without my wife Laura. At the time, I didn't own a cell phone, and there was no Internet or computer access where I was staying, so I was not able to call or contact my wife that whole week.
However, she had taken the time to write me a sweet note and hide it inside my luggage.
So when I arrived at my hotel and unpacked my suitcase, there was her note. I could read it and reread it as many times as I wanted to. And it was a wonderful reminder to me of my wife's love and prayers while we were apart. That note And how it functioned for me while I was away from my wife corresponds to the view that sees the Lord's Supper as merely a memorial of Christ. The note is real.
But it's nothing more than a reminder. My wife was not present in any sort of real way in that note.
Well, a few years later, I took another trip out of the country without my wife. Only this time I had a cell phone and an Internet connection where I was staying. And every day, sometimes more than once a day, I was able to FaceTime my wife. We could talk with each other. We could even see each other in real time, almost real time, on the screen.
It was wonderful. It was way better than a note. This way of corresponding corresponds to Westminster's view of the Lord's Supper. There was a sense in which my wife was truly present on the cellphone screen and in the speakers of my phone, although she was certainly not physically present with me. Nevertheless, she was with me.
We were really communicating with each other. We were sharing actual fellowship. even though it was mediated through an electronic device. Yeah.
The sacramentalist view, Roman Catholic view, which asserts the physical presence of Christ in the actual elements. Would I suppose have to correspond to something I've never experienced on the mission field in communicating with my wife. It would, I guess, require a technology akin to Star Trek's transporter. You remember the beam me up Scotty thing that could move people in the flesh from point A to point B? I've never gotten to beam my wife to the mission field.
To have dinner with her or catch up on the day's events. How cool would that be? But that's just not how human flesh works. Church, the Lord's Supper is more than a mere note from Jesus. and less than the physical presence of Jesus.
But it is nevertheless a real and true communing with him. to the spiritual nourishment of our souls. Why? Because Christ himself has tied the metaphor to the reality and then commanded us to do the metaphor. If these things are so, then it follows that believers are truly fed.
in the sacrament of communion. They are given actual spiritual benefits. What then are the gracious benefits, the promises given in the Lord's Supper? Westminster tells us in chapter twenty nine. Worthy receivers.
Receive and feed upon Christ crucified. and all benefits of his death. The body and blood of Christ being spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance. just as the elements themselves are to their outward Senses. Question 170 of the larger catechism summarizes the benefits which the believer receives in communion like this.
By faith, Christians receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified. All the benefits of his death. What has Christ's death gotten you, Christian? It's gotten you the forgiveness of sin. Adoption into the family of God.
Eternal life. The presence of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification, the hope of resurrection. It's gotten you peace of conscience in this life, everlasting joy in the next. And these are the things that are confirmed to you in the Lord's Supper.
As you eat this bread and drink this wine, you are reminded of all the benefits of Christ's death and are assured of those benefits. Assured that those benefits that you cannot see with your eyes are just as real and just as yours as the bread and the wine you're holding and swallowing. If this is the meaning and benefit of the Lord's Supper, Should communion not play a A central role in the corporate worship of the church. If Christ is uniquely present when his supper is served, Should we not eagerly desire this supper to be served frequently? and eagerly desire to be present and ready when it is served.
Next Sunday, if the Lord wills. We will consider the practical implications of the truths we've considered today. and will have the privilege of observing the Lord's Supper. Together. But let me close with the words of Jesus from John 6.
Jesus said, Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood. has eternal life. And I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true. is true drink.
Whoever feeds on my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me. And I. in him. Let's pray. Lord, thank you for.
stooping to our need. for visible reminders. And assurances of that which we believe but cannot see. Enable us through your Holy Spirit to take full advantage of every grace you give that we might be saved. and that we might have the full assurance of that salvation.
I pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Mm-hmm.
