The Lord's Supper's Function, Elements, and Boundaries

And then the First Corinthians 10. Here, the main emphasis I wanted to draw out was you cannot partake of the table of Christ and demons. It marks you off from what the world is and the other things you might participate in. That's a rehash of what those passages covered.

I want to start back on what will be, I think, your second page. And I want to start with something not in your notes, but to be clear, everything we've talked about with baptism, Lord's Supper, it goes back to who are the people of God and what does that look like? So a very important issue here is who has the keys of the kingdom. That would be kind of an authoritative declaration. So Matthew 18, we believe, makes it clear it is the church who has the keys of the kingdom. It's the church who has that authority of binding, loosing, That is a big part of our ecclesiology that emphasizes the congregational nature of who we are and then what we do.

So as a church, when we baptize someone, we are exercising the keys of the kingdom to receive somebody into the visible church. When we are coming together in the Lord's Supper, we are reassuring one another of our belonging to Christ and to his church.

So there's a significant aspect to, I think, what Joe was asking. He asked me about what does it mean to bless the cup in 1 Corinthians 10. As I looked at it, it seems to simply follow a pattern, especially there in 1 Corinthians 10. We bless the cup, we break the bread. It seems like he's just walking through those different elements, and that seems to just follow Jesus' pattern. He gave thanks when he took the cup, and then he broke the bread. It seems to be following the pattern, so I don't think blessing the cup is anything beyond prayer. It might be, but I don't see that as a priestly blessing in some way that makes it more effectual, seemed to be what his question was asking. I don't think he's here to clarify, so that's the clarification.

You belong to a body

Two things that I want to point out about us that I think make thinking of the Lord's Supper challenging. One, we are trained to be hyper-individualistic. The Lord's Supper is a constant testimony over against what you think you are as an individual. You now belong to Christ. We are trained to think we're autonomous, we're separated, I am me and others can be around me if I like them, but the Lord's Supper is declaring you belong to a body because you belong to a head. It is an attack on your individualism. So we can't think about the Lord's Supper merely individually, which is it's just me and Jesus. No, it's something we only do as a body.

Second, and this comes from a lot of the questions I ask, we like to figure out how to find freedom and resist rules. Maybe I'm projecting. But when we keep asking how far can we go from the normal clear pattern of scripture, we are asking how can we find our own little nuance or a way of resisting what God has clearly said. The good thing about worship is God has told us clearly who He is and how to worship Him. True worship is knowing who he is and worshiping according to his ways.

As I've approached the baptism and I've approached the Lord's Supper, I want to make something really clear that I'm not sure has been clear enough. What something is, is the first question, and then we ask what does it do and how do we do it and who does it? So what it is. So I believe if we look at all the passages of the Lord's Supper, it is a ritual meal for the whole body, that's what's emphasized. 1 Corinthians 5 makes it clear, somebody is part of the body who shouldn't be, he needs to be removed. 1 Corinthians 11 is all about come together, this is for the whole body. It is a meal that is meant for the body of Christ, all members, which is emphasized with weight for one another. Clarifying that, I want to go back up. So, remember is a key word. And again, there's some kind of movement that says mere memorial is what is imposed here. No, remember is a covenant activity. You are remembering God's promises. You're remembering who he is and that he's sent his son to, you can now be united with him. So, remember, I would want to encourage you to Meditate upon your union with Christ in the Lord's Supper, and that you are now united with him in his death, and his blood being poured out to wash away your sin, and you're being united with him in his resurrection.

Secondly, it unifies us, because we all come to Christ as sinners by faith, and we are now all united to each other, only because of Christ, having been born again. And third, it is a proclamation, the Lord's Supper is a proclamation. It's a testimony to us, but it's also a testimony to unbelievers who are here.

What makes it effective as a blessing? Again, I want to make sure we understand what makes baptism effective is that the one receiving it is united with Christ. It is a sign that is significant for someone who is already united with Christ. That is for an individual being brought into a body. But now the Lord's Supper, it is effectual because those who are partaking are united by faith and are dwelt by the Holy Spirit. Those partaking are united together as a church, having come together as a church.

I do believe Christ is present mysteriously. I believe any articulation that tries to go beyond that is going beyond what scripture says, so consubstantiation, transubstantiation, or whatever other chations you want to add to it. I believe that as God's people come to obey Christ's clear commands, the Holy Spirit uses it and blesses it in a way that Christ is present and bringing about a unity, a faith, and a joy that we might not even realize at the time.

And then I believe the word proclaimed must explain and point to the significance of that meal. I think that's where I stopped last week.

Who's it for?

Who's it for? I have three words there, the three words in the piece of paper, open, close, closed. This is where it gets really fun. Really it's like open one, open two, open three, because there's different ways people define open. So open could mean for some churches, the practice of open communion, who is invited to the table, all believers of any and all types. So anyone who professes in any way whatsoever, the Lord's Supper will be open to them at any local church.

Second, all baptized people, even those who are currently not professing faith. All baptized persons, even those who are not currently professing faith. If you want to know what in the world that means, That's why Jonathan Edwards got fired from his church. Their church practiced open communion, and he became convictionally opposed to it, even though his father-in-law was the one who taught that. And so when he said that we've got to stop practicing open communion, that it should only be for those who are professing faith, he lost his job, but he kept on preaching at the same church.

Anyway, so that's open. And open really, it means it's much more open, baptized, not professing, that's kind of wonky open. Any and all believers, regardless of any distinction of theology, there is kind of a new open that really just opens up to anybody baptized or not, where there's no explanation of what it is, it's just practiced. I don't know how intentional that is, but that seems to be a new open.

Close, close Lord's Supper. All believers who are members of a church within boundaries of like, faith, and order. All believers who are members of a church within the boundaries of like, faith, and order. So this one's a little less open, but it's not yet closed. Hence the awkward word close. So this is where we could decide, all right, we will limit the Lord's Supper as to who could come in who's not a member of our church to other Baptists, or other Southern Baptists, or even get more particular about what kind of Baptist, or we could practice close communion by anyone who preaches the same gospel and is a member of a church that preaches the same gospel.

Close communion is why we fence. because we do welcome other believers to the Lord's table, even if their church does have a different order to it, but if they have the same faith.

Closed is only believers of a specific church. So closed is if you're not a member of this church, you are not welcome to the Lord's Supper. Jefferson Park practices close communion in the sense that we do welcome other believers to celebrate and rejoice with us in this same Savior, even though not part of our body.

Let me walk through maybe a couple of instances here. Members at Trinity Presbyterian can take the Lord's Supper with us. Same gospel, we believe the different order. Folks at Calvary Chapel can take the Lord's Supper with us. Calvary Chapel doesn't have membership, so we do have that qualification there. They don't have proper membership, but they do preach the same gospel of similar order. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot. They worship a different God. Roman Catholics cannot. They preach a different gospel and a confusing gospel. So that's trying to ask, who is it for? It is meant primarily for the church, But those are kind of categories that have historically helped establish what kind of boundaries you present beyond your own membership. I'll ask for questions later. When I asked last time, I didn't get through it all, so just bear with me.

Bread and fruit of the vine

What are the elements? Bread and fruit of the vine. Bread. All right. What we serve barely passes. I thought I'd get an amen. It's bread-like, but here's the thing. We have folks who can't eat bread, so we could do bread in the middle and then that thing on the outside. I think that would defeat the whole purpose of what it is, though. We're supposed to take from the same thing. I don't want different substances or different elements. So the whole point is that we're unified together in Christ by taking of the same bread.

Fruit of the vine. Some people think this means it must be fermented. Some churches have alcoholic and non-alcoholic. Again, I think that breaks the whole picture of what it is. It's the same cup because we're coming in under the same savior. I've heard recently that some of our students have been told that they've never taken the Lord's Supper because they've never had alcohol in their fruit of the vine. I don't think that's true because there's a word for wine and it's not here. It literally is just fruit of the vine. Two, there was no such thing as fruit of the vine that did not have some fermentation because of the limitations they had in terms of we have refrigerators in the process. For someone to go that far, I think you'd also have to say it has to be unleavened bread. If we're going to really strain the gnat, Jesus, when he had bread in his hand, it was unleavened bread. This is where you can just get a strain in the gnat to say what something must be and what must not. I do think it needs to be a bread substance and a fruit substance. Dr. Pepper potato chips do not count. There are lines somewhere. But we want to make sure we're trying to be clear with what Jesus is teaching.

Fruit of the vine and how that ties to the blood and bread and how that ties to his body are the most significant aspects to it. Interestingly, historically, we do believe you need to take both in order for the Lord's Supper. The Roman Catholic Church historically for a A couple centuries did not offer both. Only the priest was able to take the cup.

How should it be practiced?

How should it be practiced? This is where most of the questions came in. Only would the church assemble? What's the key operative word in that statement? Only, all right? If you're taking a true-false quiz, it's right or wrong based upon that sentence. Only would the church a symbol, because it is a ordinance for the church body to recognize and remember who is coming to gather. Now, that does mean others can come in a close or open that others can partake of it, but it's a church gathered where it is properly observed. And again, this is where what it is determines what it does and who it's for. It is for the body of Christ gathered. So if it's a casual group, casual Bible study, not a covenanted body, I don't believe that is actually the Lord's Supper. If at a wedding, only two people are taking it in front of everybody else, I think that's kind of weird looking.

Now the Roman Catholic Church does that because for them, the priest is the church. The priest is functioning a whole different way than we would understand the keys of the kingdom and the church to function. I think the further and further you go away from what it is and who it's for, I think we're getting more and more irregular.

Something I really appreciate about Bill Bright, we prayed for a young man with Campus Crusade. Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade, he was very intentional that when he started Campus Crusade, they would not observe the ordinances because he wanted to make it clear the line between a church and a parachurch. He at least understood that theology, that there needed to be a real clear distinction for students. I don't think that distinction continues in most campus ministries anymore, but it does for campus outreach. There we go.

How often? The church met regularly, they broke bread, if that's a reference to it, it was very regular. If you are a Salvation Army denomination, anytime you eat a meal, you're partaking of the Lord's Supper. I didn't know that until my roommate in college was of Salvation Army, which I didn't even know was a church. The practice that we have, when I first got here, was once a month, When it comes to how often I think that would be like the minimal I'd ever want to do this is me giving my opinions We added to the Lord to the members meeting because one is a different kind of setting there's less fencing It's a different way in which we can kind of approach it and think about it And it added another We as elders have discussed every Sunday It's one of those things as we've discussed it. It's one of the many things we like and but with different busyness and difficulties and trying to think through it, we haven't put in practice. So I don't believe it has to be every Sunday in order for it to be a true church or necessary. I also don't believe that doing it regularly makes it less efficient or less unique and clear as to what it is.

I'll pause now and ask, you can ask questions. Yeah. Yeah, this is where a mission, I think I mentioned this last week, if a missionary and the only people who are Christians are the family, then that would be when you're taking the Lord's Supper together. Yeah. No, if you're planting a church, I would say whoever is actually covenanted and committed together, that is a church. Yeah. Ask follow-up questions? Yeah. I know there's a certain number. I think the idea is who is actually covenanted together and devoted to being a body of Christ to practice these ordinances and to preach the gospel and to hopefully grow and invite more people.

Yeah. Another way I've heard it done in an odd way is at a church like the, it's kind of like one of these family integrated things where like the dad served communion to their family at the church. And I still, I think that still like take something away from what it's supposed to be and that we're all taking it together. It's like a family thing, like families in a family. That was also a, I think a confusion.

No more questions. Can I answer? Oh, Dara, here we go. How would if someone were here and they were one of the Lord's Supper, but they were not yet confirmed to take it in their own church, they should not take it But I think you might be asking a different question. That was my easy answer to whatever you might've asked. If someone were coming here and saying, Hey, uh, Billy is 10. He hasn't been confirmed yet, but he was infant baptized. Could he take the Lord's supper? I would say he should not take the Lord's supper here. If he is not yet able to take it at where you regularly worship and are a member or your family is a member. Yeah. The question just points out why infant baptism is confusing with confirmation.

Yeah. So in practice, whenever the papal order is up, we know that it's really a subset. I didn't want to say that. Yeah. So like, if you're a person that's Yeah. So you're, you're starting with saying when we gather, not everybody is here. Who's a member. You said that. And therefore, is there a way you could have a subset of folks who would go to the homebound member to constitute what is a part of the church so that they could have the Lord's supper?

Um, I think if we're going to go that far, we're going to do the same thing for singing, preaching. There's a way in which I don't know if I want to say the Lord's supper stands out among all the other things we would do. just practically speaking. I believe the churches that deliver, like historically, that would be because the priest does it. And again, there's a whole different ecclesiology. I think that one has more of a legitimate possibility. I just think it can be confusing as to what it is and what's happening there.

Yeah. Yeah, no, and that is one that is worth wrestling with pastorally and as a church as to what would this person who can't come, which is a big difference, what could we do to help encourage them? And is it necessary? So another one would be like, what does it do? If it were necessary for salvation, I would say it would have to. No, I think that's the hardest one to really wrestle with.

Yeah, I saw Ben's first. What's the highest frequency? I'm sure that'd be a fun Guinness Book of World Records. Well, I mean, if you're a Catholic or an Anglican, I mean, they would take it like the priest would serve it and take it 10 times a day. Whatever that is, yeah. Am I right about that? Like if a priest is serving the communion or Eucharist every day, they would do it multiple times a day. Yeah, I don't know. What would we do? Oh, what would we do? Oh, I mean, once every Sunday, that's kind of hitting your limit. Yeah, 52.

Christ is most present in his word

Yeah, number four under what makes it effectual is actually the word proclaimed that must, so I don't believe it can stand alone, That's actually from, we're reading Preachers and Preaching, Martin Lloyd-Jones, and he made that argument, so that made its way into the notes. As a Protestant, we would never not have the word as center. There is something significant there. Yeah, I don't think I would ever have just a baptism and only baptism or only Lord's Supper, just the Lord's Supper. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that's where that one practically as to what you're doing with your praying, your singing, you're providing some kind of instruction or reading the Bible. Yeah, that is one I'm more open to because of the circumstance. It's been a challenge to figure out what that looks like though. Yeah, Josh. No, I don't think that's necessary. But I think it's especially significant as the Lord's Day where we're coming together already regularly. Yep. Like if our members meeting was on a Wednesday and we kept this pattern up, we would change it to Wednesday, I guess. Uh, because of what it accomplishes.

Um, I mean that, uh, Christ, where are you? So, You get into real problems any time you separate the persons of the Trinity, like the sun is here, the spirit's over there. We believe Christ is most present in his word. So we don't want to separate Christ and his word or the Holy Spirit from his word. So we believe that Christ is most present throughout the entirety of creation by being the word present. So the Holy Spirit is using that word. Christ is most present in his word. And at the end of the day, Things that happen only make sense because of what God said. We would not have any clue what happened, why the cross was so important if God didn't speak. So we're word-centered.

I don't think we need to actually have a dichotomy of word versus table, but the word became secondary because how they viewed that as becoming the very body and blood and what then that is and what it means for your salvation and what it accomplishes. That's kind of an altogether package as to how I understood it became war center. Yep. Yep. Michael Wills. That's me.

Why is this the bone that Protestants take with Roman Catholics, that bone? It's not the physical blood and flesh. Why is it the bone we take when Jesus in John 6 said over and over again,

it's my flesh, it's my blood

? I know we could say that. Uh, that's not my bone. Like, however, Christ is present. And if it really does, if the, uh, essential, if the accidental, uh, attributes, uh, change so that it tastes like what it's not, that it's actually the blood, but a body of Christ, because the language is. Powerful, I mean Jesus usually speaks in metaphors that way,

you are salt, you are light.

That's not the bone I would want to pick, it's more what they think it accomplishes and what it does for your salvation and that it becomes a work salvation by taking it. That would be my more significant bone. I don't believe in the actual elements changing. in their physical substance, but that one bothers me much less than how it functions with a priest must do it, and then what they think it does for the person receiving it. That's my bigger issue.

So really, you would say that we should, I guess, pick a bone with the root of what they mean, or the implications of what they mean when they say, Yeah, I also can look back throughout church history and see a lot of folks have mentioned, have talked about it in a real presence way and quote the Bible with the way you're quoting the Bible, but they would not have had transubstantiation. I can point to when that language became gospel for them. It was mid century with Aquinas. That's when that language started. They believe that before, but I can see how that doctrine developed, whereas I could see other believers talking about it in that real way. that didn't have it doing what they say it does, in a way that the whole church is giving testimony that they're now making it something that other believers did not make it.

I'm actually going to be Catholic, not Roman Catholic. I really do want to be Catholic. Yeah, Matt? I did think we should pick a vote with the idea that Christ must be re-sacrificed every two years. Okay, the transubstantiation, it's all the different things that's tied to it. I actually am more than happy to punt and say, praise God, there's a mystery, and I'm certain the Holy Spirit is making Christ present with us as we partake of it so that it is a blessing to us in a way we don't even realize.

Good questions. Bethany. The Lord's Supper is commanded, did you say more than the other commands? It does stand out uniquely as an ordinance, as the physical activity that you partake of. Everything else we do is word-centered. So I wouldn't say it's in any way more important. I would actually say it is only important because of the word ministry you're already doing. So

the ordinances are simply physical signs that point to a spiritual reality.

This is me quoting Augustine again, trying to be as Catholic as I can possibly be. Um, so I don't, I don't think, uh, you could say it's more important because I think it must fit underneath the word ministry. And I don't, I'm quite certain if you were to take up how often it's teach, pray, you're probably committed to praying with anything else in scripture. I'm looking for people who I think would help another head into that. You know, maybe like you're like, like singing in prayer would be more commanded if you just look at the Psalms alone. So I wouldn't say that would be the reason for doing it more often. I do think it stands out as an ordinance, though, in that I think that we're a physical people, but the word ministry has to be surrounding it. Yeah. The ordinances do have to stand out in a unique way, though. I appreciate that. That is true.

Prepare and participate

To end here, some practical things that we'll share if we haven't already. As you prepare and participate, be present and come early to gather with the church. Be prepared to encourage others with the gospel you're coming together to remember and celebrate with. Be prayerful to consider if there are ways you need to pursue reconciliation, that's especially regarding 1 Corinthians 11, that confession of sin would be important for that being a true Lord's Supper and how the Lord would bless you. or make you sick afterwards if you do not confess.

Be mindful when you take the Lord's Supper of everyone with you. They're encouraging you by taking it with you and you're encouraging them. Again, you're not individuals. When other people are taking it with you, you are practicing that affirmation and encouragement together that we are all Christ. We're the Son of God, added our humanity, our body and blood to be our substitute and to save us from our sins. That is getting to the heart of the gospel and what it is pointing to.

Thank God for keeping his promises and blessing us in Christ. Be specific. I mean, think about the different blessings that we have in Christ, and I say thank you, thank God, because it is the Eucharist as well. I added this, I think because of Hoon's question or comment. If feeling convicted of sin, confess with confidence in Christ's work on the cross. The last thing that should keep you from coming to the table is sin, when you can repent of it. Like confess, repent, and know you're not gonna be able to do enough work to cleanse your conscience. Christ's work in the Holy Spirit cleanses your conscience so you can go before God.

Look forward to the coming ages when we will no longer be hindered by suffering sin, but we'll feast with Christ forever. Pray for non-Christians with or near you that they would see their need for Christ as they are not participating. And pray for the church to rejoice in Christ so as to build up our unity and faith.

If you think about those different things, the Lord's Supper, again, is doing so much. It's pointing us to make sure we're thinking of others, pointing us up to Christ, pointing us up to even the future of the marriage feast of the Lamb. There's a whole lot happening with the Lord's Supper that we need to be mindful of, which is one of the reasons we want to take the time to actually think through it together.

Last pressing, gotta ask you a question. Emily. Oh yeah, I'm going to put that in there, yeah. So I think about it the same way. Is it a church that preaches the same gospel? Do I believe there's a way in which I want to rejoice in the common salvation we have? I'm a bit more reluctant when I'm visiting other churches. So I was recently visiting their church and they still had like the handy snack Lord's supper, you know, like from, from COVID. And it wasn't just that when they distributed it, the guy had a basket and he just threw it. And so I refused to take it because I just thought this has no, this, this lacks the reverence necessary. So like that, that would be one example as to like, I enjoyed the sermon. I enjoyed the people hung out with the pastor about an hour afterwards. But I just thought, this lacked the reverence of what it's supposed to have. So I, yeah, I don't believe, yeah, anyway, that was the one example I could think of when I didn't. But that was kind of an unusual thing. I hope that doesn't happen most places.

But no, I think it is a, the reason we welcome others and aren't closed is we do believe it's a way of expressing, are not the only church. And there's a way in which we can rejoice for the churches. Kind of the same reason we pray for the churches. It's a reminder of that in a helpful way.

All right, let me pray. Father, we thank you for not leaving us alone in sin. We thank you that Christ has come to take on our body, to have blood, to take on our whole human nature, to be our substitute. And we thank you, Lord, for the way that the bread and the cup Show us and remind us of the covenant you have made and have kept. We pray that we would know how to rejoice greatly in what Christ has accomplished together as a body. Pray that the Lord's Supper this Sunday would unify us, encourage us, be a great testimony to us that you are coming again, and be a testimony to those who do not know you. In Jesus' name we pray, amen.