In the sermon titled 'Of the Lord's Supper, 1689 SLBC Chapter 30, Par. 6', Eric Bechler discusses the doctrine of transubstantiation and its historical development within the Christian church. He explains that transubstantiation is the belief that during consecration, the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. This view, although formally adopted by the Catholic Church in the Fourth Lateran Council and later defined by the Council of Trent, was not initially universally accepted. Augustine, an early church figure, maintained a symbolic interpretation which was prevalent for centuries. The sermon highlights how the doctrine led to superstitions and idolatry among the people of the Middle Ages, as they were taught to see the bread and wine as Christ himself. The Reformation brought differing views, with figures like Luther proposing consubstantiation and Zwingli viewing the Lord's Supper as commemorative. Calvin presented a middle ground, emphasizing a spiritual presence. Bechler concludes by referencing Scripture, notably Hebrews 9:24-28, to refute transubstantiation, advocating for the Reformed view that focuses on a spiritual rather than physical presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

Amen. If there's any covenant heads of households that would like to offer any comments, this would be the time. Okay. Well, I'll bring some thoughts on it that I have. We'll break the paragraph into three general areas.

One, to talk a little bit about transubstantiation, to talk about the overthrow of the nature of disordinance or sacrament, and the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries. Starting with transubstantiation, It's a big word. This paragraph actually touches on it a little bit. Transubstantiation is the belief or doctrine that during the consecration, the actual substance of the bread and wine is changed into the real body and blood of Christ. I wanted to talk a little bit about the history of this.

I didn't know a whole lot of the history of this. I assume that it was somewhere from the 1300s, 1400s that this came about. But actually, between the apostolic church and Augustine, there was already a separation in the church regarding the elements of the Lord's Supper. Some retain the symbolic or spiritual conception of the sacrament. Others held that the flesh and blood were in some way combined with the bread and wine in the sacrament.

Augustine, however, slowed down the progression of this latter view. Although he spoke of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, he distinguished between the sign and the thing signified. He did not believe in a change of substance, and his view was maintained for quite a number of centuries. During the Middle Ages, let's say through the fall of Rome, through the 1300s, this particular view of transubstantiation started to develop starting in the 800s. In the 1215 by the fourth Lateran Council, they adopted this view in their council.

This particular council was put together to reform the church and recover the Holy Land. That was the point of that particular council. And then later transubstantiation was more formally adopted and defined by the Council of Trent. There were three of those. The middle one took up this particular doctrine.

The Council of Trent really was brought together to address the doctrinal challenges of the Protestants. So this was certainly one of those items, and the Council of Trent dealt with it. If we look continuing from the Reformation on, you might think that we are all together in what we believe, but actually there's a number of different positions. We have Luther pushing a position called consubstantiation, which is different, but kind of not really. There's little differences there.

It's maybe some nuances that are a challenge to understand. Luther, his strong position was that he clung to the word is in the phrase this is my body this is my blood and we won't go into that so much that was kind of what he hung his hat on we have Christ giving other examples I am the vine I'm the way so there's some a Lot of discussions that could be pursued there, but we won't do that here Zingley another Swiss reformer saw the Lord's Supper primarily just as an act of commemoration Calvin his position somewhere in between Denied the bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament, rather insisted on the real, though spiritual, presence of the Lord in the Supper. Calvin stressed that the Lord's Supper was primarily an expression of a gracious gift of God to man, a divinely appointed means of strengthening faith, and only secondarily a commemorative meal and act of profession. We'll touch back on the Council of Trent just to be more specific as they looked at transubstantiation. The Catholic Church concluded that one, Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the Holy Sacrament.

Number two, being seated at the right hand of God does not exclude the possibility of His substantial and sacramental presence in several places simultaneously. Number three, the words of consecration, the substance of bread and wine, is changed into the body and blood of Christ. And number four, the entire Christ is present under each species and under each particle of either species, bread or wine, each person who receives a particle of the host receives the whole Christ. So I just wanted to lay out when we talk about transubstantiation and that what was formally adopted in the Catholic Church, All of those four items really encompass that doctrine and that idea. In this paragraph 6 we talk a little bit about the consequences of that position.

If we look back at the people of that time, they were particularly superstitious. They saw this idea that the bread and wine that they could see changed into the body and blood of Christ. It seemed an unexplained, perhaps magical thing. Not understanding what they were told by the priests in contrast to what they saw, they felt, they tasted, they smelled. I think in those days the people just followed their spiritual leaders and did what they led by that.

So furthermore, when believing what they were told about the elements in the priest, that these are Christ's actual body and blood, We can see from their perspective their response was somewhat natural. They would want to worship these elements because they saw the elements as Christ. So we might give them a hard time about that, but from their perspective this is what they were told, this is what they believed. It's not necessarily a right or wrong issue from their perspective, but from their shepherds, that's a pity they're being misled by their shepherds. Christ is present at the Lord's Supper, but it's a spiritual presence rather than a real bodily presence.

I was reading in the discussion of Christ, he has two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. We have two natures and the one person of Christ. Christ's human nature, just like us, cannot be in more than one place at one time. We have a physical presence, we're here, we're not here and there and everywhere. And furthermore, we know that Christ died, He rose and currently is at God's right hand.

He's not physically among us today and certainly not among us all over the planet. However, when we think of Christ and His divine nature, being omnipresent is a feature of divinity. So when we look at Christ's divine nature, we can see that it is possible for his presence spiritually to be among us in the Lord's Supper as we celebrate it here, as they celebrate it down the street, as they celebrate it in other countries. Anyway, I wanted to bring out the consequences to the people of that time in terms of superstitions and idolatry, and then bring it back to how it really should lay out. When we talk about the overthrow of the nature of the Lord's Supper, of the ordinance, the idea here is the idea of a single sacrifice versus a repeated sacrifice each time at the Lord's Supper.

When we think of the Lord's flesh and blood there, you think of a repeated sacrifice. When we look at that, there's many places that we can read through in Scripture that talk about that, especially in Hebrew 9 verses 24 through 28. We read, For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us, nor yet that he should offer himself often as the high priest inters in the holy place every year with the blood of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now Once in the end of the world he hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself And as it is appointed unto men once to die but after this judgment So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many and unto them that look for him shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation." So, Scripture is pretty clear about it. Paragraph 6, the point of it is to refute the doctrine of transubstantiation.

It does. Scripture supports that. The reformed view offered by Calvin is that the bread and wine represents the real but spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper.