In his sermon on the 1689 Baptist Confession, Chapter 30, Paragraph 2, Josh Glasscock explores the theological distinctions between the Protestant view of the Lord's Supper and the Catholic Eucharist. He explains that the sermon is divided into three parts: what the Lord's Supper is not, what it is, and the context behind its formulation by reformers. Glasscock critiques the Catholic belief in the Eucharist as an unbloody sacrifice for the remission of sins, contrasting it with the Protestant perspective that the Lord's Supper is a memorial of Christ's singular and sufficient sacrifice on the cross. He references biblical passages, including Matthew 26:26-28 and Hebrews 10, to emphasize that the Lord's Supper is an act of remembrance and thanksgiving rather than a repetitive sacrifice. Glasscock encourages believers to approach the Lord's Supper with gratitude and joy, recognizing it as a spiritual act of praise and a reminder of Christ's ultimate sacrifice and its benefits.

So this is an interesting section of the Baptist Confession. So before we start, let's go ahead and let's pray. Oh Lord, I just thank you and praise you today, Father. I thank you, Father, that you inspired men to come together to be able to list out these things, Father, so that we can be edified as we read throughout, of taking scripture, taking commentary, taking the views of ultimately what the reformers believed in. And I thank you and I pray that you just help me as I'm talking through this, Father.

I pray that you just edify the church. And I pray that it not be ultimately in my words but your words, Father, in Jesus' name. So as I was saying, this is a very interesting kind of a paragraph because what it really does is it conveys Kind of a you know a major root of the gospel And so what I like to do is kind of dissect what we have here What I see here is there's really kind of three statements, three parts of in this statement. You know, you have what the Lord's Supper is not. You have what the Lord's Supper is, and then you kind of have some context of why this is even possibly, you know, put together, essentially.

And so what I'd like to do is kind of start off with the third and look at the context of why did the reformers kind of put this together as directly that? And that's really dealing with the Popish sacrifice of the Mass, essentially. This doctrine, taken directly from the Roman Catholic religion, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to actually kind of dive into that real quick as to what actually is it that they believe the Lord's Supper is. Obviously I can't go into great detail in this short period of time, but I want to take mainly some key points from that. So the Catholics believe, you know, ultimately what they call the Lord's Supper is, you know, Eucharist, which actually the Greek word for Eucharist is to give thanks, okay?

So I thought that was pretty interesting there. I know that Eucharist kind of has a bad name in the Reformers and such, but the actual word itself is to give thanks, because as we know, that's ultimately what we're doing with the Lord's Supper, is we're giving thanks for what God and Christ did for us. But essentially, taking from the Catechism of the Catholic Church states this, that the Eucharist is not only a memorial, but is an actual, unbloody sacrifice. So that's interesting because I want you all to kind of remember that unbloody sacrifice, As you've seen stated in the Baptist Confession, that's a key thing that we're going to kind of discuss as we get through this. Now as a sacrifice, this is once again taken from them, as a sacrifice the Eucharist is also offered in remission for sin of the living and the dead to attain spiritual or temporal benefits from God." So, I mean, that's pretty heavy, right?

I mean, that's ultimately what they're doing here is they're saying that the actual Lord's Supper itself is a sacrifice, a sacrifice that they're putting up there. And so, to kind of keep that in mind of where they stand with that, Let's kind of look at where the confession kind of goes and starts off So let's look at the beginning of the statement in the you know in the Lord's Supper. This is what the Baptist confession now Christ is not offered up to his father nor any real sacrifice is made for the remission of the sin of the quick and the dead. And so that's actually what they've done is they've taken that section, what I just said, of the Eucharist, and they're claiming that the Lord's Supper itself is not that, right, as we kind of know, but you know, in order to have that context, that's what we want to look at. Why is it that they were believing that?

You know, and so, if we actually go to the Scriptures, if you go to Matthew chapter 26, 26 through 28, this is where we get a picture, you know, of the actual Lord's Supper taking place. And so we're gonna see some key things in here that I want to point out. And so It says in chapter 26 verses 26, and as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remissions of sins." You also see in Colossians 1.14, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sin.

And so what you see throughout Scripture is, from the Old Testament, even the New Testament, it is ultimately the blood sacrifice, and ultimately Christ's blood sacrifice, is the only remission for sin, right? And so whenever you have this element of what the Catholic Church does with the Eucharist is they're putting it up kind of as doing it every time that they come together. They are doing a sacrifice in a sense for that and they equal it with when they do the Eucharist, anybody that partakes in the Eucharist, They're saying that that's ultimately the forgiveness of sin. So if somebody comes in and does that, that's part of, you know, getting that remission for sin. And so it's interesting that they kind of have that, but you just you see the Reformers kind of separated themselves.

And this is the key thing, I think, is the main conflict here is the fact that the Lord's Supper is not that. So Christ's sacrifice is the only ground for the remission of our sins. Nothing to be added to the next to it, certainly not the unbloodly sacrifice of the mass. So if you look at Hebrews 10 through 14, what we'll find here is Paul is going into talking about some things here that is key. So, starting with verse 10, by the which we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, and every priest standing daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which cannot take away sins.

But this man, after he offered one sacrifice for sins for all, forever, set down at the right hand of God. From henceforth, expecting till his enemies be made his footstool, for of one offering he have perfected for them that are sanctified. Now, what's interesting right here with what Paul kind of laid out is I find it kind of ironic the fact that he's taking a section of here of going, you know, the old time right before Jesus, you had the priests go in and do the blood sacrifice, you know, on a daily basis, and that did not give remission of her sins. And so what's interesting is is you have that, but then you also now with, you know, what the Catholics do essentially when they do their Eucharist is they were trying to essentially accomplish the same thing of what the priest did with all the sacrifices. And so we find a direct distinction that this is not the remission for sins.

This is not a sacrifice that is happening, you know, as we go along. So nobody having the Bible alone would come to the same conclusion on the Lord's Supper as a Roman Catholic would. It is obvious that the Roman Catholic does not rely on Scripture alone, but Scripture plus tradition, which brings us to the abominable practices of what we're talking about here. The biblical view is that Christ offered a bloody sacrifice once for all time, never to be repeated again. In fact, the point of what we just went with the Hebrews is the Old Testament religion, you know, you see, like I was just saying, it repeats the sacrifices.

And so, what we want to take from this essentially is we kind of established the fact that we had the context of knowing why is this in the confession, and now we've realized, well, at that time, you know, you had a very prevalent doctrine that the Lord's Supper represented, as we also know the way that they held it where it was the actual body and the actual blood, but we won't get into that right now. But essentially what I want to kind of take from this is the fact that they are putting that Eucharist up to the level of a unbloody sacrifice. Okay? And so as we've seen with Scripture in here, that's not the case of what we find in Scripture, that you would have to take traditions of man, you have to add to do a lot to get to that. So if we know that that's the case, then we want to actually look at what is really the Lord's Supper, you know, as we see it, essentially.

And so you see in the Baptist Concretion, we say, only a memorial of one offering up himself by himself upon the cross once and for all in a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So if we were to look at 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 24 through 25, what we'll find is we'll have Paul reminding the Corinthians essentially of what took place on this night that Christ started, you know, the Lord's Serpur essentially. And so verse 24 he says, Whenever he is given thanks, he breaketh and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me. Verse 25, after the same manner he also took the cup, when he had supped and said, this cup is the New Testament in my blood, this do ye as often as you drink it in remembrance of me." I think this is really interesting because if you notice there, Paul emphasizes twice, in remembrance of me.

And he does this for a reason, because he's ultimately establishing the fact that that's the key thing of what the Lord's Supper is all about, is the remembrance. We want to be able to take the Lord's Supper not only as just a memorial offering of himself by himself upon the cross for all, But the Lord's Supper also, what it does is it brings us to mind the sacrifice that Christ did and the benefits that we enjoy through it. It is not the presence of the actual unbody sacrifice of Christ that are taking place, but it points back to the one sacrifice that took, you know, over 2, 000 years ago that happened on Calvary. Now, the Lord's Supper is also like a spiritual offering of all praises unto God once and for all. In the Lord's Supper, we give thanks to the Lord for what Jesus did on the cross.

And as you see in Hebrews 13-15, by him, Therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. Let us praise our Lord Jesus Christ for what He has done and will do forever. So I just wanted to be able to kind of say some things on that essentially that, you know, let us be mindful of this as we go about our week and something that to be thinking about is ultimately what He did on the cross for us during that time. And ultimately when we do the Lord's Supper and we come together, we should do it with a joyful heart. We should do it with rejoicing in our heart because it's a picture of what we're going to be able to do that final continuing supper that we will have together as whenever we were with God forever so be something to kind of think about Thank you.