In Eric Bechler's sermon on the Lord's Supper from the 1689 London Baptist Confession, the focus is on the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament, contrasting it with Catholic transubstantiation and Lutheran consubstantiation. The sermon critiques transubstantiation for its reliance on Aristotelian metaphysics, which contradicts its own principles, and questions the attribution of divine omnipresence to Christ's human nature. Consubstantiation, often associated with Lutherans, is also discussed, highlighting its rejection by Luther himself in favor of a 'sacramental union' where Christ's body and blood are present in and through the bread and wine. The Reformed position asserts that Christ is present spiritually and that the Lord's Supper provides an inward spiritual nourishment. Worthy recipients, as described by the Heidelberg Catechism, are those who are sorrowful for their sins, trust in Christ's forgiveness, and earnestly desire spiritual growth. The sermon also interprets John 6:53-55 metaphorically, emphasizing faith over a literal understanding of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood. Finally, Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper as a means of spiritual union with Christ through the Holy Spirit is presented, advocating for frequent and joyful celebration.

Our reading from the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 comes today again from chapter 30 of the Lord's Supper, paragraph 7. 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. We continue today in our teaching of the Lord's Supper. In the last few weeks, we looked at arguments for and against the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper.

Is it physical or is it spiritual? Is there a literal or figurative understanding as we read Christ's word? This is my body and this is my blood. Last week's paragraph was a rebuke of the transubstantiation position of the Catholic Church. There's another prominent position that Reformed theology disagrees with, that is, consubstantiation and similar approaches.

The London Baptist Confession has removed the language from this week's paragraph that points to this position. I'm not sure why, but the language is found in the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration. This phrase, in, with, or under the bread and wine. I'm guessing this was done to keep the focus on the actual main point of this paragraph, which is what happens to worthy recipients when partaking of the Lord's Supper by outwardly partaking of the visible elements. So even though it's not in our confession and may not be the main point of this paragraph, I'd like to spend a little bit of time discussing it like I did transubstantiation a couple weeks ago.

First a reminder regarding some of the difficulties associated with transubstantiation which going through might help us when I address consubstantiation. Many in trying to explain it will point to Aristotelian philosophy with the use of terms, substance, or essence, and accidents. These tell us basically what it is and what it appears to be. The Catholic Church holds that after the priest speaks the words of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine become the substance of Christ's body and blood, with the accidents remaining the same and not changing. Now one of the metaphysical laws discerned by Aristotle was that two substances cannot be present simultaneously.

Hence the body and the blood of Christ must miraculously replace the substance of bread and wine. Yet Paul tells us that the bread and wine remain as mediums of the body and blood. From 1 Corinthians 10-16 he tells us that the cup of blessing that we bless, 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? Also Aristotle claims that accidents adhere to substances.

Therefore the removal or replacement of a substance would necessarily change its associated accidents. Supporters of transubstantiation claim God supernaturally keeps the accidents of the bread and wine the same after the substance has been changed. So what we notice is that Transubstantiation turns to Aristotelian philosophy to explain it, but immediately contradicts the metaphysical laws identified by Aristotle. The other main problem with transubstantiation is related to Christology, the nature of Christ. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that even the Catholic Church agrees with what was declared by the Council of Chalcedon regarding the dual nature of Christ.

Chalcedon affirmed that Christ had two natures, truly man and truly God. One person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. And this is difficult to understand so much so that they didn't tell us how the two natures are united, they tell us how they are not united. The two natures of Christ are united without mixture, without confusion, without separation, and without division. This also means that each nature retains its own attributes.

In other words, we must not deify the human nature nor humanize the divine nature. And when we cross one of these boundaries or compromise one of these negatives we cross over into some degree of Christological heresy. What we find with transubstantiation is the ubiquity or omnipresence of Christ's body and blood throughout the world each time mass or communion is observed. This is giving divine qualities to the human nature of Christ. We have a problem with this.

Consubstantiation. The first problem we have with consubstantiation is that we normally associate it with Lutherans. And that's not exactly correct. Consubstantiation states that the substance of Christ's flesh and blood existed alongside the substances of bread and wine without replacing them. Jack Kilcrease, a professor of historical and systematic theology, argues Luther never accepted consubstantiation as an explanation of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper because it relied on Aristotelian metaphysics and logic.

Lutheran's teaching oppose any attempt to explain philosophically how Christ is present in the Lord's Supper. Dr. Kilcrease continues, following Paul's assertion in 1st Corinthians 10-16, Luther believed the body and blood of Christ became present through a kind of sacramental union with the bread and wine. The body and blood of Christ did not exist in union alongside the bread and wine, this is consubstantiation, rather communicants received the body and blood in and through the bread and wine. Later Lutherans pioneered the formula in, under, and with to explain their mode of reception.

He also offers two additional thoughts regarding this idea of sacramental union. First, Luther himself not only saw the aforementioned biblical text as evidence for this position, but also saw a parallel to the incarnation. In Christ's incarnation, his divinity does not replace his humanity, an analogy to transubstantiation. Neither does the divinity merely exist alongside the humanity as in consubstantiation. Instead, Christ's divine nature is united with the humanity so as to be present in and through it.

Thus, although an imperfect comparison, the hypostatic union parallels the sacramental union between Christ's body and blood and the bread and wine. The other thought he wanted to mention the role of the Lord's Supper as a fulfillment of the Passover also supports Luther's view. Jesus instituted the sacrament at Passover meal and and very clearly saw his death as the fulfillment of a new exodus. In the Passover, Jews consumed both the unleavened bread and the sacrificed lamb. The flesh of the lamb did not somehow replace the unleavened bread.

Likewise, Jews drank wine and painted the blood of the lamb on over the lentils of the door. This lamb's blood did not replace the wine but was genuinely present with it. Though in reality after all of that you're probably more confused than when we started but I at least wanted to go over some of the thoughts of other positions so that you can understand where some of this is coming from. The main point here to take away is that they believe in, these other positions believe in the real and physical presence of the body of Christ at the Lord's Supper. They believe the bread and wine are united in, under, and with the body and blood of Christ through the words of consecration.

In contrast, in the Reformed position, it states that the body and the blood of Christ is present spiritually, not physically, and bodily at the Lord's Supper, which takes us to our confession. Worthy recipients who outwardly partake of the visible elements in this ordinance, also by faith, by faith inwardly receive and feed on Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death. They do so really and truly, yet not physically and bodily, but spiritually. So what are our arguments for this position? First, we look at the proof texts.

As we look at them, we'll address four points from our paragraph. Who are the worthy recipients? What do they receive? What does it mean to feed upon Christ crucified? And finally, how is Christ present in the Lord's Supper?

The first phrase, worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance do then also inwardly by faith. Who are these worthy receivers? They are the baptized believers who gather for the worship of God in a local church on the Lord's day. We can see that in Acts 20 verse 7. It is for those who have professed faith in Christ.

The Heidelberg Catechism question 81 asks the question in a similar manner for, for whom is the Lord's Supper instituted? The answer for those who are truly sorrowful for their sins and yet trust that these are forgiven for them for the sake of Christ and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened and their lives more holy but hypocrites and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts eat and drink judgment to themselves. Do we have that sorrow, that sincerity, that trust and that earnest desire ourselves. Paul tells us, but let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. First Corinthians 11 28.

Only after we've examined ourselves, may we partake of the visible elements of the Lord's Supper to eat of that bread and to drink of that cup. So what do they receive, these worthy receivers? The Confession states they do then also inwardly by faith really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally or physically and bodily, but spiritually receive all the benefits of His death. Of course, when we partake of the Lord's Supper, we receive the outward elements, the bread and the wine. More importantly, we receive and feed upon Christ and all the benefits of his death.

What are the benefits of his death? His atoning, redeeming work. For those the Father have chosen, our sins are forgiven. Through his death, the full debt of our sins has been paid by Christ. Justice has been meted out.

Our sins have been imputed to Christ to be paid for on the cross, and His righteousness imputed to us so that we are justified and declared righteous in God's sight. Robin Turi's commentary states, the Reformers has insisted upon this as well, that the grace received in the Lord's Supper does not consist only in the benefits Christ purchased for us, but in Christ Himself. The main blessing received is communion with Christ Himself. Every other blessing comes in or through Christ. When we as worthy receivers partake in the supper and faith, we are communing with Christ and with one another.

The next point is what does it mean to feed upon Christ crucified? We read this is my body and this is my blood in Matthew 26. We read in John 6 53 through 55, then Jesus said to them, most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day for my flesh is food indeed my blood is drink indeed some argue we feed upon Christ carnally and corporally and some argue spiritually we've already spoken about the Matthew 26 passages that they should be interpreted figuratively and not literally. But what about John 6?

How do we understand what is happening here? Many of Jesus' followers said, this is a hard saying, who can understand it? John 660. And from that time, many of his disciples went back and walked with him no more. In John 666.

I found from gotquestions.com, they had a nice response to this question that I'd like to share with you. Jesus' graphic imagery about eating His flesh and drinking His blood is indeed puzzling at first. Context will help us understand what He's saying as we consider everything that Jesus said and did in John chapter six, the meaning of his words become more clear. Earlier in the chapter, Jesus fed the 5, 000 in verses one through 13. The next day, the same multitudes continue to follow Jesus seeking another meal.

He pointed out their shortsightedness and they were only seeking physical bread, but there was something more important. Food that endures to eternal life which the Son of Man will give you in verse 27. At this point Jesus attempts to turn their perspective away from the physical sustenance to their true need, which was spiritual. This contrast between physical food and spiritual food sets the stage for Jesus's statement that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Jesus explains that it is not physical bread that the world needs, but spiritual bread.

Jesus three times identifies himself as that spiritual bread in verse 35, 48, and 51. Twice he emphasizes faith, a spiritual action, as the key to salvation. My Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life. Verse 40. And very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

Verse 47. Jesus then compares and contrasts himself to the manna that Israel had eaten in the time of Moses. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that came down from heaven which anyone may eat and not die." Verses 49 and 50. Like manna, Jesus came down from heaven and like manna, Jesus gives life.

But unlike manna, the life Jesus gives lasts for eternity. Verse 58. Having established this metaphor and the fact that he's speaking of faith in him, Jesus presses the symbolism even further. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever.

And this bread, which I will offer so the world may live is my flesh. I tell you the truth, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life. My flesh is true food. My blood is true drink.

Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Anyone who feeds on me will live because of me." To prevent being misconstrued, Jesus specifies that he has been speaking metaphorically in verse 63, the Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you, they are full of spirit and life. Those who misunderstood Jesus and were offended by his talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were stuck in a physical mindset, ignoring things of the spirit. They were concerned with getting another physical meal.

So Jesus uses the realm of the physical to teach a vital spiritual truth. Those who couldn't make the jump from the physical to the spiritual turned their backs on Jesus and walked away. And at the Last Supper Jesus gives us a similar message and one that complements his words in John 6. When the disciples gathered to break bread and drink the cup, they proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." 1 Corinthians 11 26. In fact, Jesus said that the bread broken at the table is His body, and the cup they drink is the new covenant in His blood shed for the forgiveness of sins.

Their act of eating and drinking was to be a symbol of their faith in Christ. Just as physical food gives earthly life, Christ's sacrifice on the cross gives heavenly life. And A. A. Hodges concludes, When it is said therefore that believers receive and feed upon the body and blood of Christ, it is meant that they receive not by their mouth, but through faith.

The benefits secured by Christ's sacrificial death upon the cross, that this feeding upon Christ is purely spiritual, accomplished through the free and sovereign agency of the Holy Spirit and through the instrumentality and in the exercise of faith alone. And finally, how is Christ present in the Lord's Supper? We all agree that Christ is present in the Lord's Supper. The question is in what manner or what mode is Christ physically present as some would argue, or is he spiritually present? Keith Matheson, a professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College, offers some comments from John Calvin.

How does Calvin understand the nature of Christ's presence in the Supper? According to Calvin, the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. And Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols, for example Zwingli's approach, but he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into things they signify. Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, this is my body, the name of the thing signified body is applied to the sign, the bread.

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ's presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ's human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order to in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believers union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on a spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also by the power of the Holy Spirit being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

The manner and mode is spiritual. I'd like to close again with some words from Dr. Matheson. According to Calvin, the Lord's Supper is also a bond of love, intended to produce mutual love among believers. It is to inspire thanksgiving and gratitude.

Because it is at the very heart of Christian worship, Calvin argued that it should be observed whenever the word is preached or at least once a week. It should be free from all superstition and observed in its biblical simplicity. Calvin considered the Lord's Supper to be a divine gift given by Christ himself to his people to nourish and strengthen their faith. As such, it is not to be neglected, but rather celebrated, often and with joy. Amen.