And as you do, you can pull out your bulletin with the chapters of the confession that we're gonna be looking at tonight. We're in chapters 28, 29, and 30. So we're trying to cover 30, no, not 30, we're trying to cover three chapters this evening up to chapter 30. And then hopefully next week, the plan is to wrap up our series through the confession as we look at the last two chapters. So tonight we're looking at three chapters, next week hopefully two, and then we will conclude our series through the confession. I hope it's been helpful in edifying up to this point. So these three chapters that we're looking at tonight, they're in some ways kind of like a unit. So if you notice the titles of the chapters, they're on your outline, or on your bulletin. Chapter 28 is Of Baptism in the Lord's Supper. Chapter 29 is Baptism. And chapter 30 is The Lord's Supper. So in other words, basically it introduces the doctrines of baptism in the Lord's Supper, and then it explains each of those separately. And so these kind of form one big unit together in the way that the confession is set up, and so we are going to cover them in one unit tonight, and that will also allow us to finish up on time by next week. And so we're going to plow through a lot of content tonight. I think for a lot of us tonight will largely be reminders of things that we often hear because we regularly do things like baptize individuals and take the Lord's Supper together and usually when we do those things as a church there's also some form of explanation with regard to what those two signs mean and represent and why we do them. But at the same time, even as I was reading through it and studying through it and thinking through it, I found my own heart encouraged just in covering the foundationals, the foundations, the fundamentals, I should say, of these doctrines. I think it's helpful for us to, from time to time, go back over some of these things that we might assume more than take time to consider a lot of times. And so tonight we're going to take a little bit of time to chew on what baptism is and what the Lord's Supper is and hopefully find that our hearts are in some measure encouraged by the two signs that the Lord has given to his church that reflect the reality of our salvation. So we're gonna jump right into it, into chapter 28, which is an overview of both baptism and the Lord's Supper. It kind of introduces the two. I'll read these first two paragraphs of, the only two paragraphs of chapter 28, and then we'll start looking at the outline together as we go through it. So chapter 28 of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. in the first two paragraphs. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive, that is explicit and definite, and sovereign institution. They are appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world. These holy appointments are to be administered only by those who are qualified and called to do so according to the commission of Christ. All right, so if you have an outline, it's on a separate sheet, so you wanna make sure you have that. And on there, you'll notice that chapter 28 is broken into three major headings. The first one is more or less explaining what an ordinance is. So an ordinance is what we refer to when we speak of the Lord's Supper and baptism. They're the two ordinances that the Lord has given to the church. What would be an easy way to explain the word ordinance? How would you define ordinance to someone? Christ institutes it, yeah, which is, yeah, so the way the confession puts it, instituted sovereignly by Jesus. Halas, any other thoughts on how you would explain an ordinance? Christ institutes it and it carries with it the idea of authority as well, which is implied in that. An ordinance is an authoritative command. It's something that Jesus has instituted and has authoritatively commanded the church to do. So Webster, where else do you go when you're looking for a definition other than Webster? Webster says that an ordinance is a direction or a command of an authoritative nature. Another pastor defines an ordinance as a practice established by authority. And so the idea, when we use the word ordinance, which we often do use in reference to baptism in the Lord's Supper, the idea is that it carries the authority of the one who gave it. And who gave us the ordinance of baptism in the Lord's Supper? Jesus, the head of the church. And so the idea is these two ordinances carry with them all of the weight of the authority of the head of the church, and he's commanded us to do these things. And so in doing them, we're walking in obedience to the one who has authoritatively commanded us to do them. And he's commanded us to do them until the end of the age. So Matthew 28, the Great Commission. What is the last thing Jesus says in the Great Commission? The very last verse of the book of Matthew. Anyone know, how does the book of Matthew end? And lo, I am with you always. even to the end of the world. That's right. So Jesus, he gives this commission to his church, and he says, you are to make disciples. As you go out into the world, you are to make disciples. And you do that by baptizing them, and you do that by teaching them to obey everything I've commanded you, and you are to do that until the very end of the age, the end of the world. And then, what about the Lord's Supper? Where would we find the command from, so that's with regard to baptism, where would we find the command with regard to the Lord's Supper that it's to endure to the end of the world or the end of the age? It's on the outline, 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is saying, as often as you eat and drink, what do you do when you take the Lord's Supper? You proclaim the Lord's death until when? until he comes. And so the Lord's Supper and baptism are both pointing forward to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is going to be done until the end of the age, Jesus says, and I'm with you all the way to the end of the age. The Lord's Supper takes place proclaiming the Lord's death until he returns. And so both of them are to be done until the end of the age, the end of the world. Interestingly enough, apparently, I didn't know this until reading through this, there were different groups at the time that this confession was written who denied that, and they said basically that the ordinances were only temporarily given to the church. So among them were actually the Quakers, and the Quakers basically argued that the ordinances of baptism in the Lord's Supper were given to the church in its infant stage, kind of in this transition from the old covenant to the new covenant, The Old Covenant had lots of physical signs and symbols and ceremonies. And so to transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, baptism and the Lord's Supper were kind of this temporary sign or symbol to establish the church in its infancy. But once the church reached maturity, then those things wouldn't be necessary any longer. Because the idea is, the church, its worship is essentially spiritual. It's entirely spiritual. And so the church doesn't need visible signs, like baptism in the Lord's Supper, to spiritually worship God. That was the argument that was being made. Jesus disagreed with that, and he said, actually, you do need visible signs, and I'm commanding you to do these two visible signs from the time that I depart until the time that I return. And so they're both to be continued to the end of the age, And then lastly, they're administered by those called and qualified, the confession says in paragraph two. So there's not a lot of consensus on this. What's interesting, so this is the Second London Baptist Confession, which implies that there was a First London Baptist Confession, which there was in 1644. And in the First London Baptist Confession, they actually argued for the opposite point that the Second London Baptist does. So the Second London Baptist says that baptism in the Lord's Supper should only be administered essentially by pastors, by those formally appointed to the task. But the first London Confession actually said it can be performed by any believer because of the priesthood of the believer. And so from between 1644 and 1677, when this confession was originally written, something changed in the mind of the Baptists, and they decided that it should be those who are appointed as elders or pastors in the church who carry out the task of the Lord's Supper. All that to say, it's probably not a hill to die on if the Baptists themselves disagreed in the span of 40 years or so. But it seems like, and this is the practice of our church, it seems like there is wisdom in doing what the confession says here and having the ordinances administered by those who have been appointed to positions of spiritual leadership in the church. because, and we'll get into this, but because they're both teaching ordinances. They are teaching signs. Baptism is communicating the gospel and should always be accompanied by the preaching of the gospel. And the Lord's Supper is communicating the gospel and should always be accompanied by the preaching of the gospel. And so if the ordinances are teaching ministries, teaching ordinances, then it would seem wisest or most prudent for it to be administered by those who have been appointed to the teaching ministry in the church. Again, probably not something to go to war on, but it's the position of the confession, it's our practice here as a church, and there seems to be some wisdom to it. So those are the two ordinances that Jesus has given to the church, baptism and the Lord's Supper. Anyone know how many sacraments, another word for ordinances, essentially the Roman Catholic Church has? Seven, yeah. The Roman Catholic Church has seven sacraments, and they are largely based on church tradition rather than scripture. Jesus has given only two ordinances to his church, baptism and the Lord's Supper. Anyone know what a third ordinance is? What some people argue is a third ordinance, even in evangelical circles? Foot washing, yes, from John 13. Because Jesus says, I've done this as an example so that you also would do it to one another. And so people take that literally to think Jesus actually wants us to wash one another's feet as a third ordinance in the church. I have good news for you. We don't practice that as a church. We don't think that that's... We don't think that that's an ordinance. We think that Jesus is saying that we should humbly serve one another just as Jesus has humbly served us, especially on a Wednesday night after a long day of work. So then the next section is on baptism. The next chapter speaks specifically of baptism, so we'll jump to that. And I'll read the first paragraph and then we'll go through that. So baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ to be to the person baptized a sign of his fellowship with him in his death and resurrection, of his being engrafted into Christ, of remission or forgiveness of sins, and of his giving himself up to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life. Right, so baptism is a sign, and I think most of us probably would agree that baptism is a sign, but it's helpful to see exactly what it's a sign of. And so there are four things listed here, it seems, from the confession that baptism is intended to be a sign of. First of all, it's a sign of our fellowship in Christ's death and resurrection This is from Romans 6 verses 1 to 4, especially we won't look at it at this moment But basically it says we were buried with Christ in baptism and raised with him to walk in newness of life so baptism is a sign of us being buried with Christ united to him in his death so that we would die to the old man and Raised with him to walk in new life to be given new life resurrected life Secondly, baptism is a sign of being engrafted into Christ. I have engraftment here. I'm not sure that engraftment is a word, but it's a sign of our being engrafted into Christ. In other words, it's a sign of our union with Christ. Galatians chapter 3 is one of the more helpful, clear verses on this. When we are baptized, it's a picture of us clothing ourselves with Christ. Galatians 3 I put 17, I think, on the outline, didn't I? No, I did 27, that's right, yeah. Galatians 3.27 says, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Therefore, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. When we are baptized into Christ, it's a picture or a sign of the reality that we have so been united to Christ, we've been united to him in such a way that our fundamental identity is now in Christ, which we've considered in previous weeks. Paul says your fundamental identity, the thing that fundamentally characterizes you as an individual, is no longer your, whether you're male or female, it's no longer your occupation, your ethnicity, your social standing. Those things are no longer fundamentally what characterize you. What characterizes you is that you have been united to Christ and you have clothed yourself with him. And so baptism, the picture of being immersed into Christ, is a picture of being united to him, clothed with him. And then thirdly, it's a sign of our forgiveness of sins. We are washed in the waters of baptism, not because of the water, but because of what they represent. We are washed through faith, and baptism is a picture of the forgiveness of sins that we receive through faith in Christ. And then fourthly, baptism is a commitment to walk in newness of life. So when someone is baptized and they come up out of the waters, the picture is they're coming up out of the waters, having died to the old man, having been united to Christ, having been made a new person, they're coming out of the waters to now walk in newness of life, in devotion and obedience to the Lord Jesus. And so those are the four things that baptism represents. And if you think about it, it's taking us into the next letter B here, baptism is for believers. If you think about it, then naturally, if those are the four things that baptism represents, then it must be for believers. So, obviously the confession here is addressing the issue of infant baptism. This is one of the points where the London Baptist Confession is different than the Westminster Confession. The Westminster Confession is what the London Baptist Confession is based on, but this is one of the chapters that is especially different between the Presbyterian Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession. They are 90% in agreement. This is one of the areas where there is 10% disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians. Presbyterians would argue that baptism is for believers and for their children, based on the unity of the old covenant into the new covenant. Because they're essentially one covenant, the sign directly carries over into the New Covenant. Because circumcision was the Old Covenant sign, it directly carries over to baptism in the New Covenant. And because circumcision was administered to children of believers in the Old Covenant, it's administered now to children of believers through baptism in the New Covenant. That's the Presbyterian argument. Baptists would say, there is a unity between the covenants, but they're still distinct. The new covenant is not the same as the old covenant. I'm probably digging myself in deeper than I'm able to explain at this point. So we'll leave it at, for the Baptists, the new covenant is new, and it has a new sign, and it is for believers only. because there's not complete continuity between the Old Covenant and the New in our understanding of how the covenants relate to one another. By the way, our plan is to teach a covenant theology course at some point, so let all of that confusion be incentive for you to come and figure out what all of the differences are between the covenants. All right, so baptism is a sign of fellowship in Christ, it's a sign of being engrafted into Christ, it's a sign of forgiveness in Christ, and it's a sign of commitment to walk in newness of life with Christ, so therefore it is a sign for believers. It wouldn't make sense for someone who is not a believer to have a sign that symbolizes all of those things. Those are realities that are only true for the believer, and therefore baptism is only for the believer. And then, letter C there, baptism is in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. This is coming from paragraph three. So if you wanna read the paragraph with me here, chapter 29, paragraph three. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the person is to be baptized. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. What does it mean to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? I think that's one of the things, obviously it's one of the things we do regularly, frequently, we baptize individuals in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit. But what does that actually mean? If someone were to ask you, who had never been to a baptism before, and an individual's baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and after church they say, hey, what was all that about? What does it mean that that person was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit? How would you explain that? Well, to be baptized in the name of someone is, on the one hand, as we've just seen, a sign of fellowship with them, of being brought into identity with them. And included in that is being brought into submission under the name of the person that you're being baptized into. And so what's happening when we baptize someone in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we're saying this individual has entered into fellowship with the triune God and is now identified with Him as one who is submitted to His authority. And so our salvation is triune. We have been saved because the Father loved us in eternity and planned our redemption. And we've been saved because the Son loved us and entered into our humanity and died to accomplish our redemption. And we are saved because the Holy Spirit loves us and applies our redemption to us. And so our salvation depends on all three persons of the Trinity. And so when we're baptized, we're saying, we belong to this triune God who has saved us, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We owe all to Him, and we are now united to Him in every way imaginable. We belong to Him. We are identified with the triune God who has saved us. So, baptism is in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And then lastly, baptism is by immersion in water. And again, this is being addressed specifically with regard to the differences between infant baptism and believer's baptism. Infant baptism would be through sprinkling. or even maybe pouring, but believer's baptism is typically done by immersion. In other words, a full plunging underwater. And there's a number of reasons why we believe the scriptures teach that a person should be baptized by immersion. Primarily, the word baptize. It means to immerse, to plunge someone underneath of something. Apparently, I read this in one of the studies on the confession, apparently the word baptize would have been used of a ship that had sunk. So a ship sitting on the bottom of the sea, fully immersed underwater, was a baptized ship. And so, that just shows in early, well in the first century, at the time of the writing of the New Testament in the way that the Greek was understood to be baptized would carry with it the idea of being fully immersed in something. I think there's a reference on here. Yeah, Leviticus 4.6. I won't go there now, but in your own time you should read that verse and then look up a Baptist commentary on it because there are two words used there. One is dip. and the other is sprinkle. Dip is translated into the Greek as baptized. Sprinkle is translated with another word, which all of that to say, in the way that the Greek understands the word baptized, it consistently means to dip or to immerse or to submerge someone underwater, and very unusually would be used with regard to pouring or sprinkling with water. So the word itself would lead us to believe that someone should be immersed when they're baptized. The way the New Testament describes it, so Jesus in Matthew 3, he's baptized and then we read that he came up out of the water. So the picture is he was in the water and he came up out of the water, implying that he was immersed in water. The same is for the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip in chapter 8 of the book of Acts. After the eunuch was baptized, he came up out of the water with Philip. And so the picture doesn't seem to be a pouring or a sprinkling, it seems to be immersion consistently in the New Testament when someone is baptized. And the imagery of it, this is another reason why baptism seems to be by immersion, the imagery of it seems more consistent with what it's intended to reflect. So if baptism is a picture of our union with Christ and his death and resurrection, then baptism by immersion seems to be the best picture of that, being immersed into water, into death, being raised up out of the water, into new life. With all of that said, mode is not the most important thing when it comes to baptism. So, it's important, but it's not something that we should go to war over, and there may even be particular, very odd cases where certain exceptions could be made. I read from Jim Sevastio and Jim Ranahan, they had a helpful statement to make about it, and they said, We believe that it can be argued that this is the least matter of concern regarding baptism. Speaking of the mode, it's the least important. If we're going to discuss baptism, the mode is probably not the most important. It might even be the least important, they say. Who and why a person is baptized, coupled with the meaning of the ritual, is our primary concern. There are times when in the actual act of baptism, a portion of the body may not be fully submerged. A full immersion may not be possible in the case of an invalid or an elderly person. So the point being, we shouldn't get so wrapped up with mode that we put more emphasis on the physical mode than we do on the meaning and the person being baptized and why they're being baptized. So mode is important, but what's more important is why they're doing it and what it means. All right, well that's baptism. Now we'll move on to the Lord's Supper. This is a much longer chapter. And that's interesting because I think if we were to think today about what receives more debate, probably baptism receives more debate than the Lord's Supper in our own time. But at the writing of the confession, the Lord's Supper actually was at the center of a ton of the discussion and debate that was taking place in the 17th century and the 16th century and the 18th century. Actually, I just read a book last year I can't remember if I've mentioned this or not, but I read a book last year called Five English Reformers by J.C. Ryle. And it's a biography of five English reformers who were all burned at the stake, all five of them, in the 18th century. And for every single one of them, the reason they were burned at the stake is because they refused to waver on their doctrine of the Lord's Supper. They held so tightly to a biblical understanding of the Lord's Supper that they refused to give it up because, as we'll see, tied into our understanding of the Lord's Supper is the essence of the gospel. And so their understanding was, if I deny what I know to be true about the Lord's Supper and say something that's false about it, then I am denying the gospel. And so five of these men went to the stake, this is just five of them, there were many more who were burned, but five of them went to the stake and were martyred because of their convictions regarding the Lord's Supper. So it's a really important doctrine. And I think we take it for granted today that we're not persecuted as a result of the convictions we hold to it. That's not usual for the history of the church, and yet we enjoy a lot of freedom when it comes to being able to practice our convictions without fear of persecution. All right, so the Lord's Supper. I'll read the first paragraph and see how far we get. The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him on the same night in which he was betrayed. It is to be observed in his churches to the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance and showing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, for the confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits of Christ's death, for their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, for their further engagement in and to all the duties which they owe to him, and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him and with each other. So first of all, letter A on the outline there, where is the Lord's Supper to take place? The confession says it should take place in the church. The Lord's given this ordinance to the churches, meaning it's not a private ordinance. It's not something that the individual Christian or family should do in the context of their home or in some other setting. It has been specifically given to the church so that when churches come together, that's the context that we take the Lord's Supper together. And we see that pattern in the New Testament. A couple of references are listed there. First Corinthians 11 and Acts 20 both demonstrate that the Lord's Supper was something that was done when the church came together. It's a corporate ordinance. And why do we do it? Why do we take the Lord's Supper? There are five things mentioned here. Some of them we hear often when we take the Lord's Supper. First of all, we take the Lord's Supper because it is a remembrance and a proclamation. We are remembering Christ's death for us and we are proclaiming it until he returns. And so the Lord's Supper helps us remember and also helps us proclaim. It's also a confirmation of our faith. So every time we come to the Lord's Supper, it is a confirmation to our faith. What does that mean? What does it mean to you that in two weeks, in two Sundays from now, when we come together for the Lord's Supper and you eat the bread and you drink the cup, what does it mean that that's a confirmation to your faith? Well, I've already said it's a remembrance, but it's far more than remembrance. It's not just we're calling to mind something that Jesus did. As we eat and as we drink, we're actually having God himself by his spirit confirm to us that what is represented there is true for us as believers. And so the body that was given, the blood that was poured out, we're eating and we're drinking it and we're reminding ourselves, this is true for me. Everything represented here is applied to my soul. All the benefits of Christ's death are mine because of his grace toward me. And so it's a confirmation to our faith. It's also spiritual nourishment and growth, number three, which flows naturally out of that. So we are remembering but we're also remembering in a way that confirms it to our own soul, and when that truth is confirmed to our own soul, God nourishes us and feeds our soul so that we grow and that we mature and that we become more stable and steady in our faith because He is feeding us and nourishing us through what is represented in the Lord's Supper by His Spirit. And then flowing out of that is a renewed commitment to Christ. So not only is our soul nourished, I think the way that one person put it was something along the lines of a well-nourished Christian will obey the Lord. We are nourished, but we're nourished then to renew and refresh again our devotion to Christ. So every time we come, we're remembering he's given himself for me. And in response to that, we're renewing our commitment to him, to live for him. And then lastly, it's a pledge of communion with him and with one another. 1 Corinthians 10 verse 16, I'll read that. First Corinthians 10 verse 16 is one of the verses that clearly shows that the Lord's Supper is both about sharing in fellowship with Christ and also sharing in fellowship with one another. It says, is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake one bread. And so when we come together, it is a pledge of your communion with the Lord. So think for a second. When God made a covenant with Noah in Genesis, what did he give to Noah as a sign of that covenant? The rainbow, right? And so every time Noah saw the rainbow, what was its significance? It was reminding him and reassuring him of the covenant that God had made with him. It was a pledge of God's covenant. God was telling Noah over and over and over again, I have not forgotten my promise to you. I am still in this covenant with you. And so every time we come together, the Lord's Supper functions the same way when we take it together. The Lord is saying, I have not changed my promises. I am still in covenant with you, you are still in covenant with me. Here is the pledge of the covenant that we share through Christ. And so God himself, it's not our pledge to him, it's God's pledge to us. The Lord's Supper is God's gift to us as a pledge of his faithfulness to his people. And it assures us of his communion with us and our bond with one another. All right, so that's why we do it. Now the question is, what is the Lord's Supper? First of all, what is it not? What is the Lord's Supper not? What are some errors related to the Lord's Supper? And this is where the debate was in the 17th century and afterwards, 16th century as well. What is the Lord's Supper? And what is it not? The main discussion on this matter of what the Lord's Supper is and isn't has to do with the issue of transubstantiation. So who has heard the word transubstantiation before? Most? Who would like to define transubstantiation? Anybody? Yeah, yeah, so the bread and the cup actually become the blood and the body of Christ. When does that happen? What's that? When he goes, maybe, yeah, so maybe that might be some, and those who have a Roman Catholic background probably can correct me in this. Do you? In a lantern thingy? That's news to me as well. That's my understanding, is that it becomes the blood and the body of Christ when the priest consecrates it. And maybe in some traditions when it's consumed. But at least when the priest consecrates it, that I think is the formal tradition, could be wrong though, that's when it's understood to become the body and the blood of Jesus. Where does that come from? Anybody know where that doctrine comes from? On the night before his crucifixion at the Lord's Supper, what did Jesus say about the bread? This is my body. What did he say about the wine? This is my blood. Direct one for one parallel. This is my body. This bread is my body. This wine, it is my blood. Literally is the way that it's taken to mean in the Roman Catholic tradition. So basically, that's the idea, is that the bread and the wine literally become the body and the blood of Christ. In response to that, we could say, I've heard Anthony reference this in his conversations in the past with those that he's attempting to minister to from a Roman Catholic tradition, and I read it in a number of places as well in preparation for this, Jesus also says, I am the door. But we don't take him to literally mean he is a door. Or Jesus says, I am the vine. we don't take him to mean literally I am a vine. What we take him to mean is what we should take him to mean in Luke 22 and in other places in the Gospels, that he is represented in those things. Those things are figuratively true in as much as they reflect something about himself. And so The tradition in the Roman Catholic Church is largely based on Jesus' words, this is my bread, sorry, this is my body, this is my blood. There's no reason to take Jesus completely literally there. And in fact, it confuses the humanity of Christ. Where is the body of Jesus right now? the right hand of the Father in heaven. He ascended bodily and he is going to remain there bodily until his return. It confuses, it contradicts the true humanity of Jesus to say that he is somehow present at the same time in all of these different sacraments. physically in his body that denies the humanity of Jesus. Jesus is a true man. He has taken on true humanity. He's fully God, but he is still fully man and truly man, and his human body is at the right hand of the Father until he returns. So there's no way for him to be in the sacraments. What do you think is at stake in all of that? So I mentioned that men died and women died for this doctrine in the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries. Why would someone be willing to die over their refusal to say that the body of Jesus is literally present in the bread, or that the blood of Jesus is literally present in the wine? What do you think is at stake in that? Yeah, and that's the next point on the outline there is basically what would end up happening is they're saying, okay, this bread is literally the body of Christ. So when that bread is broken, what's happening is Christ is literally being sacrificed again and offered up to the Father as a means of appeasement. It is another propitiation being made which secures for us again our forgiveness and our salvation. That's why the Reformers were willing to die for the doctrine, because they said, as Scripture does very clearly, Jesus has offered himself up one time for all. There was one sacrifice required. Jesus made that sacrifice, and it is sufficient for the forgiveness of every single sin, for every person who will call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And so they were unwilling to waver on that, and unwilling to leave any room for this idea of a repeated sacrifice that needed to be made at the Mass. And they said, no, the bread and the wine are memorials. They represent his body, they represent his blood. In fact, they're not a gift at all from us to God. So in Mass, the idea is that we're offering up to God another sacrifice in a sense, through the breaking of the body of Christ. But the Reformers said, actually, no, God is offering something to us in the Lord's Supper. We're not sacrificing something to God. He's giving something to us. He's nourishing us. He is feeding us through what is pictured and by His Spirit who's present in the taking of the Lord's Supper. I think that essentially sums up the paragraphs of the confession. I don't think we need to read it. But the idea is, the fundamental disagreement is over what do the elements represent, or what are they? They're not changed in substance at all, at any point. There's nothing special about the physical properties of the bread and the cup when we take the Lord's Supper. They are significant because of what they represent, which is the body and the blood of Christ. He is spiritually present in them because they are declaring something that is true about him, but he is not physically present in them. All right, well, let's jump to the last letter there, which I think is straightforward. We are reminded of this every time we take the Lord's Supper. Who is it for? It is for believers and only for believers. So, probably, I would, maybe saying that it gets old is not the right way to say it, but it's become familiar at least. When we take the Lord's Supper, for whoever it is that's administering the Lord's Supper, to say, this is only for believers. This bread and this cup, they represent our union with Christ, our fellowship with Him, and so if you are not a Christian, then the bread and the cup, what's represented here in the Lord's Supper, it's not for you. And we say that every time that we take the Lord's Supper, and we will say it every time we take the Lord's Supper, because it is required by Scripture. 1 Corinthians 11 makes very clear that if an unbeliever or even a Christian who is living in blatant rebellion to the Lord, if they come and they take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, they're drinking judgment on themselves and eating judgment on themselves. And so it is loving for whoever's administering the Lord's Supper to say, if you are living in rebellion to Christ and you've not submitted your life to Him or not walking with Him in faith, then don't come to the Lord's Supper. because it's not for you. That's called fencing the table. We fence it. We set a barrier around it so that only those who are believers come and take the Lord's Supper. But with that said, it's easy for us as believers to have sensitive consciences and to wrongly abstain from taking the Lord's Supper because we are worried that we might not be worthy to take it. And I found this quote from Sam Waldron helpful, and I'll finish with this. this evening, just reminding us that the Lord's Supper is for every believer. That's not to say that we should come carelessly. That's the very thing that Paul is warning us against. But for every believer who considers what's represented here and is trusting in Christ and comes to take and eat and drink, we're supposed to come and find strength and encouragement by what's represented in the Lord's Supper. It's not supposed to push us away. It's supposed to draw us into Christ. There is a way to come unworthily, and that's to come carelessly or flippantly, or to come knowing that we're holding on to stubborn rebellion and refusing to submit to Christ. That would be unworthy. But this is what Sam Waldron says. Worthiness is not a matter of passing a morbid, super strict examination of our lives the previous month. It is a matter of a serious believing understanding of what we are about to do. It's a matter of seeing the Lord's table for what it is and taking it as a repentant believer, sorry, as a repentant and believing sinner. Paul nowhere encourages us to stay away from the table, speaking of 1 Corinthians 11. He everywhere encourages us to come in a right way. Staying away only says, I refuse to repent of my profane approach to the Lord's supper. Which, that last line I found helpful. So when we are sitting in our chairs on Sunday morning and we think, I'm not worthy to take the Lord's Supper. I'm a Christian, I know I'm walking with Christ, but I'm not worthy to take the Lord's Supper. I don't deserve it. I've sinned a lot this week. I even sinned this morning. I don't deserve to take the Lord's Supper. Sam Waldron says that when we do that, what we're saying is I refuse to repent of my profane approach to the Lord's Table. All we're saying is I'm not willing to come the way that the Lord tells me to come, which is as a sinner who has no claim on the grace of God based on anything of my own merits. I come as a sinner needing the bread and needing the cup because they represent the only hope that I have of forgiveness, which is the death of Christ for me. And so we don't look on the table and think, I'm unworthy, I can't come. We look on the table and think, that is the very thing I need as a sinner. I need the bread, I need the cup, inasmuch as they represent the body and the blood of my Savior who has died for me. All right, well, we'll end with that this evening and thinking about baptism in the Lord's Supper. I had to skip a number of the paragraphs on chapter 30. I didn't read them, but hopefully as you go back through, you'll find that we covered a lot of the material, and if you happen to have questions on any of the content that's in those paragraphs, I'd be glad to talk through that and try to work through what some of those odd statements are that are made in a number of those paragraphs. Let's pray to finish this evening. Our Father, we thank you for the gift of Christ to us. We thank you that you did not spare your own son, but you delivered him over for us all. And we thank you that by your grace you've united us to him. And we thank you for the gift of the ordinances that reflect again and again what it is to be united to Christ. We thank you that we've been baptized into him, united to him in his death and in his resurrection. We thank you that as those who are in him, we can never be severed from him. And God, we thank you for the hope and the new life that we have as those who have been raised up together with Christ. We also thank you for your gift to us in the Lord's Supper. And we pray that you would help us as a body of believers each time we come and eat the bread and drink the cup together, help us to do so in a worthy manner, remembering what it represents and remembering that we are sinners in need of forgiveness. And we pray that You would use the Lord's Supper month after month in our own souls to nourish us and feed us and strengthen us and to build our union and our sense of unity with one another. We thank you for Christ. We pray that you would continue to increase our love for Him for all that He's done for us. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.