All right, I've got two more here in case somebody else comes in. I'm just going to quickly recap chapter 28 of last week. That was going over a baptism in the Lord's Supper. And again, that's different than the Westminster and the Savoy, where they have more paragraphs and they call them the sacraments. The Baptists compressed what they had, and obviously because the different understanding of covenant theology, who is in the covenant, and who receives these ordinances or sacraments, whichever you want to call them. Of course, I say the sacraments Having that mysticism is probably why the Baptist changes the ordinance, but I'm fine with calling them a sacrament, as long as you're not thinking it's a supernatural kind of mystical understanding of that. We looked at baptism, Lord's Supper, being appointed by our Lord, and to be continued in His Church to the end of the age, and only two ordinances instituted. I did bring up the third ordinance, Baptists. They're not the only ones, but especially since we're looking at the history of the Baptists, That there are some that include the feet washing, but the precedence for that is very lacking. I looked at who may administer, and again, the Savoy and the Westminster are clear that they believe it's ordained ministers only. And then, of course, the first London Confession was anybody who's a believer, so I believe that the authors of the second London Confession kind of had a middle ground there, that it's not only for those ordained, but they do understand that there has to be some kind of accountability, so that the church is given this commission, and it's not only ordained ministers that can do it, but not just anybody going out there having a baptism party as it was. I gave reasons for limiting the baptism and the Lord's Supper. Those are my takes, but there's some historical precedence for it. And now we're going to look a little bit more closely at these two ordinances or sacraments. The first being baptism. And we are going to go over some of Keech's catechisms. So here's a picture of Keech in the stocks. Again, Baptists were persecuted. They couldn't find grounds for him being found guilty of heresy. But they wanted to shut him up so they put him in stocks. And all that did was gave him nothing to do but preach. So that's what he did, you know, especially from the audiences there hearing why he's in there and getting to find out more about his catechism that was blocked. Now, the catechism he was arrested for here is not what we're calling the Baptist catechism, which is commonly called Keech's. He wrote a different one, and they burned that one, too, and put him in the stocks. But his name is tied with what we have as the Baptist catechism. I say that's more than likely because his church continued printing that and putting it in the hands of the believers. So going over some of these catechism questions, this again from Keech's, 96, what is baptism? Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ to be unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with him, and his death and burial, and resurrection of his being engrafted into him, a remission of sins, and of his giving up himself unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life. I think that's a great definition. It does follow the Westminster Shorter. Of course, we're going to see where they do vary, because the Baptists are going to be a little bit more particular in who receives this. which is part of what Keech's problem with the authorities was. That brings us to question 97. To whom is baptism to be administered? Answer. Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ and to none other. And here's, I love Reftoons, this is his version of what happened with Keech, and of course they're asking him, you know, to who should baptism be administered? And he starts to answer before the magistrates threaten to gag him, so. I love Reftoons anyways. And then question 98. Now that I say they're getting a little bit more particular here. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized? The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures or certain consequence from them to baptize such. And then how is baptism rightly administered? Baptism is rightly administered by immersion or dipping the whole body of the person in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit according to Christ's institution and the practice of the Apostles and not by sprinkling or pouring of water or dipping some parts of the body after the tradition of men. So they're being very specific in what they are against in baptism here. And then, I like this because this is important, and we do a bad job, I say we, just collectively, especially American evangelicals, a bad job of this, you said a prayer, we got you baptized, done. This question is very important here. What is the duty of such as are rightly baptized? It is the duty of those who are rightly baptized to give up themselves to some particular and orderly church of Jesus Christ, that they may walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Join a church, get in fellowship with the body, and say, we failed because, just, yes, we got, we talked about that before, get in numbers, I got a thousand people baptized last year. How many of them are your disciples? How many of them are walking blameless in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord? I got the numbers, that's all I care about. This was not their understanding in the 17th century. I wanted to go through this because Hercules Collins is fantastic in his defense of the Believer's Baptism model, the Credo Baptism. That's question 68 to 78 in his Orthodox Catechism. Again, that's the Heidelberg that he modified and revised to actually match up with what we believe. I say we because I agree with him. Baptists' understanding of scripture on a lot of points. But 68 to 78, he explains baptism further and refutes a lot of their points and their arguments. You even saw that in Keats's about the necessary consequences, because that's what you hear. Well, it's good and necessary consequences. Baptists don't see that. And there's, again, Gottlieb will argue this much better than I can. And Collins is definitely, those 10 questions, fantastic. So, this is from Jim now, covenantal implication of the one being baptized as the primary purpose, while the public show and inclusion is a mere positive outflowing. Alright, so yes, and we're going to see that in the questions, there are baptisms, it's a public profession of faith, and this is the sign of that, we're seeing that visually, but the Baptism is not about showing to everybody else what it is. We just add that in as a positive. You made a statement of faith. Now you're following Christ and believers baptism. But it's more this covenant. You are showing outwardly what has happened to you inwardly. And we're going to get into that with these paragraphs here from the Baptist. This is, again, my understanding of it. And not that it has the same covenant implications that Presbyterians and others believe. But you are born again. You are in a covenant. This is a outward showing of that, as we'll get into. So we're going to look at, yes, covenants, it's a covenant symbol, outward action representing inward action. Then we're going to look at the proper recipients and then the mode elements is how the Baptists have this broken down. And I will refer you to the back pages where I have the tabular comparison again. I don't have it entirely because there's a lot of overlap where they do agree on things and it's minor words, like sacrament to ordinance. I'm not going to highlight that and bring it to our attention. But there are some areas where it's very different between the Westminster, and even between the Westminster and the Savoy, and then of course the Second London Baptist Confession. But paragraph one reads, baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ. To those baptized, it is a sign of their fellowship with him in his death and resurrection, of their being grafted into him, of remission of sins, and of submitting themselves to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in the newness of life. So it's ordained by Christ as a sign of fellowship and unity in His death and resurrection, grafted into Christ, and this is important because I'm going to take us to the comparison here in a second after we look at some scriptures. but that grafted into Christ, showing inconsistencies in the Westminster and Savoy. It's also a sign of our remission of sins, and I do like this quote there, from the moral purification of the heart. It's basically that submission to walk in God worthily. Submission to God to walk worthily of His commands, of His calling, of His name. So if you don't mind looking at that tablature comparison real quick though. That'll be on page 5 of your handout. The first paragraph, let's say the bolded part is where it's different. So they overlap. They have a lot of similar wording minus, like I say, sacrament versus ordinance. The part I want to highlight there is, and we'll look at Westminster first, the bolded part says, of his engrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life. Okay, this definition is the same in all three of them. That's saying that the one being baptized, it's a sign unto their engrafting into Christ, their remission of sins, the giving up to God. So this looks like a believer. All right, all three share that same wording, that this is what the person who's being baptized, this is what it is to them. So, it doesn't make sense for, and you can read the differences there, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into a visible church, but also to be a signed seal of the covenant of grace. And both the Westminster and the Savoy have that. We will see the Savoy veers a little bit because, whereas the Presbyterians believe that children of believers also receive this baptism, this sign, and they are now in that covenant community, they are now a part of that church, the visible church. The Savoy, the Congregationalists, say, no, we agree with baptizing them to be under this covenant, but they're not a part of the church until they make a proficient of faith. The Baptist is like, well, we're just going to hold off until they make that profession of faith, and they can make that outward profession, that outward visible symbol of baptism, and then they can also be a church member. So to me, it's more consistent with the Baptist understanding. The least consistent is actually the Savoy, the Congregationalist, because they're kind of straddling the fence there. We're going to baptize the children because they're part of the covenant, but they're not enough a part of the covenant to be part of the church. At least Presbyterians are consistent in that understanding. So, some scripture references for that first paragraph, Romans 6, 3-5. Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried, therefore, with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. This is clearly showing, to me, the spirit of who are baptized, those who are united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. That, to me, sounds like a believer. And the Baptists agree with this. And of course, the Presbyterians would agree. But also, and we'll get into some more of that in this next paragraph, here's some more scripture supporting paragraph one. Paragraph 2, those who personally profess repentance toward God and faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. Okay, so again they're going to veer off from the other confessions there. The only proper subjects of baptism are believers, professing repentance to God and faith and obedience in Christ Jesus. And I've got on my notes here the errors of our brethren and the Savoy. They've got an inconsistent view of the covenant of grace, an incorrect use of proof text, and Again, the Presbyterians are at least the most consistent. They basically flatten the Old and the New Covenants. So they say it's the different administrations of the same substance. So they have a visible and invisible. Not all of Israel was true Israel. Not all who profess to be Christians in the church are true believers. That's at least consistent in their understanding. They still have to do some hurdle jumping to get that through scripture in some of the comparisons, which we'll get into in a minute. My favorite defense, though, is Hercules Collins in the Regulative Principle of Worship. And as we saw in Keeches, though, it is nowhere commanded in Scripture, which the Regulative Principle of Worship is, does God command it? They would argue it's nowhere forbidden, but then they also use it's good and necessary consequences, because if... The children of Israel in the Old Testament was given this sign. It makes sense that the children in the New Testament get this sign. Again, that's where they're consistent. I still disagree with them, but that's where they're consistent, as opposed to the Congregationalist. And again, I hate having to flip back there, but I couldn't think of a better way if you go to page six in your handout. I'm just to show some more difference in the comparison chapter 2 it's where they have by minister of the gospel so. Baptist have 3 we kind of arrange a little bit different so where you see 2 in the Westminster Savoy that's going to be the one we're in a second 3 but you drop down to their paragraph 4. in the Westminster and Savoy, that's where the Baptists are coming up with their second paragraph for this chapter. So in paragraph four of the Savoy, they agree that professing believers are the subjects of this, but then they both have, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized. Okay, we went over this in the Covenants a little bit, but they'll even use 1 Corinthians. That's why I said they're having to use some spiritual gymnastics and using incorrect proof text. Like the one in Corinthians they like to use is, your children are holy. As long as one of the parents is a believer, then the children are holy. So they use that, and that's where they get that for their confession. But then they're missing the part before that, where if an unbeliever is married to a believer, that unbeliever is also made holy. So by their logic and consistency, they should also be baptizing and including that unbelieving spouse into this covenant, which they do not do. So there's some inconsistencies there. The Baptist answer to that is, did you profess faith, repentance unto Christ? no, then it doesn't matter what your parents are. It doesn't matter if your parents are the most godly people we know. This is on you. This is individual repentance, individual calling. So again, I can go into more on the baptist differences with them, but I would say that they're inconsistent view of the covenant of grace and the text that they use. So the baptist text Mark 16 16. Yep. Whoever believes in his baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. This is one of the scriptures I use, Acts 8, 12. Now, both denominations will use this scripture here. Because this is showing that they believed. They believed what they heard. They believed the gospel. So this is a believer, and then they are baptized. Acts 18, 8. Now we're starting to get into where this household idea comes in. Whatever you want to say the household included, it says believed in the Lord together with his entire household. His entire household what? Believed in the Lord. So even if you are going to say everybody in the household, What did they do? Believed in the Lord. So I love that the Baptists are using the same scripture support that the Presbyterians are using without having to do some hurdle jumping. And here's some other scriptures. A lot of them are in Acts. I say that Corinthians 1 is the hardest one. They want to, you know, well, no, this is what it means. Then why are you not consistent with the spouse then, the unbelieving spouse? It says they are also made holy. So you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding what Paul's intent is there. And again, I love my Presbyterian brothers. I just disagree with them very much on this and no amount of what they're telling me it means is going to, the Spirit's telling me different, so. All right, paragraph three. Now we're gonna get to some duh stuff here. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the individual is to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. All right. elements mean something so it's you know you're not baptizing them in anything but water because that's the example we have it seems like a the moment but they're trying to be specific to make sure you're following the right mode because they're also going to go into how that looks in a second all right and our example on this is Matthew 28 19 to 20 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, amen. Acts 8.38. That's me. And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. So again, these are just examples that we're seeing the water being the element used, and the Trinitarian name. And the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit. And again, we can get into a whole discussion on that too, but... Okay, sorry. I'm getting that indexed, so all the text messages are going off now. Now we get into another, that part is there's no difference in the Westminster and the Baptist understanding here. Other than at that point they say it can only be administered by an ordained minister of the word. All right, so that's where the Baptists disagree on it. Paragraph four, immersion or dipping of the person in water is necessary for this ordinance to be administered properly. All right, we'll look at some examples here and get into a conversation on that. Matthew 3.16. When Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him. That's what we're talking about. Coming up from the water. So this idea of it's more than just a getting poured over. Now, of course, the argument on the other side would say, well, coming up and I walked down to a beach before and you have to walk down to the water. So their understanding is walking up from that area, not necessarily that he was in the water. I disagree, but OK. John 3 23. John was also baptized in Eon near Salem because the water was painful there and people were coming But now we're seeing that water was plentiful there. You could probably use a five-gallon bucket to baptize quite a few people if you're just doing a quick sprinkle. My notes on section four here, immersion or dipping, and this is what the Baptists say, is necessary for proper administration. They are not completely saying that other modes and means are wrong, but they're definitely saying that for the proper administration of this, this is the model. It doesn't reject other models, but it does not suppose a superstitious fascination on how much water is used. Oh, his elbow was kind of out because he's afraid of the water, so you've got to re-baptize him. It's got to be 100% or it doesn't count. It's kind of going against the idea expressed here in our unity with Christ. And that is visible, though. Yes, I get the tune, but you're being... completely overwhelmed by this tomb. It is a complete surrounding. So to me, immersion, complete dipping, whatever you want to call it there, is closer to this example than this pouring. They will use, others that don't agree with us, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. But the word there, again, it's overwhelmed. So if something's going to overwhelm you, it's not just a little on the head. It's an overwhelming. It's poured, but it's an overwhelming. So this idea is still completely overwhelmed and surrounded. So I have no problem with the Baptist understanding of this. And it correctly expresses the grace of God given to us, cleansed of our sins, baptized into Christ, and overwhelmed. That's a figurative use of different baptism. I remember it's baptisma, baptismas, something, but this overwhelmed idea. Yes, you're not being overwhelmed with just a little sprinkling on the head. So to me, the best visual symbol of what happened inward is this immersion or dipping. Sorry, that was some good coffee. So any questions or comments adding to the Baptist understanding of that chapter there, brother? Just out of curiosity, what would happen if you have somebody who comes to faith in Christ, but because of physical limitations, they're unable to be baptized? So there are examples of where it's. Yes, we even see in scripture, here's water, what's preventing me now? OK, that's an example of it's taking place now. So one, that's showing that it didn't have to take place in the church, but it was a church. Somebody called to that position that administered the baptism. But yes, also that, I know that there's men who are deployed in the desert where, yes, water is a little bit more scarce. I do like seeing where they get the big front loader and put water in it and stuff. But yes, what about this physical inability? And that's why, again, if you go back to the comparison there, In paragraph 5 of the Westminster and the Savoy, although it be a great sin to neglect this ordinance, so in their understanding it's a sin to neglect this ordinance. Baptists would argue that that's not necessarily true because of reasons like that. In that case, I think you have to look at the intent, the desire of the individual to desire to be baptized, but the physical ability to be baptized. There's two different things. One, it's not an act of disobedience. It's an act of God-given limitation. So at that point, I would be okay with just sprinting around going, whatever, because it's the intent of the heart, and I think When we make the ordinance greater than the actual conversion, then we might have a problem. Yes. That's exactly right. Which, and to be fair, if we were to look at the Westminster and Savoy, they are very clear that they do not believe that the baptism is necessary for the conversion. They don't believe that. Some may, but they do not believe that. However, they're still inconsistent. And yes, that's why the baptism they're awarding here, it's necessary for this ordinance to be administered properly. They're not going to include that it's sinful if you don't. It's wrong. We're rejecting this. They are a lot more open, not in a very liberal anything goes sense, but they are sympathetic to situations like that. Right, you're not being condemned for not being like, because my question would be, oh, if you're saved and then you profess Christ, you come to faith in Christ and then you drive home. You don't get baptized right there, you drive home, get a car accident and die. You're not. I mean, by all means, get baptized as soon as possible. If you're able to, yes. But for me, I confessed to faith and it took about a year and a half or something like that just for me to get everything the way I wanted it. Just like a church and my ability and my dad to come out and all this. It was a whole thing. It wasn't being necessarily disobedient, but maybe it was sort of being disobedient for not doing this faster. You know, like, all that being said, it's just like, if you die, and you get saved, and then you die right away, that's not going to mean you're not. But even in the early church, we have the catacombs. They would go through a year where they would catechize them before they baptized them. So, I mean, I think conversion is the big thing. I think you have to keep on the cross. I think the issue is, if you're in a denomination that prepares you for that, your intent is still moving forward with that. Because there is a, well, I won't name any names, but there is a place here locally where they're like, come on in, 24-7 vets, I can drive you sap. 24-7, we're going to get baptized, and you're like, To what end? Might be some copyright infringement going on here. But like I said, there is some early church writing where they are a little bit more clear on this. Like, yes, there was not a ability for these means to be done, so there was pouring of water. Or, yeah, not able to make it, but that's not tied to your salvation at all. Yeah, I love the thief on the cross, because my Catholic cousin, that was a scripture that really threw him for a loop there. Like, wait a minute, but Jesus said he's going to be in paradise. Wait a minute, but I was taught, wait a minute, do I believe Nana or do I believe Jesus? Well, Nana can beat me right now, but. So, but that's where that is. There is some good conversation we had, though. I love talking. We rib each other, me and my Presbyterian friends local here. But we are both trying to be faithful to God's word, and we both think that the other person is wrong. All right, now we're gonna get into the Lord's Supper. I promise I won't repeat a lot of these catechism questions. I had my fun for the day. John and I have talked about this, whereas the circumcision was a sign of that covenant in the Old Testament, and the Presbyterians believe that the baptism is a sign and seal of that covenant in the New Covenant, we believe that it's more the Lord's Supper. You get baptized once, and I would agree with the Presbyterians, you only need to be baptized once, as long as it's done properly, after profession. The Lord's Supper is continual, and we do have that practice, and it is something that's commanded continually. This is now a visible symbol, and it's a symbol to the believers, the body, and it's a mode of encouragement, but everybody's familiar with the Lord's Supper or communion. I know lots of unbelievers that, especially in the military, you see it's going on like, ah, they're doing the Eucharist, they're doing communion. But that's not the sign for them. That's our sign of this covenant. All right, nobody went around in the Old Testament showing their sign of the covenant. That's not how that works. But this is our sign, and it's continual. I'm still a little bit tired, so I'm trying to be careful in filtering. All right, again, let's go back to Keach's catechism now. Question 101. What is the Lord's Supper? The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine according to his appointment his death is showed forth and the worthy receivers are not after a corporal and carnal manner but by faith made partakers of his body and blood with all his benefits to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. That's a lot, I love this question, Owen. If we wanted to dive into that, we could, but we will when we get into the actual confessions paragraphs. All right, a lot of corporal and carnal. Again, not saying that it's aphysical, and we'll see why, because they had to refute a lot of practices. They're actually still going on today. Question 102, who are the proper subjects of this ordinance? Godly persons who have been baptized upon a personal profession of their faith in Jesus Christ and repentance from dead works. Again, this is where the Savoy Declaration, the Congregationalists, they baptize, but until the children made a profession of faith, there is no communion, there is no joining the church. So again, it's inconsistent. And again, even the Presbyterians though, they are not going to have communion for the infants until they make a profession of faith. So there's still that idea and inconsistency. 103, what is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper? It is required of them that would worthily, that would suitably partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, of their faith to feed upon Him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience, lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves." And this is where we say examine yourself. Do you have sin? Are you living a life that is not bringing shame to God? Are you living worthily of being called His people? If not, you need to make this right. So we do that. Confess your sin. You've got problems with brothers. Confess that. Make that right. So that you're not drinking this unworthily. We do say that. Lord's Supper is coming up. Prepare yourself. Start looking at yourselves. This is your time to reflect and make sure that you are partaking worthily. Paragraph 1. The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night He was betrayed. It is to be observed in His churches to the end of the age as a perpetual remembrance and display of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. It is given for the confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits of Christ's death, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, and their further engagement in and to all the duties they owe Him. The supper is to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Christ and each other. This is, to me, this is a beautiful explanation of what the Lord's Supper is here. We do get that it was instituted by Christ the night he was betrayed. It's also called the Last Supper. Some call it that. A lot of the paintings and stuff we have. But to be observed by his church is to the end of the age. We have that example in the letters, especially Paul's. It's a display of perpetual remembrance. He was constantly remembering. It's a display of his sacrifice and his death, given to us as confirmation of faith. That is, if you're partaking or examining yourself, like, but I don't believe this, well, then you don't have confirmation of faith. So one, it's you are remembering and This is what I believe happened for me. This is what Christ did for me. So you're having that confirmation of faith. The spiritual nourishment and growth. If you're reflecting on your life, how you're walking, that is spiritual growth. That is sanctification. Am I living properly in God's ways? So as you're reflecting on that before you partake, you are being spiritually grown. All right, if you're not, if you're being, okay, even if you're being chastised, no, I have some sin in my life I need to take care of. That is still, as we saw before, that's sanctification. So you are still being grown. Even if you are not able to partake this time, God is working how he works in you to sanctify you, to conform you to the image of Christ. And that's the process there where we see spiritual growth. So even in examining yourself, we have this idea of we are nourished, being nourished by this supper. And when we do partake, you, yes, I am, I'm not perfect. you know, saint, I have my areas, but I am working my hardest and being faithful to God. This is spiritual growth. And so all these benefits, don't I? The supper is to be a bond and a pledge to the communion with Christ. We are, remember you said that, I'm not going to eat again until I eat with you in paradise. And we're looking forward to that glorious, the wedding feast. All right. But then it's also our communion with each other. And that's why it's very important. You see that over and over again. They believe in a fellowship of a local body, that we are in each other's lives, that we are in communion with each other. Two chapters ago, the communion of the saints, all right? Locally and globally, and what that looks like. That's 1 Corinthians 11, 23 to 26. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the ninth day was betrayed to three, Do this in remembrance of me." And in the same way, also he took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. This is our example here of this perpetual remembrance, this constant need. Again, the frequency of it, that's different for every local body and how they choose. I really don't like the annual Lord's Supper because that, to me, that's You know, I don't know. I don't like that. They have good reasons for it. I like how we do it here. Again, I would be okay with more frequent, but I also understand logistics and other things, so I'm completely fine with those who can't. I don't like the, you know, yes, it's my duty now once a year to go either Christmas or Easter and get my Lord's Supper, you know, call myself a Christian. You're not doing this in remembrance of Him to feed, to be spiritually nourished. All right? It's not some mystical thing. We're going to get into that in the next chapter there, or next paragraph. It's not some mystical thing where we're getting this, you know, I love my sci-fi and my Star Wars. It's not the force, your midichlorian counts going up. It's nothing like that. It's this sanctification process is what they are looking at here. And here's some other scriptures. You're going to see Corinthians a lot, so there will be some paragraphs where we don't have scriptures because it's just reiterating what was just read or some of the ones we're going to read here. Paragraph two, in this ordinance, Christ is not offered up to his father, nor is any real sacrifice made at all for a mission of sin of the living or the dead. It is only a memorial of the one offering, of the one offering Christ made of himself on the cross once for all. It is also a spiritual offering of the highest possible praise to God for that sacrifice. Thus, the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass, as they call it, is utterly detestable and detracts from Christ's own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect. You see, they have a hard target here because this practice is still going on today. And it's not just, again, they specifically call out the Roman Catholics here, but it's denying a practice of others. Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans have this practice where it's a sacrifice against sacrificing. This is where I come up with that, yes, the Catholics keep Christ on the cross, we gotta keep sacrificing him. No, it's a once for all sacrifice, that one sacrifice. Hebrews brings that out, and we're gonna see some scriptures here in a second in Hebrews. Memorial of the one offering, spiritual offering, I do like this part, it says spiritual offering of the highest praise, thanking God for this sacrifice. All right, and again, it condemns the RCC practices, specifically, and it's still relevant today. Hebrews 9, 25 to 26. it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by sacrificing himself. And then a couple of paragraphs later, so Christ, Hebrews 9.28, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. So what do you do with that verse? That one that Pastor John just read about, what do you do with those Catholics? Because the church identifies and tells you what scripture means. So the church's tradition practices supersede scripture. Because it literally just says that once for all, you know, like he didn't repeatedly die. It literally says that in Hebrew. Remember, they consider the Pope to be Christ's vicar here on earth. And so he's getting the special revelation. He can change what scripture means. He can modify the translation. So they have papers and papers and papers like, yes, that's what that says. But here's the church stance on it. Here's what really is taking place and supersedes scripture. So they're not having to deal with that scripture at all. They're saying, go to the church authorities. OK, here's the final answer. Scripture is not final authority. They were very much against Sola Scriptura. Scripture is not the final authority. The church and tradition is. So that's how they deal with scriptures. Yeah, they would affirm, they would affirm the scriptures, but just like Jim said, they would say that the Pope is the vicar of God here on earth. So when he speaks, he speaks what they call esta eda, which means he speaks from the throne, and he can supersede and you get papal walls that kind of go back and forth and kind of, so, that was the big issue with this recent pope changing the Lord's prayer. Why can he do that? Well, because he has a plesiastical authority, that's how they do that. And so, yeah, so when you speak with Catholics, it's an interesting, because I do believe there are Catholics that are evangelicals. Absolutely. and the whole material principle, I think, of the Reformation that saw us conclude. And of course, just to caveat on that, sola scriptura is not the same as solo. So yes, scripture is the final authority, but sometimes that's why we look at the early church writings, how did they tackle these issues and what was the practice that we see? So we're not only relying on scripture, but that is the final authority, as opposed to Catholics where the Pope, the church is the final authority. And here's some other scriptures supporting that. You sound so flogging. I guess if you don't believe that you're a senator. When they change the thing, I guess they believe that they're sinner. Because if you don't have a wholly perfect mind, then how am I going to say that I'm better than Scripture? There's a whole lot of problems there. When you start looking at church history and the history of the Popes, you see there's a There's a whole lot of problems in that, but I think that's why it's incumbent for us to be like the Marines, to search and to be informed by the wards, to be corrected by the ward. I've only seen that truly happen sincerely once really with like a 12 year old who didn't want to be baptized because you know she was a believer but she said I just don't see why I need to do it and so we started walking through scripture and I showed her, okay, what do you have to say? She goes, I got nothing. I'm out. She came to the place where the word of God really, when confronted with it, she changed. Her opinion lined up with God's opinion. The church is not, to the Catholic church. If you haven't noticed yet, especially in the earlier chapters, though, there was a lot against not just the Roman Catholic, because like I said, the Anglican, the English Church was also following practices, but like on the preservation of the saints and assurance of salvation. If you haven't, if you weren't here for those or haven't seen those or need the handouts again, the Catholics had a different understanding. You can't be sure, only we can tell you who's holy. Well, that's kind of self-fulfilling if you're the only one who can tell me who's holy or not. And of course, you're saying that you're holy, That, yes, if I'm the one who's in charge of everything, I'm the one who can tell you if I'm right or wrong. That's kind of a bad system to have. But there's a lot of counters that had to be done here. And again, things that took place between the Westminster Savoy and even the Second Baptist had to be addressed again because there was a counter-reformation going on. And not to bash the Roman Catholics at all. That's not it. We're just looking at history. So even with the Lutherans, like the spiritual, we view it as a memorial spiritual. You know, Luther split with Zwingli over the- What's the elements? Hocus pocus meum, which is, this is my body. So, I mean, Catholics believe in transubstantiation. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. Except that. Yes. Yep. The transubstantiation and then the Lutheran is consubstantiation, so. Is that representation, consubstantiation? Is that representation? The Lutherans don't believe it. No, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, which means the elements don't physically change, but there's a spiritual something that happens around the element. Still gives this mystical... Yeah, it's a mystical thing, and in the end, you know. I quote him and use his writings and his catechism is good. But for us, you know, I mean, is there a spiritual nourishment that happens? Absolutely. When you meditate on that, you feed your soul. Is there a change in the elements? No. And we're not even using wine, we use grape juice. If water's the only outward symbol for baptism, I'm just saying, but... But I love this discussion. We're kind of jumping ahead because they are going to address some of this. So we can definitely revisit this here though. Paragraph three, in this ordinance, the Lord Jesus has appointed his ministers to pray and to bless the elements of bread and wine and in this way set them apart from a common to a holy use. They are to take the bread and break the bread, take the cup and give both to the communicants while also participating themselves. Again, I do like this. There is a setting apart. Yes, nothing special is happening, but we're consecrating ourselves unto worship. We're doing the same thing with these elements here. They are being set apart for this special purpose. They're not changing in any magical, you know, the force way, but they are being set apart for this use. And it's, again, just to help us focus on what was done. And then, of course, it's, yes, they're to break the bread, take the cup, giving, and also partaking. 1 Corinthians 11, 23 to 26. Do I do this one? As I said, some of them are going to be repeated. So yes, you're absolutely correct. But again, here's where they're going to it. And again, the praying over it. I believe that those who are called to be officers in the church are the ones that oversee it. That's the overseer office. They're administering it, but they're also able to delegate. So it's not just this special, you're not able to serve and administer the elements because you're not a deacon, you're just a congregant. No, that's not it at all. We're all partaking here. This is a meal. You know, passing this down is one example, but also the serving. I love that attitude, though. But anyways, there is something that sets it aside again. We're gonna see in a second here, not in this manner, but here's a again going back to the Catholic. Another practice there in paragraph four, denying the cup to the people, worshiping the elements, lifting them up or carrying them around for adoration or reserving them for some pretend religious use are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance and to the institution of Christ. So one, it's denying the practice of, or it's refuting the practice, condemning it of denying the cup to the people. Okay, and this is that no. Again, if there's somebody who's in active sin and we're aware of it and we are, you should not be partaking, you're drinking judgment onto yourself. But that's not what they're denying. This was a, no, this is a special, special use. You're the medial, you know, the little plebs and stuff like that. This is for special occasion. So you're not worthy enough to even partake in this kind of a denial. And there were some examples of that, especially in this period. Especially with the persecution of other denominations. No, you're not allowed to take that. You're denying this ordinance that was instituted by Christ. The worshipping of the elements. This starts getting into that mystical. We're going to see this and the next paragraph though. Mystical idea that these are special on this is literally Christ's body now and literally his blood No, and they're worshiping these elements. All right, I know John cuz in my office and I got the cross and I got a little cup of wine up there I'm looking for some fake bread and it was like, oh, it's Catholic Not worshiping the elements I love the symbol of it, but I can also see how there are those that do it is they worship these elements so it is a cautionary warning here Alright, and then they use different language, or the Baptists do. I believe I put that on here. They use a little bit different language than, yes, in paragraph 4. On page 7 of your handout there, the Westminster and the Savoy write, private masses are receiving this sacrament by a priest or any other alone. is what they're condemning, whereas the Baptists don't have that. They just start with the denial of the cup. All right. Part of that is private. They want it all to be done in the public assembly, the Presbyterians in the congregation, which I completely appreciate. However, going back to your what if somebody is not able to, I love that the shut ins are visited and that the Lord's Supper is administered to them. All right, they're not able to make it. Oh, well, too bad on them. Oh, no, but we have means to get to them and to partake in it. It's not some special secret service that's taking place, this private mass, but it is. administering this ordinance, this means of grace to our brothers and sisters who are unable to. So I don't know if that's the Baptist intent when they change that, or if they just had some different conversations that we don't have writings that we're privy to. But it's not a private mass. There were instances where, yes, I'm going to go and take this. So I say, I love that. I love seeing that. I love going, visiting some of those I didn't get to meet before, and hopefully again soon. But no, you're unable to. Let's bring it to you. All right? I say that on the chaplains on the field, you know, sometimes, well it's not my denomination, but you know, I don't agree with what you just did there, and it's not really the bread, you know, turning into the body, but I want to take communion here, so. Anyways, Matthew 15, 9. So, yeah, Matthew 15, 9. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. And this is going to idea of the priest being able to determine who's worthy, who's not worthy, going against scripture and withholding, holding the power and withholding this ordinance from the proper recipients. Here's some other scriptures supporting paragraph four. Sorry guys, we are going to go a bit long. If you need to leave, I understand. Paragraph five. The outward elements in this ordinance, properly set apart for the use, ordained by Christ, have such a relationship to Christ crucified that they are sometimes called, truly though figuratively, by the names of things they represent, that is, the body and the blood of Christ. However, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before. This is going against that, the trans and cons understanding. It's not changing anything. They're set apart for this use, yes. And though truly, though figuratively are called the body and the bread, they are still in substance and nature, bread and wine. And this is where it goes to the elements now. There are some people that argue, well, if you're not taking wine, you're not following the true elements. I won't get into that argument because there are reasons. I understand. Yes, some people blame it on Welch's, but whatever you want to do, it's not changing from that element. If it's the grape juice or the wine, it's still just grape juice or wine. The bread, as I said, gluten-free bread, it's bread. Okay, we're not doing Doritos and Pepsi to get to that craziness, but it is still, those elements are still in nature and substance, only bread and wine. 1 Corinthians 11, 26-28. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye propel the Lord, as still he comes. Whoever therefore eats of this bread or drinks of this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. See, so there is this idea that it's truly, though figuratively, called his body and his blood. So if you drink this and eat this unworthily, you're guilty concerning the body and the blood of Christ. So it's not this mystical, supernatural event taking place, but yes, you are being judged. You're partaking unworthily. So there is this condemnation against that sacrifice. The body and the blood, that sacrifice of Christ is what it's referring. Section 6, paragraph 6. Again, you see that they're very specifically attacking the practices at their time. The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation teaches that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood by the consecration of a priest or some other way. This doctrine is hostile not only to scripture, but also to common sense and reason. It destroys the nature of the ordinance and has been and is the cause of many kinds of superstitions and gross idolatries. This is why in the previous paragraph they talk about this lifting them up, you know, worshiping these elements, but also that, no, this is, it goes against, it's hostile to Scripture, but also common sense and reason, alright? That charge of the early church being cannibals. They're not eating flesh and blood, alright? It's obviously representation. It goes against reason to say anything different. It goes against common sense to say anything different. So it's condemning that practice, and it destroys the nature of the ordinance, and it's the cause of many superstitious idolatries. Here's some scriptures, some of them we've already read before, so I don't have anything for you to read on this. Section 7. Worthy recipients who outwardly partake of the visible elements in this ordinance, also 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. The body and blood of Christ are not present bodily or physically in the ordinance, but spiritually to the faith of believers, just as the elements themselves are present to their outward senses. This can be dived in a lot more and looked at it to look into spiritual. Okay. Well, we do believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So yes, we know that God is present. I love the Lord serpent because it's very triune. All right, we're thanking God for the sacrifice of the Sun and the power of the Spirit. This is very triune in this ordinance. All right, we're seeing the Trinity magnified in this ordinance, but this is specifically attacking the the mystical part of it. Okay, even though we're partaking visibly we're feeding spiritually. Again, this is reflecting, like I said, when we're meditating on this, we're reflecting on this, you are being sanctified. You are growing. This does encourage our faith. It should strengthen our faith. Going back several chapters, your faith growing. That continuous faith until salvation is complete and Christ's return. our spirituality and the faith of us. Just the elements themselves present their outward senses. Again, I'm not being ridiculous. This is not really the body and the blood, but there is this spiritual feeding. I think it's lovely. I love the Lord's Supper. I love partaking in real food. So the fact that we're doing that after the Lord's Supper is a double bonus. But 1 Corinthians 10-16, This cup that we're drinking, is it not participation in the blood? This bread reading, is it not a participation in the blood? communion of saints. We are the communion of God's people here. This is where we're partaking, not in a literal physical sense, but there is this spiritual aspect. I love Paul's letters to the Corinthians, except when he has to go, you know, paddle on them because of their craziness, but it's got some beautiful, beautiful writings for us to be encouraged by. Here's the supporting scriptures, which again, that 11.23-26 is repeated quite a bit, so that's why I left it in there. And section eight, all ignorant and ungodly people who are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ and are thus unworthy of the Lord's table, as long as they remain in this condition, they cannot partake of these holy mysteries or be admitted to the Lord's table without committing a great sin against Christ. All right, those unfit to enjoy this communion, as long as they remain so, cannot partake or be admitted to partake. And I've got on there this shepherding obligation. This is where this idea of, they call it fencing the table. There's open communion, there's closed communion. There's different versions. I've seen it. And the different reasons, I appreciate the godly men who are trying to honor God by what they're doing there. We give the admonition at the beginning, can you affirm these basic tenets? Are you under church discipline? Do you have active sin in your life that you're not actively confessing? Do you have something against your brother? If any of these things cannot be reconciled, do not partake. We have given the admonition from scripture, the warnings from scripture. We don't know the heart of people though. This goes for anybody who's helping to partake and to serve in the elements there. We don't know. So after that admonition has been given, that's on you. This just letting anybody take it is not a practice that I would like to see anywhere, which I have seen. Just yes, on your way out, go ahead and dip the bread and partake and move on. I disagree with that so much. I appreciate that it's available, which is why I said before, the logistics I understand. I don't mind the way we do it here. I love the frequency. But there's still this preparation that we want to make sure takes place and that we are being responsible to give an account. As John said, as the head of your household, make sure you're policing your children. I'm a father. I have children who are older that can partake. I have children that You know, may be saved, but I'm still, I'm judging their fruits. They're not ready to partake. I do not want to be responsible for them partaking unworthily. So there is this process that you want to see the fruits, and we can give the warnings, especially somebody we don't know. So we get visitors in. No, you can't partake because we can't give an account for you. That's not how we are. Here is what we're requiring, you know, and if you're affirming this, that's now on you. If you are partaking unworthily, it is on you for partaking unworthily. And as long as you're in this state, it says that as long as you're in this state, you're unworthy of the Lord's table. All those who receive the supper unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment on themselves. And that's 1 Corinthians 11, 29. Question. Oh. Were you one that eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself? So it's not putting the responsibility on those that are administering, but it is their obligation to make sure that you understand this. Here's what Scripture says about partaking in the Lord's Supper. This communion has some negative aspects if you are not partaking worthily. Here's some other Scripture supporting that. And before I go to my closing remark there, on page 7 again of your handout, the paragraph 8 in the Westminster, I just want to share this because I'm trying to educate you on the history of our brethren in the well. They start with, although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in the sacrament, yet they receive not the things signified thereby. This is their understanding, their justification of they have unbelievers in the church, in the covenant community that are part of the visible covenant community of God that are not actually in the invisible church. They're not true believers. Okay? So that, again, it goes to their visible and invisible. They're flattening of the covenants. Old Testament had believers and non-believers existing together. So does the church today. While I agree with them, we don't know if everybody who calls himself a Christian is saved, but we also are expecting some kind of a profession, which they don't. If you're You were raised in the church because your parents were believers, you were able to partake here. And they had no problem doing that because they were baptized into the covenant community. The Savoy does not have that because they're congregationalists that are kind of hypocritical in their understanding. And the Baptists definitely don't have that because we do not believe in anything but the credo, the profession. And just because I loved this book, Richard Barcells, I don't have any quotes from him. Oh yes, I actually do have a quote from him. This book though, The Lord's Supper is a means of grace more than a memory. It's not mystifying the sacrament, the ordinance at all, but it is showing scripturally and historically the beautiful means of grace that this is. And again, that's that meditating, that thinking forward. And here's one of his excerpts. So, I define means of grace as the delivery systems God has instituted to bring grace. That is spiritual power, spiritual change, spiritual help, spiritual fortitude, spiritual blessings to needy souls on the earth. Grace comes from our Father through the Son by the Spirit ordinarily in conjunction with the ordained means. This is a wordy way of saying, and some of his books are hard for me to get through, but this is a means of grace as we are partaking in this. Yes, it's a memory, but it's also for our continued sanctification as we are looking forward to Christ's return. These are the graces that the Father gives to us through the Son and the Spirit, these ordinary means. So it's not anything special, but these ordinary means do give us this grace, give us strength and faith, and give us this continued communion with each other. So any questions on the sacraments of the Lord's Supper?