It is Undeniable that the New Testament Teaches Jesus is God

Anthony W Brooks

I am often dumfounded at the attempts that people make to tell me the New Testament nowhere teaches that Jesus is God… All I need is three verses to disprove this monstrous assertion, but first I want to make an apology.

 

My apology is for the extended break I took from the blog. That is my fault and I apologize for not letting you know.

 

Now, my evidence.

 

John 1:1-2- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

This well-known verse has been abused by opponents of the incarnation for millennia, starting with the arians all the way up to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and others. It says two things: 1. The Word (Jesus, see v.14) was God. What is clearly in view here is that Chirst (Called here Logos, or the Word) is God. He was also “with” God. This is clearly distinguishing between the persons, as in Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, etc. This is a necessary distinction to be had. 2. All things were made through him. He was a necessary and active component in creation. If he is God as we said above, then it is not shocking to owe creation to him, since all creation belongs to God alone.

Colossians 1:15-16 -“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.”

This verse is confusing at times. But I think we can unpack it consistently. 1. He is the image if the invisible God. This is not the same thing as our image. Since God is uncreated [see comments above on John 1:1-2 about the Word being God] this simply means that Christ is God made visible. 2. Firstborn of all creation. This gets a little tricky so I’ll quote the Reformation Study Bible on this point:

“Paul is not saying that the Son was the first created being (v. 17 note). In the Old Testament, a firstborn son would be the principal heir of an estate (Deut. 21:17; cf. Ex. 4:22Ps. 89:27). Used of Christ, the term “firstborn” means that He has such honor and dignity, not that He was the oldest child in a family. Christ is especially loved by His Father (v. 13), and all things were created in Him, by Him, and for Him (vv. 16, 17).”

Source here.

3. By him (Jesus) all things were created. By Jesus all things were created in heaven and earth. He is the preexisting one, the text makes this clear. He is again paired with the text of the Genesis creation account.

Colossians 2:9-10- “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.”

1. In him (Jesus) is the fullness of deity. Deity here is θεότης which is “Theotes”. This word means literally “that which makes God himself” Or “that which makes God “God””, aka deity. A clear reference to Christ being of the same substance as the Father and can be compared with Isaiah’s Temple vision (Isaiah 6).

2. Him who is the head head of all rule and authority. As in “He’s the head of everything, aka, he’s God. No one is higher or grander than He.

 

Long story short, Jesus is given explicit credit as God in the New Testament. Nothing is higher or greater than him who is creator of all and the firstborn son (heir of the Father). God of God, light of light, Very God of Very God. There is much much more that we can bring out to prove this point. Jesus is often placed in subordination to the Father. This is certainly true in the New Testament. But the Reformed view is clear that this is not eternal subordination, and that this is not evidence against his (Jesus’) deity. When we consider these texts, we need to consider the thought that flows through the Gospels and into the apostle’s teaching. They are not at odds with each other.

Soli Deo Gloria!

INFANT BAPTISM IN CHURCH HISTORY

Anthony W. Brooks

Baptism is always a hot topic. In the Baptist church I was an avid opponent of Infant Baptism and saw it as part of a corrupt papist false gospel. So, what changed my mind? Well, Biblical consistency and covenant relationships helped… Also, the Biblical consistency of Covenant Theology. But I am also an advocate of historical theology as well. I believe that it doesn’t matter how much sense an argument makes, but if it isn’t believed in the first 500 years of the church, it shouldn’t be believed.

One of the greatest arguments against paedobaptism is that there is no explicit command in scripture to baptize our children…. and this is true. But that would mean that many other doctrines that we believe to be true in scripture can’t be believed because they aren’t explicit (e.g. Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Sola Fide, etc…). So I will post a list of Early Church quotes that date back to 125 AD.

Disclaimer**The quotes listed are not representative of the beliefs of this blog as they contain perspectives not accepted or defended by this blog, but are mere quotes that support the historicity of Infant Baptism**Disclaimer

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34).

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V

Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II

“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
Soli Deo Gloria!
Photo: My Son’s Baptism at Christ the King Presbyterian Church (OPC)

A Question Asked is a Question Answered: What is my favorite Study Bible?

Question to Anthony W. Brooks

On a post I wrote about a month ago I received a question via Gmail asking me what my favorite Study Bible was. The post aimed to objectively grade known Reformed Study Bibles on a number of aesthetics. You can read it here. But I never said what my favorite study bible is. Well, no doubt, it was in the post, and the answer might shock everyone here, but I’ll tell you.

Before I tell you what it is and where you can buy one I want to tell you what I look for in a Bible before I buy one. Bibles are not about aesthetics with me. They don’t have to look and smell pretty for me to buy one, but they do have to be in an accurate translation, with good layouts, and quality materials. I don’t want to buy a Bible that is only going to last a year. I want a Bible that will be a joy to me for many years, and so far, that is my experience with that criteria.

My Favorite Study Bible

There are many things about my favorite Study Bible that might only be appealing to me. That is why I need to stress this point, that not everyone will like this study bible and there is need to research all the possible contenders before you invest in a study bible for yourself. Don’t just take my word for it…

Here it is, My favorite Study Bible!

36615702_1964944190484872_1608553389375881216_n

Isn’t this surprising! A KJV Bible won my heart… But it is true. The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible is my favorite. Let’s get into specifics as to why I chose this beauty.

Layout!

36702493_1964949793817645_5715533428573601792_n

This is a clean page out of 2nd Samuel. There are many things to consider here. First thing that stands out is that there are no chapter introductions or cross references. The norm in a study bible is a center or side column cross reference system and that isn’t here. All references are included in the footnotes at the bottom. Also the chapter headings are at the bottom as well introducing the footnotes on a particular chapter. This allows the scripture text to be clean and readable for the reader, and keeps all man made additions (aside from the chapter and verse divisions) to stay in one place for reference if need be.

Personal and Family Worship Study Questions

36646880_1964943830484908_4305897592631328768_n

This is unique among study helps. This study bible was commissioned by Joel Beeke (a puritan expert) who has stressed the need for family worship in the home. His study bible is no different and is built to aid the family in this endeavor. At the end of each chapter there are sections for family worship questions and thoughts to aid in instruction on these issues.

Extras!

This Bible has plenty of extras to aid a growing and conscientious Christian. Mind you, this is a Reformed study bible, so all of the aids and extras will be Reformed in nature. So if that isn’t your mindset, this Bible isn’t for you.

36583103_1964943607151597_3163017631368216576_n

This cool section is a brief outline of church history. It goes century by century through history and hits all of the highlights.

36616226_1964943603818264_6329334862771650560_n

The top of the cake is that you can carry your book of confessions around with you. The necessary creeds of the faith along with the “Six Forms of Unity” as I call them.

Apostle’s Creed

Nicene Creed

Athanasian Creed

Belgic Confession

Heidelberg Catechism

Westminster Confession

Westminster Shorter Catechism

Westminster Larger Catechism

And even better is that all of these confessions and catechisms are contain scriptural annotations to look up the relevant passages of scripture.

Cons!

There are cons for people looking into buying this Bible. This Bible is only available in the KJV. I was raised on the King James Version so I do not mind this being my regular reference. But for some people a modern version is a better option.

This Bible doesn’t have a central reference system. All necessary references are contained in the footnotes. For those who find a columned reference Bible useful and preferred, this isn’t for you.

This is a classically Reformed study system. The Young, Restless, Reformed believers who don’t accept Classic Reformed Confessions, Reformed Ecclesiology, or Eschatology this isn’t for you. It also has a cessationist leaning as well as opposed to continuationism.

What I carry it in!

36603203_1964943870484904_3520948244332937216_n

I carry it in a simple charcoal gray zipper case. There is about half an inch around the side of the case for the Bible to breath. I keep my Pigma Micron in the pen-holder inside so I can study anywhere and write notes as needed.

Where can you buy one?

You can get one as cheap as $24 here.

Soli Deo Gloria

Why all believers should spend some time in the King James (Authorized) Version

By Anthony W. Brooks

There was a time in my life where all I read was the KJV. When I was in private school, I learned the history of the King James translation, and was sold on it’s accuracy. I carried this conviction all the way into college where my New Testament professor threatened me with failing grades if I didn’t use a modern translation. Of course, I did eventually make use of other translations like the ESV. But recently the Lord has been reviving my love of the Authorized Version. And because of this, I want to encourage all believers to make use of the King James and spend at least some time exploring this historic translation.

  1. It is the translation of our forefathers of the Faith.

As protestants we can look throughout history and see the AV as the translation of our forefathers. This can go deeper than just translation into discussions of the Critical Text vs the Majority Text traditions but lets just say that the manuscript and translational traditions are what was in use until the dawn of the Critical Text. This should bring a certain nostalgia into our minds to look back and experience the past of our faith. What did Matthew Henry or Charles Haddon Spurgeon read when they were writing their sermons? How about John Edwards or John Wesley? They used the AV.

  1. It is a difficult read.

This translation has at least a 12th grade reading level, higher than most of us can comprehend (believe it or not). But this has an added benefit of forcing us to think about what we are reading as we read it. Translations with lower reading levels are often seen as hard to comprehend because they are breezed through by the reader and they come out not comprehending what they read. With translations of higher levels, they force the reader to contemplate the meaning of words and sentences so as to understand the meaning of the text. The AV is no different. When I read the AV I actually have to think about the words I am reading and try to understand them so I don’t butcher them while I read.

  1. It is poetic.

The AV is actually considered a literary masterpiece in the world of literature. It is poetic and uses high Elizabethan English. This makes it a work of art and beautiful to read.

All in all, I believe that the common believer should spend some time reading the King James (Authorized Version). I believe doing so will allow the believer to appreciate where the church has been and where it is going. It will also allow the believer to see and appreciate the history of the English Bible and give insight into the common Bible you hold in your hand.

Layman’s Commentary- John 10:1-30: For Whom Did Christ Die?

John 10 is a common text of contention between the Reformed and non-Reformed camps. The question that is brought up is “For whom did Christ die?” And that is exactly what Christ answers for us in his parable here. Lets jump in…

**Editors note- Scripture quotations will be in Italics while the commentary will be in Bold  type.** **All Scripture is taken from the ESV**

John 10

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

In this passage I want us to notice the three categories of people here. There is the shepherd, sheep, and the other men. The shepherd is the good keeper of the sheepfold, the gatekeeper opens the door for him and allows him in. Christ is this shepherd (vs 11) and the door (vs 7). The sheep are Israel (Matthew 15:24). Then there are those who are not sheep: the thief who climbs in another way. The stranger is also not the shepherd or the sheep. The sheep hears his voice and will not follow him.

 

7 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

Christ is the door. He is the only way of salvation (John 14:6). Those who came before him were thieves and robbers (not sheep), and the sheep (true Israel) did not listen to them. Enter by the door (Christ and his salvation) and you will have life.

 

10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me…

The thief (who is not a sheep) comes to steal kill and destroy. This is probably a reference to Satan, but, by extension, the tools of Satan as well. False teachers and false prophets can be this thief. Christ came that “They” may have life… Who is the “they”? The sheep! Why? Because Christ is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the SHEEP. Who is the hired hand? Well, not a sheep, either. Someone who the shepherd has trusted with the sheep. This is probably the Pharisees who gave into Rome and hypocrisy. The hired hand saw the wolves coming and fled instead of fighting for them. But Christ promises not to flee but to lay down his life. He knows his sheep and his sheep knows him.

 

15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

Christ brings in his relationship with the Father to show the unity of him and the sheep in verse 14. He mentions other sheep of another fold. This is most likely the Gentiles (Romans 9:24ff) who are to be grafted in later (Romans 11). When the other sheep are brought in they are to be one flock (Church) under one shepherd (Christ). Christ speaks of the Fathers love for him due to his obedience of laying down his life. I am convinced this is not the surface level reason, but to show the complete obedience of Christ and the Father’s love of Christ. Christ willingly does this (vs 18). No one is offending his will. It was his will to lay down his life before it was the Pharisees will to kill him. This was the will of the Father and the Son from all eternity.

 

19 There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. 20 Many of them said, “He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?” 21 Others said, “These are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

It is obvious that there were divisions among the Jews as to the validity of his words. Some saw him as possessed and others saw him as being from God.

 

22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

This was not the same teaching as above. This occurrence came after the previous section. But I believe there is a reason for it’s placement. The Jews are asking for an answer. Is Jesus the Christ? He says that he has told them, but they do not believe. He has done many great works from the Father, but they do not believe because they are not of his sheep. These are of another kind than the sheep. Christ has not laid his life for them. Because his sheep hear his voice and know him, he knows them, and follow him. These are the ones who will receive eternal life, they will never die. The Father, who gave the sheep to Christ (John 6:35-44), is greater than all, and no one will snatch them out of his hand… Christ and the Father are one… I believe what this is referring to isn’t necessarily trinitarian, but the unified will to save the sheep.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Reformed and Ancient?

Wow! A new website… A new Start… But the same audience. This is exciting, humbling, and faith growing. So, what’s new? Well, plenty. I am willing to bet that many of you who visit here are void of anything better to do. And I can only imagine how ridiculous it seems that my little blog is anything important. Stay with me.

We are Reformed!

westminster

This blog follows the four main streams of Reformed thought. Anglican, Dutch, Presbyterian, and Particular Baptist. The writers who are published here are from one of those four influences. All are conservative and engage in ministry somewhere, somehow.

We are Ancient!

Saint_Augustine

This one might get me in trouble a bit… Many churches have claimed the title as the one church established by the apostles. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox (and company), the Landmark Baptists (wink wink!). But it is my belief that being ancient is irrelevant if there is no apostolic teaching to hang your hat on. This blog desires to show the truth of the apostolic witness.

We are here for you!

Have any questions? Comments? Concerns? News pertaining to the existence of Smurfs? Contact us to share. We will respond in an orderly and swift manner. (The orderly manner of our response depends on whether or not you share proof of the existence of said Smurfs…)

Soli Deo Gloria!

 

The Lord’s Supper and the Real Presence… (What Many Evangelicals Have Forgotten and Forsaken)

One of the last things I found myself accepting in the Westminster Standards was the real presence of Christ in the Supper. Looking back on it now, I cannot reason why I ever had an issue with it in the first place, but, lo, I did.

One thing we as believers need to be balanced on before we look at this issue is that we shouldn’t be trying to look for a Jesuit behind every bush… aka… Just because we are discussing the idea of Christ being REALLY present in the Supper, does not mean that we are discussing the uniquely Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Mass as being propitiatory, or worshipping the consecrated host. Now, what are we talking about? Let’s look at what the traditional protestant position is from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

CHAPTER 29

Of the Lord’s Supper.

“I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.

II. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.

IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.

V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the thigns they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.

VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common-sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, and can not, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.”

And the Westminster Larger Catechism:

“Q. 170. How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord’s supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?

A. As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.”

———-

Okay… That is a lot to take in, I know, but it is necessary to understand 1. The doctrine of real presence and 2. How it fundamentally opposes the Papist doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Lets dive in…

What do Reformed Protestants traditionally believe concerning the Real Presence?

“V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the thigns they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.”

This is the doctrine in a nutshell. The first thing we see is the elements are set apart by the blessing of the ministers (art III & V) and have a relation to the Crucified Christ and so can be referred to as the Body and Blood of Christ. But, this is important, remain truly and fully Bread and Wine, even after they are blessed.

After they are blessed they are handed out only to worthy receivers (a topic for another time). These believers, when they consume the bread and wine, inwardly by faith, feed upon the true body and blood of Christ spiritually, not carnally or physically. Therefore, feeding on all the benefits of his death. The body and blood of Christ are spiritually present to the faith of the believer in the ordinance just as much as the elements are to the outward senses.

So, to summarize, Christ is spiritually present within the bread and wine so that when we consume the elements we are truly feeding upon his body and blood. Now, what is the scriptural proof of this:

Luke 22:19 (ESV)

19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

So Christ said “This IS my body”. I know that is what a Lutheran would normally say, but I have the personal belief that consubstantiation (using this phrase for the sake of argument) is as illogical as the Catholic position. But we hold the belief that it really is his body that we are communing with…

1 Corinthians 10:16

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

So Paul is making an argument that when we take the Supper we are really and truly participating and communing with the body and blood of Christ. We are not merely taking a memorial that is empty of his being… that is a-scriptural. Paul is arguing that the participation is real, so we argue this as well.

How is it opposed to the Catholic position?

“II. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.

VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common-sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.”

This isn’t all the confession as to say in opposition to the Romish Mass, but it will have to do.

First, we do not see the supper as a sacrifice. Christ is not being offered up to the Father on the alter of a priest, that is a blasphemous way to look at it. But it is something we look to in remembrance of his offering himself up, by himself, once for all time… There is no elevation of the elements or words of consecration. There is no lighting of incense, but a simple service of scripture and communion. The confession states, “; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.” Which is to say that it is idolatrous and heretical.

Second, we believe that we should celebrate the Supper in a corporate setting. Also, when we take the Supper, we take both elements. We do not worship them, adore them, or keep them past the time of the Supper. When the ceremony is done, they continue their ordinary use. All of these things are contrary to the purpose the Lord gave the Supper.

Third, the Confession speaks directly against the papist doctrine of Transubstantiation. It calls it Repugnant to Scripture, common sense, and reason. It says that it overthrows the nature of the sacrament and has been and still is the cause of superstition and idolatry. This is a massive charge. But it is a consistently Protestant charge.

——–

So we see now that the Reformed concept of real presence is not just Biblical, but also fundamentally opposed to the position that it normally gets confused with, the Roman Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation. So I hope this has been useful to you

Soli Deo Gloria!