This sermon is from the Rev. Charles G. Dennison sermon archive, part of “The Means of Grace” series, and was preached at Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Sewickley, PA, during a worship service on Sunday, October 4, 1992.

This morning we are reading from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, his first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11. We are beginning with verse 17. Listen to the word of God. Now, in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I fear that there be divisions among you, and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating, every one taketh before the other his own supper, for one is hungry and another is drunken. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in, or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?

What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. When he had given thanks, he broke it and said, Take, each. This is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had sat, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, show the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world. Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home, that you may not come together to condemnation. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

There were four views of the Lord’s Supper that were debated in the sixteenth century.

This is the kind of message you might want to take notes on. There was, of course, the dominant view of the Western Church, that of the Roman Catholic Church, a position known as transubstantiation. This view held that in the mystery of the Lord’s Supper, or the Eucharist, or as it is called, the Mass, the physical elements—the bread and the wine—became the literal body and blood of Christ at the appropriate moment, when the priest spoke the appropriate words and performed the appropriate actions. Although these elements retained the appearance and properties of bread and wine, they were believed to be transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ.

This was considered a miracle. The primary Reformer reacted against this position, which is not surprising. Luther reacted against almost all of the positions of Rome. Though Luther was reacting against Rome, he desired to maintain the identity between the physical elements and Christ’s body and blood. It is important to follow his argument carefully.

You see the point. He is taking exception to Rome, but at the same time he wishes to maintain the identity between the physical elements and Christ’s body and blood. So he proposed his own doctrine, which he called not transubstantiation but consubstantiation. This teaching holds that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ as Rome taught, but rather that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in, with, and under the elements.

Now you can understand this as a mediating position. Luther wanted to distance himself from Rome, but at the same time he remained closely connected to it. This led to further reaction, resulting in a third position offered by a Swiss reformer from Zurich named Zwingli.

According to Zwingli, the elements do not become the body and blood of Christ, nor are they the body and blood of Christ. Rather, Zwingli said, the elements represent the body and blood of Christ. As a result, the Lord’s Supper must be free from any suggestion of Christ’s real presence, since Christ is present only in the faith of the believer. You see what Zwingli is doing.

Christ is present in the faith of the believer, but in no other way. After all, the Lord’s Supper is simply a meal, a memorial, nothing more. It is a means by which Christians give public testimony to their faith in God’s grace through the gospel. The supper, then, serves the purpose of public testimony.

There was yet another position, the final viewpoint, offered by John Calvin, who was a later reformer. By the time Calvin appeared on the scene, Zwingli was dead and Luther was declining. What did Calvin say? Calvin agreed with Zwingli against Rome and against Luther, that the elements—the bread and the wine—do in fact represent the body and blood of Christ.

He also agreed with Zwingli that the language of the sacrament should avoid the use of the term altar or any suggestion of sacrifice, and should employ the language of table, underscoring the significance of the meal character of the sacrament. No altar, but a table. However, Calvin disagreed with Zwingli, because for Calvin, as was the case for Rome and also for Luther, the Lord’s Supper was a means of grace. The Lord’s Supper is a means of grace because in it Christ is present not just in the contemplation of the faith of the believer, but he is present really and truly in his Spirit. His body is at the right hand of the Father, but in his Spirit he is really and truly present to seal and to apply the benefits of the redemption procured in and through him.

Here then are the four major views regarding the sacrament, arising out of the sixteenth century. It was a serious matter, one that people debated for a long time, not just the doctors of the Church, but also the people in the street and the woman hanging her wash in the backyard. These were serious matters. At the same time, they were also confusing. In our own time, the Lord’s Supper needs to be taken again with absolute seriousness, even though doing so may lead to confusion and debate.

There has been a disregard of the sacraments and even a disinterest in them. We have looked to other means for revival in the church and for rededication of one’s faith. We have looked away from the sacraments which God has appointed in his word. But there is also the confusion that has overtaken those who should know better.

For in the Reformed tradition, among Calvinists today, even where the Lord’s Supper is to be revered, understood, and presented clearly and effectively, it seems that the view associated with Swingli is more dominant in practice than the Calvinist view. The emphasis now falls more upon public testimony. The emphasis falls more upon the public testimony of our faith, our conviction expressed through the sacrament, than upon the communion that is to be experienced in the service of the sacrament itself. Therefore, the focus has shifted more toward the public witness of the church through the sacrament, or the public witness of the believer through the sacrament, rather than toward the communion that should exist between us and our Lord in the sacrament. Do not misunderstand: it is not as if there is no public testimony involved in the sacrament; that public testimony is very important.

Calvin is very sensitive to the apostle Paul and what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 26: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” This is a corporate act of declaration on our part. In this sacrament, we set before the world our common confession, a witness to our unity, that we are one body in Christ and speak, as it were, as one person with one voice. So important was this to Calvin that he retained the recitation of the Creed in his liturgy for the Lord’s Supper. This retention meant an audible reinforcement of the clear and evident testimony of that unity given in the supper. We have the practice here of reciting the Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, on those Sabbaths in which we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Heaven would be happier if we placed the recitation of the Creed closer to the observance of the sacrament itself.

But this aspect of public testimony also functions in several practical ways. It not only testified to the unity of the body, but also helped to reinforce for Calvin, and subsequently for Calvinists, the conviction that heretics and those who have not repented must be excluded through the censures and discipline of the Church from the table of the Lord.

Calvinists have taken this principle with absolute seriousness. As we move from the 16th century into the 17th century, with the maturation of the Calvinist and Reformation movement, we see that Calvinists were no longer satisfied with merely ensuring that outward practices were observed. For example, a person may fully and completely affirm the Articles of the Creed and openly deny none of them. As the Reformed Church developed and matured, there was increasing attention given to inner matters.

It was not only a public denial of a Creed article, open heresy, or a publicly known outrageous or notorious sin, but also attitudes of the heart. Therefore, the preaching of the Word became essential, so that those gathered would examine their hearts before God and address any inner witness that contradicted the unity of the fellowship. Anger, bitterness, jealousy, and similar attitudes must also be dealt with before coming to the table of the Lord.

As important as the public testimony of the Church, as the common people said, so too, with regard to practical matters, Calvinists, because of their commitment to public testimony and witness in the sacrament, have opposed those who would open the sacrament to children or to those who have not yet been instructed.

Now, that is the Calvinist position, that is the Reformed point of view, regardless of what people are saying to us at present, even from within the Reformed camp. We do not believe in, nor do we embrace, paternal communion. And we do not open the doors and say that anyone off the street can come in and partake of the supper. Calvinists have maintained that although a child or even someone uninstructed may in fact recite the creed, it is necessary for that individual to give evidence of an understanding of the creed, and most particularly of the Lord’s death, which is proclaimed in the sermon.

The self-examination that is enjoined upon the Church in 1 Corinthians 11 applies at this point. So yes, the sacrament for us Calvinists is truly a public testimony. Remember what we said: it was not someone who simply sat in the swindling camp. Calvin saw the sacrament as a means of grace. He was not satisfied by defining the sacrament merely as a public testimony. The sacrament for Calvin was a communion, yes, between believers, but also between them and the Lord.

And I say that it is the quest for this lost dimension in the sacraments among Reformed people that has in part led many former members of a Reformed church to go in the direction of Rome or one of the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. These people are searching for the lost sense of mystery associated with the sacrament. And for too many in the Reformed churches, the mystery is simply gone. In fact, communion with Christ in the sacrament is not, in any real sense, sought. It is as if Swinley has won. His position has triumphed, not Calvin’s.

In too many Reformed churches, the people have no idea what they should be doing with their time during the sacrament. In too many Reformed churches, there are a great many people who have absolutely no idea what they are supposed to be doing with their time during the sacrament.

Should I just stare straight ahead? Should I look at my shoes? Should I pretend to pray? What am I supposed to be doing? Well, I must wait for the minister to finish what he is doing up there. I must wait to be served by the elders, and I must wait for everyone else to be served. After all, I pride myself on my good manners. Can I behave at this meal as I do at other meals? I take the elements, I receive them, and then I sit quietly until the meal is finished.

If this is your approach, there is far less in this sacrament for you than there was for Calvin, far less than Christ intended. As we commune, we are to be aware in the deepest sense of Christ’s presence in His Spirit, convinced of His presence in the Spirit as surely as we are convinced of the reality of these elements themselves. Christ is, after all, as truly present here with us as these elements are to our sight, our touch, and our taste. And we are to be conscious that the act of eating and drinking signifies and conveys the deepest union between Christ and ourselves—a union that brings us true nourishment, exceptional refreshment, sublime strength, and uncommon exhilaration, all of which come to us from a supernatural realm, the realm of the Spirit, with which we are in contact. And our participation in this sacrament is to signify and seal to us afresh the meaning of Christ’s descent from glory, that He might take to Himself our flesh, our life, and our sin. And further, it is to signify and seal to us our participation with Him in His ascent to glory, that we might partake of supernatural things and share in His inheritance, the kingdom of heaven.

And in all of this, as it is with the means of grace generally, we are to be built up in our assurance that we are, after all, the children of God. We are strengthened in our confidence that our salvation and its benefits, though the kingdom of heaven itself, can no more be taken from us than it can be taken from Christ, this One who is our Friend, our Savior, and our God. As you come to the table, will you not keep these things in mind? Will you not be reintroduced, as it were, to the mystery of the sacrament and to the presence that exists here for you with your Lord? Amen.

The sermon text provided above is derived from the sermon audio recording making use of generative tools. It has not been manually edited. While transcription tools have a high degree of accuracy, the output may include generative textual, punctuation, and/or formatting errors.