Ask Pastor Mike Fabarez

Speaker 1

Communion is observed in Christian churches around the world, but what is the Lord's Supper? Isn't it just a ritualized routine? Well, today Pastor Mike Febares is talking about the significance of communion right here on Focal Point. I'm Dave Droue, your host here on Focal Point.

On today's Q and A, in the Q and A session of Ask Pastor Mike, we're tackling a subject that's confused Christians over the ages. Catholics talk about transubstantiation, Lutherans mention consubstantiation. Calvinists believe it's a spiritual meal, and Zwingli a memorial meal. There's so much fuzzy talk about the Lord's Supper, but what exactly is communion according to the word of God?

Well, right now let's join Focal Point's executive director Jay Worton, inside the pastor study for the answer.

Speaker 2

Thanks, Dave.

Pastor Mike, one of our listeners has a question about First Corinthians 11:27. And that's the passage that warns us about eating the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner.

I guess the first question would be, what does that mean? But maybe you can back up and talk a little bit about what communion is and explain the meaning behind it.

Speaker 3

Yeah. Well, in the passage, it's interesting; there's so much warning. They were trying to commemorate the Lord's Supper, which is clearly, as we see it, instituted in the Gospels, a reminder for the church from now until he returns of Christ's death and what it means. It's a covenant, a promise of his forgiveness that comes through the death of Christ. The substitutionary death of Christ becomes the promise of our forgiveness.

The transaction of the cross is something we're supposed to remember with this tangible experience and participation in eating the bread and drinking the cup. As he speaks to the Corinthians about this, he says, you've got problems. The way you're doing it is ending up becoming a source of judgment on you. I mean, right after that passage in verse 31, it says, you know, if you would just judge yourself, you wouldn't have to be judged by God. You're being disciplined in this act because you're going about it the wrong way.

So the Lord's Supper is supposed to be something very profound for the church to remember the death of Christ and to remember that our life is dependent on his death. Our forgiveness is bound up in that transaction on the cross, and that I'm ingesting these elements as a picture and a statement of my full participation in that I'm trusting in Christ. I stand with Christ. I rely on Christ and what he did on the cross.

So that's what the Lord's Supper is all about. The issue of sin in Corinth, if you look at the context, I mean, they were just so messed up in how they were going about it. Paul calls them to examine themselves, see how you're going about all this and the sin that you bring to the table. You need to search your heart, you need to confess your sin, you need to get right with God before you start engaging in such an important act of the church, remembering the death of Christ.

Speaker 2

Well, Pastor Mike, then can a nonbeliever eat the Lord's Supper or maybe somebody struggling in their faith or living in sin? What would we say to that?

Speaker 3

Yeah, well, maybe two out of the three. I would say, obviously a non-Christian should not be participating in the Lord's Supper, and hopefully the pastor at your church makes that clear when he stands up to administer this. So this is something for Christians to do. And Jay, you've been in the service many, many times that I've led the Lord's Supper, and that's always what I say. This is something for those who participate spiritually in Christ that get to participate in this meal. So no, non-Christians should not be participating.

And those living in sin, they should. I want them to participate. But what they need to do is, in that time of reflection that I always provide, is for people to repent of their sin and get right with God. Struggling in their faith, though, when people say that, I often think that what they mean may be what a lot of us deal with in our Christian growth and just wondering certain open-ended questions that I haven't quite tied up or whatever.

And I think, yeah, we can participate in the Lord's Supper and still have questions, still have concerns, still have certain frustrations or doubts about a certain aspect of my theology or my understanding of God. I get that. But if someone is in sin and unwilling to repent of that sin, then no, you should not be participating in the Lord's Supper. Or better yet, get saved and participate, or repent of your sin and participate. I want everyone to participate.

I just don't want you to participate, as the text says there in 1 Corinthians 11, in an unworthy manner, which is not only the clear description of what's going on in Corinth, but, you know, obviously extends to non-Christians who don't acknowledge the death of Christ as a death for them, don't acknowledge their sin, don't acknowledge the fact that God is God and they need Christ. And certainly those that are living in open rebellion against God, they need to test themselves and they need to realize they need to get that right before God, and then they can participate.

Speaker 2

What does the Bible have to say about the frequency of the Lord's Supper?

Certainly, we look across the landscape of churches, and there are some people doing it weekly, monthly, at regular intervals.

Every time they meet, they get the saltines and the grape juice out.

What should be the directive on that?

Speaker 3

I think I'm talking mostly, I assume, to congregants across the country. But you should participate in it as often as your church participates in it. So if that's weekly, great. That's monthly, fine. If it's periodic, great. Just be a part of it.

If a church leader is asking the question, I suppose I would say because this is a modified format of the Passover meal, which was an annual meal, clearly it needs to be at least once a year. The pattern of the church was to do it every time they gathered. It doesn't need to be that. The Bible doesn't give us that directive. But it ought to be something that we do as a regular pattern of church life.

I think church leaders have some flexibility in this because the Bible didn't prescribe how often this happens, to be able to decide how often that is. In my practice of ministry, I try not to do it so often that it becomes a ritual, routine, and part of the liturgy that people don't get a chance to think about what they're doing. So we don't do it every service. But I don't want to do it so infrequently that you only think about it, you know, every now and again.

So pastors and leaders need to make those decisions for their churches. And then I would say every congregant needs to make sure they're there when the Lord's Supper is being served.

Speaker 2

Well, thank you, Pastor Mike. I trust this has helped clarify the purpose and benefit of the Lord's Supper.

And we're going to continue this conversation with a message that you did from one of your Thursday night study sessions called God's Church on Communion. Foreign.

Speaker 4

**Supper.** When we talk about the Lord's Supper, I guess this is the phrase I usually use, the Lord's Supper. Four distinctive views on this. The first one, of course, is transubstantiation. Let's talk about that. Define it here in a second. Obviously, this is the Roman Catholic view. You may not know that it is also the Eastern Orthodox view. Proponents of this view often look to Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century thinker, who initially spelled this thing out with great detail. Prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church was all there was, and he defines and codifies in his theology the definitions that we're about to look at here.

Okay, all right, what are we saying? Let's define it in relation to Christ. All of these views are going to relate to Christ because that's the question. Clearly, the statements seem to say, is the body of Christ the blood of Christ? Well, what is it? Well, transubstantiation teaches that the elements of the wine and the bread turn into the body and blood of Christ. Wow. Okay. But that seems to be what we're reading there: "This is my body, this is my blood." You know, I do this. I'm participating in the body and blood of Christ. So I can see where they come to that conclusion. They believe it turns into, on a cellular level. I mean, this really happens. Yes, that's the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is catechism from the Catholic Church. As I said last week, their latest, definitive, authoritative word from Rome, section 1376, says, "By the consecration of the bread and wine at the mass, right? The consecration, when he consecrates it and prays and lifts it up, there takes place a change of the whole substance." That's where we get the word transubstantiation, right? The substance of the bread changes into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord. So it actually magically, boom, changes substance, and the whole substance of the wine changes into the substance of his blood. This change, the Holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation. The substance changes, right? That's what we're saying. The Catholic Church is saying the elements literally and actually turn into a replacement of the body and blood of Christ. The bread is now the body, and the wine is the blood of Christ.

It is an actual sacrifice of Christ to atone for sins. Think this through. Now, I am breaking the bread. I mean, that's the picture. Now it's wafers and all of that, but the picture was we’re certainly chewing it up and digesting it in the Catholic Mass, and at least the priest is drinking the wine. They don't let the laity drink the wine anymore. Here, though, they're saying what's happening is an actual sacrifice of Christ. Don't let me use my words. Let's use the words from the official, authoritative theological statement from Rome, section 1367. "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice." Note this down. "The victim is one and the same. The same now offers through the ministry of the priests who then offered himself on the cross."

Hey, the Eucharist is one and the same sacrifice. The victim is one and the same. It's Christ. One now is offered through the ministry of the priest, and then Christ himself offered himself on the cross. Only the manner of the offering is different. Okay, in this divine sacrifice, what you're saying is the actual ministry of the priest with the Mass is an actual sacrifice? No, this is a divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass. The same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. Okay, that's the teaching of the Catholic Church. There is a sacrifice going on, one and the same as the sacrifice that took place on the cross. It is an actual sacrifice of Christ to atone for sins.

You get to eat the wafer; at least you don't get to drink the wine anymore in the Catholic Church, but you get to eat it. And it's food that is now, because it's a sacrifice of Christ, freeing you from venial sins. Right? Not mortal sin, but venial sins. And you know, they categorize sins, and I think we talked a little bit about that last week. Maybe, maybe not. Yeah, we talked about it. Yeah, mortal sin gets washed away by the sacrament of baptism according to the Catholic Church, and venial sins are washed away and removed from my intake of the Eucharist. That is the teaching of transubstantiation in a box, in a nutshell.

Okay, let's keep moving. **Consubstantiation.** The doctrine of consubstantiation is not held to by the Catholics. This was a modified, mitigated view. Okay, who holds this view? The Lutherans do. Well, who do you think the proponent of this was? Sure, jolly old Martin Luther. Martin Luther was the architect of defining and clarifying what has come to be known as consubstantiation. Now, substantiation, you get that the substance, that's the question. Transubstantiation. This is easy to understand. We get it: trans. It translates, it turns into, it transforms into a different substance.

Consubstantiation. Luther rejected the fact that the priest, because he didn't care for the priest, could actually in the mass change, by any kind of delegated authority or inherent authority, those elements into the body of Christ. He rejected that. He said, no, those elements do not turn into the body and blood of Christ. But being trained as a priest, as he was, and a monk, he had nowhere else to go in his thinking as the doctrine had developed from the 13th century on. What was he going to say? Well, here's what he said. Here was his modified view: Christ is actually with, in, and under the elements. And that's just kind of, if you read anything on theology, that's how they like to say it. That's how he stated it. But he's not the wafer, and he's not the wine. But he's actually there with it.

Consubstantiation. Get that right? Con. Get it? Con. Substantiation. Christ is with it. What's the relation of Christ to the elements? He's there all over it, not it, but with it. Now, what do they mean by all this? Well, when you take the communion in a Lutheran church, if you're a good Lutheran, at least holding to consubstantiation, you believe that this is a means of grace. They'll call it a sacrament. They have no problem calling it a sacrament, even though a lot of people call these things sacraments and don't know what they're saying. But they do believe that there's some kind of grace given to you in the taking of the Lord's Supper.

Well, what kind? What do we get? They'll state it forthrightly. Through it, through the taking and partaking of it, we receive forgiveness. Now, they didn't turn it into anything, but Christ is there, choosing to be with it because he did say, "This is my body, this is my blood." Well, I don't think the priests have any power to turn it into that. But Christ must show up there in some special way. And then when we take it, as he said, it's for the forgiveness of sins. So when I take it, I must be getting some forgiveness from God. And not only that, he liked to say this too: through it, I get confirmed in my faith. It strengthens my faith. It's a means of God's goodness and favor into my life by giving me, through the elements, in kind of a fuzzy way, forgiveness and confidence and assurance in my faith. My faith is built by taking and being nourished by the Lord's Supper.

All right, third column: **Spiritual Meal.** This is a view I just call the spiritual meal. Who believes that? Presbyterians believe that. Reformed churches teach this. Okay, now think this through. We had the brainiacs like Aquinas teaching transubstantiation, the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, you know, bannering that. We had Luther come along. He goes, well, I'm not buying all that. So he had a mitigated view. Then his, you know, almost contemporary, his understudy here—not quite his understudy—the brilliant genius, John Calvin, is the great proponent of this view. Obviously, he's brilliant. All these guys are smart. But John Calvin was the one who took the view further from Lutheran doctrine. He said, well, wait a minute. I don't think Martin had it quite right. And he began to change this.

Okay, what did he say about it? Christ is not in, with, and under it. He's not actually there. He's spiritually present in the element. Okay, this gets really fuzzy. And it is stated. I've read. So, I mean, I went to a Reformed seminary, got a doctorate there, and a lot of fuzzy writing about the Lord's Supper, in my humble opinion. You can read the Westminster Confession, you can read the Heidelberg Confession or Catechism, you can read all these things which I have, and it's just a lot of fuzzy talk in this. But what you'll get is Christ is spiritually present there. Not actually. Certainly doesn't turn into it. But he's there in a way that he's not in other stuff. And he's spiritually focalized in his presence in the elements. They also like to call it a means of grace.

Okay, Heidelberg Catechism, question 76. Speaking of the Lord's Supper, it is not only then to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings of Christ, right? But then thereby to obtain pardon from sin and eternal life, but also, besides that, to become more and more united with his sacred body by the Holy Spirit who dwells both in Christ and in us, so that we, through Christ, who is in heaven, and we on earth, notwithstanding the flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, are governed forever by one spirit as members of the same body and one soul. That's what's taking place when we partake of the crucified Christ. We are becoming, to quote the heart of that statement, more and more united to his sacred body. There's benefit. It is a means of grace. Something's happening to you when you do this with a, as they like to say, a qualified, or how do they put it, a worthy heart, a worthy reception of the Lord's Supper.

Lastly, **Memorial Meal.** Let's call it that, the memorial meal. People that believe this would be like Baptist churches, Bible churches, Compass Bible, Ev Free churches, Calvary chapels. You name a lot of evangelical churches under this banner right here, okay? The primary proponent of this was Ulrich Zwingli, who said, no, no, no, you guys are all wrong. And people still hate him for this view. But I was right. Christ, he says, doesn't become it. And he's not actually there, and he's not spiritually there any more than he is, you know, in anything else as being present in the person of the Holy Spirit, omnipresent all over the world. He's not. There's no special presence there.

Okay? It's a wafer, it's unleavened bread, it's a cup of wine or a cup of fruit from the vine, grape juice, whatever. It is what it is. And it's not that there's some power in the element, and it's not that there's something spiritually taking place when I participate in it, in it, like the Calvinistic or the Lutheran view would state. He simply says it commemorates Christ's death. It is an act of remembrance. That's what we mean by commemorate. I am intending in taking this to take my mind back as Christ commanded, "Do this in remembrance of me." But he's saying what most of our churches—well, not most of our churches don't believe it, but what our church would teach, what I would teach, and what I believe is that all of these things are word pictures regarding the profundity of what Christ is doing on the cross.

We're reminded; that's the point. We are reminded of the benefits of Christ's redemptive work. And that's important, critically important, in the worship of the church. We come back to remembering that we preach Christ crucified, and then we have this ordinance of Christ that doesn't become a means of grace any more than anything else that brings our mind back to Christ would be a means of grace, if you want to use that phrase. And I know a lot of people who haven't split the hairs of theology very well like to use that in circles like ours. You can call it that if you want, but what's the point? What are you saying?

See, Calvin said something more than what Zwingli said, and he's certainly saying something more than I would say, or certainly, you know, Luther is saying way more than I would ever say. And that would be, yes, clearly there's a benefit to taking the Lord's Supper. Right? But the benefit is what's going on here in your mind to take your faith back, to strengthen your faith in what took place. And if you've heard me lead communion, you hear that's how I do it. I bring your minds back to it. I try to get you to celebrate it in your heart. I get you to affirm with faith that you trust in that. And I hope you're spiritually strengthened by that. But it's not by the eating, and it's not by the drinking. Those are the tangible elements that Christ puts us through to remember it. Just like baptism, right? There's nothing in the water. There's nothing mystical that takes place. He's not in the water with the water, under the water. Right? The picture is of us remembering Christ.

And again, Zwingli's been castigated by some and maligned by some because it's like, well, he makes the Lord's Supper nothing. I don't believe that. Being of the Memorial Meal view, I think it's very significant, but it's not what is taught in consubstantiation. So in Protestantism, there's con, spiritual, and memorial. Okay, you're pastors of the Memorial view. Well, what do you do with those statements about blood? And the blood is my all. Great. Let me give you some other examples from the book of John, because John is one who hits this real hard in chapter six. But in chapter eight, he says this. Jesus spoke to them. He said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." We read that. You have no problem with that. But you don't think Christ in, with, under, or turns into photons. Right? You get it. I think we should get the fact that Christ is not turning wine into his blood or turning bread into his body. And he's not trying to say, well, I have a special relationship with bread and wine any more than he has a special relationship with photons.

This is a great illustration and a great picture of what Christ is doing. But like salt and a lot of other things, this is an example. John 10, he says this. John 10, 7, 9. Christ said to them, Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." And he talks about that in verse eight. And then he says in verse nine, he says it again, "I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved. He will go in and out and find pasture through the door." And I'm the door. I am the door. No one pictures Christ as a piece of wood, right, with hinges. No one ever thinks he has a special relationship to doors and hinges. Right? It's not there anymore.

I would say to take it back to where we started, that those who were eating the lamb, the roasted lamb, and eating the unleavened bread thought that there was anything about that in particular. It was obedience in doing that, thinking about substitution, thinking about taking my leave of Egypt and not fitting in. It wasn't the element itself. John, chapter 15, verse 1. "I am the vine; my Father is the vine dresser." None of us think he's a vine. These are pictures and word pictures. And in this case, it's a real picture in an element. It is a living illustration. He took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant." His blood is all still in his body. Right? There's no pints being lost here.

See what I'm saying? There's no transubstantiation. There's nothing mystical or magical. The picture is, "This is my blood. I am the door. I am the light of the world. I am the vine; you are the branches." It's poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins, but it hadn't been. He didn't dump it on the ground. That was the picture, though he was about to die. He was going to the cross then. If that doesn't convince you, I tell you I will not drink again of this blood until that day when I drink the blood anew with you. Is that what it says, this fruit of the vine? I mean, I think that takes this back to what we're talking about. He clarifies in the same sentence, "This is not my blood." Oh, I said it was my blood. Just like I said, "I'm the door, I'm the light, I'm the vine." But that's not the picture. I said, "You're the salt of the world."

These are pictures here. Pictures that are supposed to represent something that's deeper and richer than just stating the facts. And he ties it to an element that is so ingrained in Jewish culture, the eating of the Passover meal that speaks of their redemption, that this was then memorialized as something they were to do from that day forward: the Lord's Supper.

Speaker 1

**Redemption, and Remembering Christ.**

You're listening to Focal Point with Pastor Mike Fabarez and a special edition of Ask Pastor Mike discussing the practice of Communion. Well, our examination of John's Gospel brings clarity to the act of taking the Lord's Supper. It's a living illustration depicting something deeper, richer than stating the facts alone. And as we see Jesus calling himself the door, the vine, and the blood, we begin to understand the illustrative nature of his teachings, especially regarding Communion.

Intensive Bible studies like the one you just heard aren't just for seminarians. They should be accessible to anyone who wants to know the truth behind doctrines we profess. That's why Focal Point is determined to present solid biblical answers for issues of faith and practice like the Lord's Supper in a way you and I can understand clearly.

And if you value this aspect of Focal Point, we invite you to become a Focal Point partner. Join the dedicated team that makes this Bible teaching possible to everyone hungry for the full truth. It's easy to sign up and give your automated monthly gift. We'll send you a resource we've picked out just for you, and you'll be making sure this program stays strong right here on this station. Just call 883-205-885 or go to focalpointradio.org.

Today, we're quickly coming up on your last chance to request a book that underscores the relevance of remaining in Christ. **Character Counts.** This book helps you get honest about who you are. If Jesus is the door, have you entered in? If he's the vine, are you grafted in? What's the proof in your life? Examine your character in light of scriptures to see if you're truly living as Christ intended. The book **Character Counts** is yours today. For your generous gift to Focal Point, call 888-320-5885 or go online to focalpointradio.org.

I'm Dave Drouy. Pastor Mike Fabarez returns after the weekend with more from his series **Preparing for the Kingdom.** So come back Monday for Focal Point. Today's program was produced and sponsored by Focal Point Ministries.