Heidelberg Catechism

Q. 76) What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink his shed blood?

A. First, to accept with a believing heart all the suffering and the death of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of sins and life eternal.1

Second, to be united more and more to his sacred body through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us.2 Therefore, although Christ is in heaven3 and we are on earth, yet we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones,4 and we forever live and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul.5

1 Jn 6:35, 40, 50-54.
2 Jn 6:55, 56; 1 Cor 12:13.
3 Acts 1:9-11; 3:21; 1 Cor 11:26; Col 3:1.
4 1 Cor 6:15, 17; Eph 5:29, 30; 1 Jn 4:13.
5 Jn 6:56-58; 15:1-6; Eph 4:15, 16; 1 Jn 3:24.

Here we come at the invitation and command of the Lord Christ to His table. And we might find ourselves asking “what means this,” and that even if we have been around these things all our lives. Just as a fish is the last one you’d want to ask about what water means so because Christians have been so long around the Lord’s table sometimes they are the last ones to know what it all means.

As such we take a few minutes to remind ourselves of the meaning of eating the crucified body of Christ and the meaning of drinking the shed blood of Christ.

For our purpose this morning note the language they use here in the question. Following Christ’s institution of the meal the catechizers speak directly about the Sacrament. They do not tell us that we are eating or drinking a symbol. They tell us that we are eating the crucified body of Christ and drinking His shed blood. They used this language even though they knew it had been misused and misinterpreted from the Church from which they were departing. They understood that even though there was not a literal consuming of the body and blood of Christ, still the union between the Church as body and Christ as the head was so intimate that they retained the idea of eating the broken body of Christ and drinking the shed blood of Christ. They offered a spiritual eating and a spiritual drinking and yet still a very real eating and drinking.

As they turn to the explicit answer of what this means they immediately point to the death of Christ by saying

First, to accept with a believing heart all the suffering and the death of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of sins and life eternal.1

They thus establish that in the Eucharist we find the atonement and our own escape from death. The table is thus proclaiming the death of Christ and that our sins are no more remembered by God. When we partake of the Table we set aside the sting of death and embrace life eternal.

Part of the implication of this is that we, as those who partake of Christ’s table, are not preoccupied with death. This sets us apart.

Let’s take our own social order as an example. We are seeing daily a preoccupation with avoiding death. Our social order is so fearful of the idea of death that, ironically enough, we are killing ourselves in the name of avoiding death. We are hearing, at every turn, are we not, that the most extreme measures are justified if we can only save one life. If we can save one life it is worth spiraling into a Great Depression. If we can save one life it is worth buying drones from China so as to make sure Battle Creek citizens are social distancing. If we can save one life we will shut down a whole state when the problem is restricted to three counties. If we can just save one life. And this as coming predominantly from those who have no problem visiting death upon the judicially innocent unborn.

The Christian, precisely because he comes to the Table and sits under the Word should not be characterized by this kind of abject and senseless fear. And why is that? Because the meaning of eating the body of Christ and drinking His shed blood is in part that Christ has died our death. We are the atoned for people. Christ has died in our place. In the table we eat of the bread of eternal life and we drink the cup of forgiveness. Death, at least should not, have the terrorizing effect on God’s people so that we pursue near certain death in wanton destruction of economic infrastructures in order to escape the panic and stampede of the remotely possible death.

Coming to the Lord’s Table gives us a preternatural calm. We have no desire to die before the Lord’s timing but neither do we find ourselves panicked out of our minds that we might die.

And so in proclaiming the Death of Christ as we come to the table and eat and drink in faith we once again are reminded of the Atonement that the Lord Christ provides. He takes from us our sins and accounts our sins to Him and God counts Christ’s righteousness … Christ’s acceptability … Christ’s favor … Christ’s perfection, to our account. We find our safety from our certain coming death in all that Christ has done for us.

This accepting of Christ’s death and atonement that is proclaimed in the Table really does mark the epistemologically self-conscious Christian as different.

As we live in a community of faith basic to any healthy community is embracing Christ’s atonement.

All communities outside of Christ, whatever foundation they may seek to have or profess, are founded on sin and so as instrumental to their fallen community they seek to establish some mechanism of atonement within their fallen social order for you see no social order established on sin can experience anything other than death. Such social orders are without effectual atonement, without gracious grace, and without a valid hope.

And so, as Atonement is an inescapable category (by this we mean that while the need of atonement may be verbally denied, all anti-Christ social orders [communities] will implement some form of godless atonement in order to deal with whatever idea of sin that social order creates and acknowledges) all social orders when examined will have a means of atonement — a means of covering sin. If men in a social order will not have Christ’s death and atonement they will ferret out false blood atonements.

And what is the means of Atonement right now in our social order? What will cover our sins of the fear of death? What atonement will deliver us from the power of fear of death? Why clearly one answer is vaccines. Vaccines are one of our blood atonements. They will cover our sin. They will set us free from our mindless fear of death. Or so we tell ourselves that.

So we eat the flesh of the unborn in vaccinating up. Our false atonement is mercury laden and has who knows what strange DNA and other pollutants and we inject all this in order to deliver us from death. We won’t have Christ’s blood atonement and His death in our place and so we create false blood atonements and we metaphorically eat their flesh and drink their blood.

You see, my friends, blood atonement has not gone away in our social order. It has merely been transferred. Atonement, imputation, substitution… all key realities of the Christian faith our inescapable realities that can not be escaped.

So, as we come to this table to eat His crucified body and drink His blood we do so understanding that in part the meaning is that Christ has died our death, has covered and forgiven our sins, and has, even now given to us a eternal life that finds us going from eternal life unto eternal life until this life though swallowed in death will yield the fullness of eternal life. We will have this Atonement… this forgiveness … this eternal life and no other.

Dear Pastor,

“How does one make the claim exegetically that the atonement (penal substitution) also includes “redeeming culture” as it were?”

Thanks,

Matthew S.

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for a insightful question. I would offer as a thumbnail sketch below,

1.) The world was held in bondage under sin. (Romans 5:12f)

2.) When Christ arrives he announces the coming of the Kingdom (Mark 1:15)

3.) The coming of the Kingdom requires the Atonement in order for Christ’s triumph over sin and all opposition to be complete.

We get this exegetically as we combine the reality of Mark 1:15 with the charge that Jesus gives His disciples after the resurrection. Jesus teaches that the disciples are to baptize the nations teaching them to observe all things wherein Christ commanded. From this we conclude that Christ’s intent was for all the Nations to be won before His return and that winning of the nations is connected to His atoning work. In other words, if Christ had not made atonement there could have been no winning of the Nations before Christ’s return.

4.) There is also the connection between the cultural mandate in Scripture, which is the divine injunction found in Genesis 1:28, in which God, after having created the world and all in it, ascribes to humankind the tasks of filling, subduing, and ruling over the earth. We would contend that the Atonement sets God’s people free to fulfill this cultural mandate.

5.) Christ is redeeming all things- the environment, disease, culture, politics, business, civil government, economics, media—the “seven mountains charismatics” are right on this issue because they agree with the Puritans and the scriptures here:

“and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” Col 1:20

“that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” 2 Cor 5:19

Now, granted the Seven Mountains Charismatics are not right on much else but on this point they are like the old blind sow who can find an acorn once in a while.

“A new Crisis and many Christians rush to try and uncover the conspiracy rather than seeking after and studying the God of Providence.”

Presbyterian Minister

1.) False dichotomy. One can both seek after and study the God of Providence while at the same time try to uncover the conspiracy. After all, the Providence of God may be found in understanding the Conspiracy.

2.) Why is it automatically more pious to “seek after and study the God of Providence,” as opposed to seeking to uncover a conspiracy to the glory of God?

3.) Why would any Christian ever not try and uncover the conspiracies that routinely accompany every new Crisis? It would be a violation of the 6th commandment to blindly accept the coincidence narrative inasmuch as accepting the coincidence narrative could well lead to our harm and the harm of our loved ones.

4.) Why couldn’t I just as easily say, “A new Crisis and many Presbyterian ministers rush to blindly accept the coincidence theory rather than seeking after and studying all the instances in Scripture of how history is driven by Conspiracy and then realize they should do the same?”

5.) Why should any epistemologically self-conscious Christian accept at face value the meaning of any new Crisis? Why should any epistemologically self-conscious Christian accept the interpretation of any new crisis as served up by the Lugenpresse and a Government that is long established as expert liars? I should no more, as a Christian, accept the meaning of any new crisis as given by my enemy then I would accept the Chinese explanation of the meaning of the Wuhan crisis. Not delving into the conspiracies that accompany every “crisis” and choosing instead to only focus on God’s Providence, as if I can completely discern God’s decretal will, is completely irresponsible and sentimental mush.

While we are at it, let’s take the opportunity to take a whack at those Ministerial types who teach that when visited by disaster the proper Christian response is to just stoically accept it and not seek to remedy the disaster. For example … “If God gives you a Stalin as a magistrate well, God knows what He is doing and Christian you should accept God’s judgment and get on with life.”

Please realize that if Oliver Cromwell and the Reformed Round-heads had taken this response England would have been Roman Catholic. If John Knox had taken the, “God sent Mary to us so I guess I will bar my neck to God’s judgment and submit to Mary,” Scotland would never have become Reformed. If our American forefathers had accepted the British Parliament being illegally pressed upon them we would still be part of Britain.

These Ministers who teach that Christians just need to submit to their misinterpreted meaning of God’s Providence. How do they know that God’s Providence didn’t intend that the bringing of a tyrant was for His people to repent, rise up, and throw off the tyrant instead of their cowardly interpretation of God’s Providence that Christians are supposed to cower and accept wickedness in high places until such a time that God brings it to an end.

This is what Ben Dorr excelled @ in his interview w/ Beck.

1.) He appealed for funds without appealing for funds. He did not make a direct appeal for money but when asked what the difference was between him and George Soros he answered, “Well, we are significantly less funded.” It’s a subtle and wise way to appeal for funds. He did the same kind of thing a second time. Funds are needed because Soros and the opposition has deep deep pockets.


2.) Ben turned negative press into positive press. Ben and his brothers are constantly being slammed by the press for their rabid and extreme opposition. Ben turned this around by bragging that they indeed fought “nasty” and they will continue to do so in order to defend America’s 2nd amendment rights and to defend American’s liberty. He could’ve quoted Barry Goldwater here,

“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”

3.) Ben turned negative press into positive press a second time when he noted that his support is organic and not astro-turf. The media is constantly carping that the support for team Dorr is artificial and contrived. Ben noted to Glenn that contrary to media reports large amounts of money was not being spent in order to marshal these rallies. They simply created Facebook groups and invited a few of their friends who then invited tens of thousands of their friends. It was these people who showed up for rallies across the states.

4.) Ben also got to reinforce his 2nd amendment even though this was an interview on the public protests at the State Capitals. Of course if we can’t retain our 2nd amendment rights protests are going to be non existent.

5.) Ben made it clear that they were not being unreasonable. That they understood that some areas (NYC) have to be monitored more assiduously, but that those areas that are not suffering need to have their right to assembly retained.

6.) Repetition bears memory. I didn’t count how many times Ben used the word “Freedom,” but it is clear that was used repeatedly in order to grind it into people’s heads. The protests at the State capitals are about FREEDOM.

7.) Ben mentioned the excessive and draconian stipulations being placed upon the citizenry by the State Governors. By providing the most extreme examples Ben paints a background that demonstrates that the protests are completely reasonable in light of Government tyranny. Ben gently mocked the Governors by mentioning some of these diktats. This is right out of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

8.) Ben was good natured in the interview, even laughing along with Glenn several times. This is was not accidental. Ben wanted to communicate friendly bonhomie as opposed to an angry demeanor.

9.) Ben kept it focused on the people. This isn’t about his group. It’s about restoring authority to the people. He made it clear that when Governments are diminished in power, that power returns to where it belongs … to the people as represented in the States. This is Federalism 101.

10.) Ben mentioned the Governors by name (although he left out the very worse one — Michigan Governor Whitmer). This puts a face on the opposition. Governors Evers (Wisconsin) Wolf (Pennsylvania), Walz (Minnesota) were mentioned by name. This keeps the heat on and makes the fight personal. (People will fight against known faces. They are more slow to fight against nameless ideas.)

All in all it was a fine interview and moves the ball forward.

Well done Ben.

We take the necessity of logical consistency, Empirical adequacy, and Experiential relevance … what do we put that test to? To the four questions of Origin, Meaning, Destiny, and Morality. What are the subjects? The subjects are God, reality, knowledge, morality, and mankind, which is theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and anthropology. Three tests. Four Questions. Five disciplines.

Ravi Zacharias

I heard this recently in a Ravi Zacharias sermon and it caught my attention because I was taught something very similar when I was 18, and it has remained central to my own thinking every since.

This was the form in which I learned it from Dr. Glenn Martin. Dr. Martin began every course he taught with the review you will find below. Martin taught me that the Christian, in his apologetic endeavor has to answer the larger questions with lasting answers.

The larger questions were,

“The Origin, Nature, and Destiny of the Cosmos?” &
“The Origin, Nature, Destiny and Role of Man?”

In order to do that one was required to provide answers for

Epistemology — The question of Knowledge

Options

a.) Autonomous Reason
b.) Intuition
c.) Revelation

Teleology — The question of purpose…ends

a.) The Kingdom of God
b.) The Kingdom of Man

Ontology (Metaphysics) — The question of ultimate reality

Extra-mundane Personal Sovereign God
Time plus Chance plus Circumstance

Axiology — The question of values.

God’s Law
Man’s relativism

All of this was then applied to the 7 civil-social Institutions that all social orders build.

A.) Church
B.) Family
C.) Arts
D.) Education
E.) Science
F.) Civil-social (politics)
G.) Law