The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Reformed Baptists and view of the Lord's Supper

This is NOT intended to start a debate--I would simply like to know something: how do Reformed Baptists view the Lord's Supper? By that I mean do they generally hold what one would call a "memorialist" view of the Sacrament? Or would they be closer to Calvin's view (what I'd call a "spiritual presence" position)? Or does it depend on the individual Reformed Baptist?

Any information on this would be appreciated.

Thanks and may God bless,

Theo

I may have answered my own question, at least in part--see chapter 30 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession at this link:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part30

But I would still be interested in whether present-day Reformed Baptists would agree with this.

Theo

Theo typically it depends upon the individual person/congregation. I know of at least three different views in the RB groups and they seem to cover everything from the "memorial view" to the "spiritual presence" to a quasi view that seems to cover both and neither.

Personally I hold that communion like baptism are a "means of Grace" as Keach taught see here

Pete,

Thanks so much for that link--it is a really good resource! I had not realized before that Reformed Baptists could vary that much (THREE different views?) but then now that I think about it Anglicans are the same way. They can range from outright transubstantiation to consubstantiation to a view much like Calvin's. (I'm not sure I have ever heard of an Anglican "memorialist" unless John Stott comes close to that.)

Again, thanks so much.

Theo

Theo
I'm not Baptist or Presbyterian. Above all I consider myself a Christian.
Here is a comparison of sections contained in the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF.

1646 WCF
2. In this [color:"FF0000"]sacrament[/color] 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 [color:"0000FF"]commemoration[/color] 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 [color:"0000FF"]abominably [/color] injurious to Christ's [color:"FF0000"]one, only [/color] sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

1689 LBCF
2. In this [color:"FF0000"]ordinance[/color] Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a [color:"0000FF"]memorial[/color] 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 [color:"0000FF"]abominable[/color], injurious to Christ's [color:"FF0000"]own[/color] sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

The church we attend is a reformed Baptist church that holds to this part of the confession.
William

William,

Thank you so much for this! It is really helpful to see the side-by-side comparison of the two doctrinal statements--I had not realized the wording was practically identical except for the word "sacrament" being changed to "ordinance". (That was the change that caught my eye.) I had been curious about this since most Southern Baptists I knew would really seem to be "memorialist" and it had only recently occurred to me that there might be OTHER positions held by Baptists.

I appreciate your help!

Theo

hi Theo,

I am a Reformed Baptist that attends a Presbyterian Church, but a RB congregation that I used to attend held the 1689 confession as its creed, and represented the Lord's Supper as it is written there: as a memorial only, but an important means of grace nonetheless.