-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are the Sacraments just symbolic, or something else also?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
37818
Well-Known Member
Yeah, at best, extra Biblical terninology for a believer's observace of them.
I was thinking more in how reformed tend to see some aspect of the spiritual presence of Jesus with us in them.
Southern Baptist theologian Nathan Finn:
[pdf] http://v7.swbts.edu/tasks/render/file/?fileID=822376A2-AA7F-3A6A-E6628478A88E74D5
"While many Protestant denominations...refer to these practices as sacraments, most Baptist churches prefer to call them 'ordinances'"
"Most Baptists have historically held a 'memorial view' of the Lord’s Supper, recalling Jesus’ command that the ordinance be observed 'in remembrance of me.'"
"In contrast to the memorial view, some Baptists hold to a view of the 'spiritual presence' of Christ in communion"
"The 'spiritual presence' understanding of the Lord’s Supper is especially common among some moderate Southern Baptists and in the Reformed Baptist tradition"
[pdf] http://v7.swbts.edu/tasks/render/file/?fileID=822376A2-AA7F-3A6A-E6628478A88E74D5
"While many Protestant denominations...refer to these practices as sacraments, most Baptist churches prefer to call them 'ordinances'"
"Most Baptists have historically held a 'memorial view' of the Lord’s Supper, recalling Jesus’ command that the ordinance be observed 'in remembrance of me.'"
"In contrast to the memorial view, some Baptists hold to a view of the 'spiritual presence' of Christ in communion"
"The 'spiritual presence' understanding of the Lord’s Supper is especially common among some moderate Southern Baptists and in the Reformed Baptist tradition"
Wonder what is meant by Moderate Sbc?
I sometimes cringe when someone refers to the Baptist understanding of the ordinances as "mere symbols," as if they are only reminders for the intellect, the equivalent of a trinket you picked up on a trip to the Grand Canyon that makes you smile when you spy it out of the corner of your eye.
It is widely considered that Baptists follow Zwingli's understanding of the ordinances, especially of the Lord's Supper. But I think modern Baptists have become Zwinglians that outdo Zwingli, just as some Calvinists try to outdo Calvin.
Here's what the Baptist Faith and Message says of the Lord's Supper: "The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming."
That is true, but isn't the Lord's Supper even more than that?
This is what Zwingli had to say:
"So then, when you come to the Lord’s Supper to feed spiritually upon Christ, and when you thank the Lord for his great favour, for the redemption whereby you are delivered from despair, and for the pledge whereby you are assured of eternal salvation, when you join with your brethren in partaking of the bread and wine which are the tokens of the body of Christ, then in the true sense of the word you eat him sacramentally. You do inwardly that which you represent outwardly, your soul being strengthened by the faith which you attest in the tokens."
Zwingli also emphasized that the Lord's Supper is above all a corporate event; it is not a snack to be taken in the privacy of your den. Participants much eat discerning the body, which is both discerning the body and blood of Christ in the supper and the role of the church as the body of Christ. And thus it is Baptist custom not to take of the supper except in communion with the body of Christ on earth.
This is not so much different from the Second London Confession, which is similar to the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration:
" Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."
So much for "mere symbols."
It is widely considered that Baptists follow Zwingli's understanding of the ordinances, especially of the Lord's Supper. But I think modern Baptists have become Zwinglians that outdo Zwingli, just as some Calvinists try to outdo Calvin.
Here's what the Baptist Faith and Message says of the Lord's Supper: "The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming."
That is true, but isn't the Lord's Supper even more than that?
This is what Zwingli had to say:
"So then, when you come to the Lord’s Supper to feed spiritually upon Christ, and when you thank the Lord for his great favour, for the redemption whereby you are delivered from despair, and for the pledge whereby you are assured of eternal salvation, when you join with your brethren in partaking of the bread and wine which are the tokens of the body of Christ, then in the true sense of the word you eat him sacramentally. You do inwardly that which you represent outwardly, your soul being strengthened by the faith which you attest in the tokens."
Zwingli also emphasized that the Lord's Supper is above all a corporate event; it is not a snack to be taken in the privacy of your den. Participants much eat discerning the body, which is both discerning the body and blood of Christ in the supper and the role of the church as the body of Christ. And thus it is Baptist custom not to take of the supper except in communion with the body of Christ on earth.
This is not so much different from the Second London Confession, which is similar to the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration:
" Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."
So much for "mere symbols."
In a way I view both as our participation in affirming our covenantal membership.
It is as serious, IMHO, as making a statement before God (similar to Ananias and Sapphira's lie).
The Reformers considered the Lords's Supper to be a means of grace (not in the Roman Catholic sense), whereby our faith is strengthened as we partake corporately with the body of Christ. This is very similar to what you posted above. The framers of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith wrote:
30.1._____ The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.
( 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17,21 ) (emphasis mine)
They were careful to point out that the elements contained no mystical properties, which is the error or Rome.
37818
Well-Known Member
The Lord's supper is a fellowship with fellow believer's in rememberence of Christ's death which He gave us the New Covenant by which we are Christ's body and so we are partakers of that one bread. And as a rememberence until His second appearing and not any kind of sacrament.
Last edited:
No effectual saving grace as Rome sees them as having inherit within them, correct?
How about when we partake of communion though?
Is there not the Lord Jesus present with and in us when we gather to all partake though?
Yeshua1/DaChaser1/JesusFan, I thought you 'hold to' the 1689 Confession. Better read it again.
Here it is alongside the WCF. The Baptists rejected the term sacrament every time, along with much of the accompanying rigamarole:
Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) versus 1689 London Confession (Baptist)
Here it is alongside the WCF. The Baptists rejected the term sacrament every time, along with much of the accompanying rigamarole:
Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) versus 1689 London Confession (Baptist)
I know that we tend to call them Ordinances of the Church, but reformed Baptists still tend to see them different than main Baptists!
Yes, as I posted above, some moderate Southern Baptists and Reformed Baptists have taken up what regular Baptists soundly reject.
37818
Well-Known Member
Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 10:17. We as the Body of Christ are part of and therefore always partakers in Christ not merely in the Lord's Supper rememberence alone. He being that one bread.
So then He would be with and among us when we gather to partake of the Communion .
I will throw out that it depends on what that "something else" is. I have difficulty with this subject. However, I have yet to find a remotely scriptural sacramentalist view of the atonement.