Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by DaChaser1, Mar 2, 2012.
As regarding IF it is symbolic in nature, or somehow presense of Jesus in it?
No.... should we?
Speaking of this issue, and as the two of you seem to hold the elements of Lords Supper as symbolic (as do I), how do you address the condemnation for those who take it in an unworthy manner?
1 Corinthians 11:27-29
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
Is there such a thing as a Reformed Catholic? :laugh:
Sure, the Independent Catholic Movement has plenty of Reformed Catholics.
How have they reformed? By not supporting cake sales and/or going to Bingo? :laugh:
No, Reformed Baptists are probably the most outspoken I have seen against the Roman Catholic (and Lutheran) idea of transubstantiation.
The difference between Reformed Baptists and other Baptists on their view of the Lord's Supper is probably related to how they defend their baptistic understanding of it against other denominations.
Reformed Baptists are usually covenantal to some extant and will defend their view of the Lord's Supper and baptism (credo) against other Reformed denominations by their view of how the New Covenant relates to (and is different from) the Old Covenant. A HUGE part of the Reformed Baptist defense of credobaptism is in the definition and application of the New Covenant defined in Jeremiah 31:31-34 as an "invisible" covenant that is equivalent to the elect. According to Jeremiah 31:34 in the New Covenant "all shall know [the Lord] from the least to the greatest of them." It is not a "mixed" (or "visible") covenant of elect and non-elect like the Old Covenant with ethnic Israel that was based on households and had "covenant breakers." Because the New Covenant is with individuals and includes only the elect "in His blood," the "sign of the covenant" should be protected and administrated to those who profess and express faith in the gospel.
One argument that Reformed Baptists use against Presbyterians concerning baptism is with the administration of the Lord's Supper. Many Presbyterians protect the ordinance of the Lord's Supper the same way Baptists protect the ordinance of baptism based on Paul's warnings in 1 Corinthians 11. Reformed Baptists ask Presbyterians why they cannot be consistent with both ordinances if both are related to the New Covenant. After all, Jesus said the cup is "the New Covenant in My blood." If the blood of Christ washes away sins, and Jeremiah 31:34 says that in the New Covenant "I will take away their sins and remember them no more," then it would seem that all members of the New Covenant are elect, and the church should attempt to administer it only to the elect. The same with baptism, and there is not a single clear instance of anyone in the New Testament being baptized who did not profess faith in the gospel.
There could be so much more that could be said about the debate over baptism and the Lord's Supper and the definition of the New Covenant between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. The subject is fascinating.
Can't answer for all baptists holding Reformed doctrines (I don't know them all :laugh: ). But I have not come across any who believe what you seem to be asking about - some sort of "consubstantiation". Do you have any reason to think that Reformed /Doctrines-of-Grace/Calvinistic baptists have different ideas to other baptists on this matter?
From Nathan Finn's White Paper on the Lord's Supper:
From the Spring 2011 'ARBCA Update' newsletter:
yes, as Reformed tend to hold to their being a spiritual presense of the lord present withCommunion being taken, itl like one "eats" spiritual food during that time...