Help explaining the nature of baptism vs. the Lord's Supper

A believer is to be baptized only once; the Lord's Supper is to be participated in many times throughout the Christian life. Baptism is to be done once because, as it is popularly put, signifies the once-for-all work of Christ; it also signifies our regeneration which, the logic goes, means we shouldn't be baptized again since we are only born again once.

Now, before any false ideas come up, I agree with this, and I also believe that the Lord's Supper is to be participated in numerous times. I simply want some help clarifying exactly why the Lord's Supper isn't participated in only once on the same grounds. [I have to teach tomorrow night on baptism and I'd like this clear in my own thinking]. When we come before the table of the Lord, we certainly come with minds filled with thoughts of our union with Christ, yet this union is not something we lose and regain over and over in a cycle, so why do we feast again and again?

Adam,
As a Presbyterian, I cannot agree with the premises laid out in your first paragraph. I suspect out confessional Baptist brothers may have concerns before they "sign on" to the assertions as they are stated. As these matters are of supreme importance to the health and life of the Christian and to the purposes of God, further light may be wise before declaring authoritatively in this area.

TheThirdandReformedAdam said:

I simply want some help clarifying exactly why the Lord's Supper isn't participated in only once on the same grounds. [I have to teach tomorrow night on baptism and I'd like this clear in my own thinking]. When we come before the table of the Lord, we certainly come with minds filled with thoughts of our union with Christ, yet this union is not something we lose and regain over and over in a cycle, so why do we feast again and again?

Click to expand...

The grounds of the Supper is that God continues to strengthen us with ordinary means when we spiritually partake of the elements through faith.

Gforce9 said:

Adam,
As a Presbyterian, I cannot agree with the premises laid out in your first paragraph. I suspect out confessional Baptist brothers may have concerns before they "sign on" to the assertions as they are stated. As these matters are of supreme importance to the health and life of the Christian and to the purposes of God, further light may be wise before declaring authoritatively in this area.

Click to expand...

Brother, I am struggling to see what makes my statement 'unpresbyterian.' Is it because I did not mention the role of baptism as the new covenant seal? Forgive me, just want to be clear (especially since I consider myself orthodox Presbyterian in doctrine)

TheThirdandReformedAdam said:

Brother, I am struggling to see what makes my statement 'unpresbyterian.' Is it because I did not mention the role of baptism as the new covenant seal? Forgive me, just want to be clear (especially since I consider myself orthodox Presbyterian in doctrine)

Click to expand...

TheThirdandReformedAdam said:

A believer is to be baptized only once; the Lord's Supper is to be participated in many times throughout the Christian life. Baptism is to be done once because, as it is popularly put, signifies the once-for-all work of Christ; it also signifies our regeneration which, the logic goes, means we shouldn't be baptized again since we are only born again once.

Now, before any false ideas come up, I agree with this, and I also believe that the Lord's Supper is to be participated in numerous times. I simply want some help clarifying exactly why the Lord's Supper isn't participated in only once on the same grounds. [I have to teach tomorrow night on baptism and I'd like this clear in my own thinking]. When we come before the table of the Lord, we certainly come with minds filled with thoughts of our union with Christ, yet this union is not something we lose and regain over and over in a cycle, so why do we feast again and again?

Click to expand...

Adam,
Yesterday was a long and tedious day, so I apologize for the delayed response. In the first paragraph, there were a few things that jumped out at me (looking from a Presbyterian perspective). 1-the children of at least one believing parent should be baptized as well as previously non believing adults who give a credible witness. The child may or may not believe at the time of administration, but his/her belief is not the grounds, but rather, the promises and purposes of God are the grounds. 2- For the Presbyterian, baptism does not signify regeneration, per se, that is a more baptistic distinctive. It is the promise of God to His people of His faithfulness. For the Presbyterian, we are not making the declaration in baptism, but God is declaring His greatness and work. To say it another way, in baptism, I am not speaking, but God is speaking.

To answer the original question, we have Jesus telling folks to be baptized (with no further instruction to repeat it as well as the covenantal sign in history <testimony of the Old and New Testaments>), but there is a charge to repeat the Lord's Supper until He returns........

Gforce9 said:

Adam,
Yesterday was a long and tedious day, so I apologize for the delayed response. In the first paragraph, there were a few things that jumped out at me (looking from a Presbyterian perspective). 1-the children of at least one believing parent should be baptized as well as previously non believing adults who give a credible witness. The child may or may not believe at the time of administration, but his/her belief is not the grounds, but rather, the promises and purposes of God are the grounds. 2- For the Presbyterian, baptism does not signify regeneration, per se, that is a more baptistic distinctive. It is the promise of God to His people of His faithfulness. For the Presbyterian, we are not making the declaration, but in baptism, God is declaring His greatness and work. To say it another way, in baptism, I am not speaking, but God is speaking.

To answer the original question, we have Jesus telling folks to be baptized (with no further instruction to repeat it as well as the covenantal sign in history <testimony of the Old and New Testaments>), but the charge to repeat the Lord's Supper until He returns........

Click to expand...

Thanks, brother, then we are both in perfect agreement. I simply wanted to clarify. My apologies for being misleading by prefacing the paragraph with 'believer.' I have come out of a background that was--doctrinally speaking--extremely weak in this area, and so a lot of its baptismal jargon still sticks to me as much as I wish it didn't.