Baptist v. Presbyterian Understanding of Lord's Supper

[ServantOfKing]

The following is a quote from a reformed Baptist church's Affirmation of Faith:
"We believe that the Lord´s Supper is an ordinance of the Lord in which gathered believers eat bread, signifying Christ´s body given for His people, and drink the cup of the Lord, signifying the New Covenant in Christ´s blood. We do this in remembrance of the Lord, and thus proclaim His death until He comes. Those who eat and drink it in a worthy manner partake of Christ´s body and blood, not physically, but spiritually, in that, by faith, they are nourished in the benefits He obtained through His death, and thus grow in grace."

Is this in any way different, contradictory, or lacking when compared to the Westminster Confession? I'm trying to understand the differences, but sometimes I get caught up in the differences assigned to different words. Thanks in advance :-D

 

[Puritanhead]

Westminster Confession - Chapter 29: Of the Lord's Supper

I could affirm this section of the WCF just as easily as the pertinent section of the London Confession. We must not be lumped in with those antinomian Free Will Baptists and liberal SBC. We don't demean the ordinance of Communion.

 

[ServantOfKing]

Okay- so Reformed Baptists do not see it merely as a memorial, but also as something truly spiritually edifying?

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by ServantOfKing
Okay- so Reformed Baptists do not see it merely as a memorial, but also as something truly spiritually edifying?

It's not a Catholic Mass, but spiritually edifying as you say nonetheless.

We should never lose respect for the solemnity of the occassion and what it represents.

As the Apostle says, in 1 Corinthians 11:24, "and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.'"

In the past, I have had a tendency to be a little reflexively touchy, because too be honest I think Presbyterians naturally lump us historic Baptists in with ever other rank-and-file dispensational Baptist and Free Will Baptist, and assume antinomian ways about us too.

There is a precarious balance that requires the faithfulness of the ministers administering the ordinance to stir past the extremes of haphazardly administering it, (in which young children and non-believers are partaking in it,) and the pompous spectacle that Anglicans make of it. Unfortunately, because it is demeaned among some evangelicals, they care little about it's administration either.

I don't care for the pomp and ceremony, and sterile formalism that goes into the Anglican liturgy. It's too Romish. And their doctrine of the sacraments / ordinances is off-base.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by ServantOfKing
Okay- so Reformed Baptists do not see it merely as a memorial, but also as something truly spiritually edifying?

I think most have basically a Zwinglian, memorial view of the Supper, but I do know some Baptists who have the Calvinistic view that is seen in the WCF.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by ServantOfKing
Okay- so Reformed Baptists do not see it merely as a memorial, but also as something truly spiritually edifying?

I think most have basically a Zwinglian, memorial view of the Supper, but I do know some Baptists who have the Calvinistic view that is seen in the WCF.

I think we can recognize Christ's presence in Communion, if we have the Holy Spirit, as surely as we recognize the vibrant presence of the Holy Spirit in our day-to-day lives as believers. I think one should tread lightly, however, with extrabiblical descriptions based on conjecture about the nature of Christ's presence in Communion all the same.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by ServantOfKing
Okay- so Reformed Baptists do not see it merely as a memorial, but also as something truly spiritually edifying?

I think most have basically a Zwinglian, memorial view of the Supper, but I do know some Baptists who have the Calvinistic view that is seen in the WCF.

I think we can recognize Christ's presence in Communion, if we have the Holy Spirit, as surely as we recognize the vibrant presence of the Holy Spirit in our day-to-day lives as believers. I think one should tread lightly, however, with extrabiblical descriptions based on conjecture about the nature of Christ's presence in Communion all the same.

I think the reluctance to speculate on the nature of Christ's presence in Communion is the essence of the Calvinistic position.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The LBC 30.7 says:

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do them 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.

I think this is virtually identical to WCF 29.7. Despite this similarity, my impression is -- so this is only anecdotal evidence--, however, that most baptists would not be entirely comfortable with language of the Belgic Art 35:

But for the support of the spiritual and heavenly life which believers have He has sent a living bread, which descended from heaven, namely, Jesus Christ, who nourishes and strengthens the spiritual life of believers when they eat Him, that is to say, when they appropriate and receive Him by faith in the spirit.

Unlike Baptism, a ritual of covenant initiation, the Supper is a covenant renewal ritual, and thus restricted to those who make profession of faith.

We recognize a memorial aspect to the Supper:

In order that He might represent unto us this spiritual and heavenly bread, Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as a sacrament of His body, and wine as a sacrament of His blood, ...

There is more occurring, however, than merely remembering. The Supper is more than an intense psychological/interior experience. It is a meal. Someone is fed and something is eaten.

...to testify by them unto us that, as certainly as we receive and hold this sacrament in our hands and eat and drink the same with our mouths, by which our life is afterwards nourished, we also do as certainly receive by faith (which is the hand and mouth of our soul)

Note the centrality of faith. We eat the elements by our mouths, and receive something/one by faith. What/whom do we receive by faith:

the true body and blood of Christ our only Savior in our souls, for the support of our spiritual life.

This is fairly strong language and it gets strong. In response to the Lutheran critique that we are really secret (crypto) "Sacramentarians" (Zwinglians/Anabaptists/Memorialists). We affirmed that believers do actually eat the body and blood of Christ by the operation of the Spirit through the elements. How this happens is a mystery.

... though the manner surpasses our understanding and cannot be comprehended by us, as the operations of the Holy Spirit are hidden and incomprehensible.

The mystery, however, is no reason for denying what we know to be true:

In the meantime we err not when we say that what is eaten and drunk by us is the proper and natural body and the proper blood of Christ.

Please note the strong language here. Proper means, "that which belongs to a thing." The BC means that we eat the actual body and drink the actual blood of Christ. If that's ambiguous, we also confess that we eat Christ's "natural" body. The BC couldn't be clearer.

We're not papists or Lutherans. We don't eat the body of Christ with our teeth. The elements do not become the body and his body isn't "in" or "with" or "under" the elements. His body is in heaven, but we do eat the body of Christ by faith, by the operation of the Spirit. How?

But the manner of our partaking of the same is not by the mouth, but by the spirit through faith. Thus, then, though Christ always sits at the right hand of His Father in the heavens, yet does He not therefore cease to make us partakers of Himself by faith.

When we confess a "Spiritual" view of the Supper, it is necessary to remember the capital S. It is Spiritual in that we are fed with the proper, natural, and true body and blood by the Holy Spirit. In our age, "spiritual" tends to denote "emotional," or "psychological," rather than an objective operation by God the Spirit.

In the Supper, by the Spirit, we are lifted up to commune with and upon Christ and his benefits.

This feast is a spiritual table, at which Christ communicates Himself with all His benefits to us, and gives us there to enjoy both Himself and the merits of His sufferings and death: nourishing, strengthening, and comforting our poor comfortless souls by the eating of His flesh, quickening and refreshing them by the drinking of His blood.

In contrast to some, we do not haul Christ out of his heaven to impanate him. Nor do we confess the eating by the impious.

Further, though the sacraments are connected with the thing signified nevertheless both are not received by all men. The ungodly indeed receives the sacrament to his condemnation, but he does not receive the truth of the sacrament, even as Judas and Simon the sorcerer both indeed received the sacrament but not Christ who was signified by it, of whom believers only are made partakers.

The article continues to restrict the table to believers (going back to the necessity of faith).

Still, in the BC and in the Westminster Standards, there is a high view of the work of the Spirit through the Supper to feed believers on the true body and blood of Christ.

My experience is that there are a good number of folk who subscribe the Belgic who hold a practical memorialist view of the Supper.

rsc

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by ServantOfKing
Okay- so Reformed Baptists do not see it merely as a memorial, but also as something truly spiritually edifying?

I think most have basically a Zwinglian, memorial view of the Supper, but I do know some Baptists who have the Calvinistic view that is seen in the WCF.

[Edited on 9-3-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

 

[Puritanhead]

I have no problem with the appellation "memorial," I just dislike "merely a memorial..." It undercuts our Lord's "pneumatic presence" in Holy Communion.

 

[jaybird0827]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Westminster Confession - Chapter 29: Of the Lord's Supper

I could affirm this section of the WCF just as easily as the pertinent section of the London Confession. We must not be lumped in with those antinomian Free Will Baptists and liberal SBC. We don't demean the ordinance of Communion.

I almost started a thread with the same question and then decided to research the 1689 London Confession first. I had become concerned with some of the messages I had seen on related threads. I rejoice with you, brother.

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by jaybird0827

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Westminster Confession - Chapter 29: Of the Lord's Supper

I could affirm this section of the WCF just as easily as the pertinent section of the London Confession. We must not be lumped in with those antinomian Free Will Baptists and liberal SBC. We don't demean the ordinance of Communion.

I almost started a thread with the same question and then decided to research the 1689 London Confession first. I had become concerned with some of the messages I had seen on related threads. I rejoice with you, brother.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

As a person with largely Reformed convictions, I have no problem communing with Lutherans, and hearing the Pastor offer to me "the body of the Lord" and "the blood of the Lord" in communion. Why? I believe that I am truly, by the Holy Spirit and the power of God's Word, feeding on the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, spiritually and with great mystery. However, I would not feel comfortable communing with Southern Baptists (99.99999% of them), as they have such a LOW view of the Sacrament (and wouldn't even dare call it such!), nor would most-if-not-all Calvinistic Southern or otherwise Baptists feel comfortable communing with me at a Lutheran Church ... or a Reformed Church, for that matter. At least, a Reformed Church that does not water down the Sacraments to memorials and well water. When combined with the Word of God and faith, the Sacraments are POWERFUL spiritual acts of God in our lives. Sometimes, that means we can't really explain them all that well, or wrap our finite minds around them. That is okay, really, it is. We don't have to pin down everything and understand every single iota of speculative doctrine available to us. What we have to do is live in a true relationship with God and trust Him at His Word, by His Spirit, through our Savior's authority and power.

 

[Puritanhead]

In point of emphasis, I think you Presbyterians should always remember, the principle reason for a separate London Confession was our disagreement over the Westminster Assembly resolving to affirm infant baptism by the slimest of margins.

I can enthusiastically quote the WCF in many places, and concede it is much more eloquently written on some points. The two are practically synonomous with one another.

 

[Ivan]

The basic difference between us (Baptists and Presbyterians) is baptism. At least that's my view.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
However, I would not feel comfortable communing with Southern Baptists (99.99999% of them), as they have such a LOW view of the Sacrament (and wouldn't even dare call it such!), nor would most-if-not-all Calvinistic Southern or otherwise Baptists feel comfortable communing with me at a Lutheran Church ... or a Reformed Church, for that matter.

I think the Holy Spirit is so powerful that its efficacy works in the SBC Communion just like Lutheran and Presbyterian communion, in spite of them not holding it in as high esteem as High Calvinists like yourself Gabriel.

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
However, I would not feel comfortable communing with Southern Baptists (99.99999% of them

I think I might be one of the .00001%.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Ivan
The basic difference between us (Baptists and Presbyterians) is baptism. At least that's my view.

I would expand that to include "the Sacraments," though. Also, how one interprets Scripture is an issue, as we obviously come to different conclusions on what it means to apply the "whole counsel of God" to our beliefs. In fact, I wonder if the LBCF even includes the phrase, roughly stated, "or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence" as the WCF does...

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Ivan

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
However, I would not feel comfortable communing with Southern Baptists (99.99999% of them

I think I might be one of the .00001%.

That's = 1.0 × 10^-7. You're very special Ivan.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
However, I would not feel comfortable communing with Southern Baptists (99.99999% of them), as they have such a LOW view of the Sacrament (and wouldn't even dare call it such!), nor would most-if-not-all Calvinistic Southern or otherwise Baptists feel comfortable communing with me at a Lutheran Church ... or a Reformed Church, for that matter.

I think the Holy Spirit is so powerful that its efficacy works in the SBC Communion just like Lutheran and Presbyterian communion, in spite of them not holding it in as high esteem as High Calvinists like yourself Gabriel.

Please do not misunderstand me... I would not commune with them, because HOW they view the Supper is contrary to MY faith. I could not, in faith, participate in what I view to be a improper celebration of the sacrament.

For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
-- Paul

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Ivan
The basic difference between us (Baptists and Presbyterians) is baptism. At least that's my view.

I would expand that to include "the Sacraments," though. Also, how one interprets Scripture is an issue, as we obviously come to different conclusions on what it means to apply the "whole counsel of God" to our beliefs. In fact, I wonder if the LBCF even includes the phrase, roughly stated, "or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence" as the WCF does...

I think you're really being a lawyer and a nitpicker, and trying to see the position and esteem for baptism butressed more in the WCF than the LBCF, when the two are analogous. Apples and oranges, my friend.

The root meaning of the Latin word sacramentum is "making sacred." Though I have used it interchangably in the past with ordinance, I stopped simply because it often connotes Papal trappings and sacramental excesses of Anglicans and Roman Catholics in the Protestant popular imagination. It's extrabiblical phrasing, so I don't think one can be too dogmatic about it, either way.

[Edited on 9-3-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[Larry Hughes]

Ashley,

I have a couple of friend pastor/deacons dealing with this very issue. Their experience may be helpful. It is why they took their church from SB to just Baptist and adopted the LBCF. They don't have a problem calling them "Sacraments" though as opposed to some who insist upon the term "Ordinance".

Here's some of the reasoning:

1. The major issue was seeing the direction of worship in the Lord's Supper (and baptism) as being given FROM heaven TO the receivers. They found that in the SB F&M that it spelled out too much as a "law" and an "ordinance" so much that the emphasis was on FROM earth TO heaven. This was crucial as they dealt with it. Not willing to go all the way with the baptism issue they adopted the LBCF and eschewed the SB F&M seeing that in the "ordinances" and described as such to be Law rather than Gospel, hence they moved to the LBCF. This was critical for them as they examined the issue.

2. They began to understand that the words instituted to the sacraments are exceedingly important as they attach to the elements (water, wine and bread) their significance to which they point. I think of it this way: A sign that says "New York 50 Miles Ahead" points to a greater reality. Without the words instituted on the sign (painted/written) it´s just a hunk of metal and of no value whatsoever no matter how "œobedient" I am to it. Likewise with incorrect words or misdirected emphasis painted on it (instituted to it) like on our New York sign example, "œNew York If You Believe It" the sign becomes again of no value whatsoever to the reader. Similarly with baptism and the Lord´s Supper. Either sacrament can fail to become a "œmeans of communicating grace", that is the Gospel to feed and nourish faith, if wrong words are instituted to it, emphasis is given as to "œobedience" rather than "œreceiving" what it communicates. The NY example: If I just think by reading the sign I am being obedient in doing so but don´t follow its direction, then there is no growth in my trust upon the road I´m traveling. If the sign says something different than it should (not affirming the direction to NY for me so as to strengthen my faith/trust), then again its just an empty hunk of metal when all is said and done. Likewise when for example baptism is instituted only as "œOn the basis of your confession of faith I baptize you"¦", that´s an entirely different message than "œOn the basis of the promise of God I baptize you"¦" both to the receiver (if he/she is adult) and the hearers seeing that baptism linking back to their own. Similarly, if the Lord´s Supper is emphasized as a memorial only or "œordinance" to be "œobeyed" like a law, then it fails to be the Gospel. This goes back to #1 in the direction of the worship. Does the church set it forth as God´s gift TO YOU, heaven to earth OR as YOUR act of obedience attending it? Like the painted/written word on the metal sign, the words spoken in instituting baptism or the Lord´s Supper are crucial. Other wise you just have water, bread and wine. Here I´m not arguing the issue of presence. The emphasis and words attending it (baptism or the Lord´s Supper) make all the difference in the world as to it being a means of grace (communicating by elements and the Word of Gospel attending Christ and Him crucified FOR YOU) or just another Law to be obeyed leaving the one taking it always psychologically wondering in their conscience, "œDid I do it right."

3. The third crucial issue was pointing out how in the Lord´s Supper (they are still baptistic over baptism so this is unresolved) feeds faith "œto the man/person" specifically. A crucial issue arises in the believer, truster of Christ when the devil, world and flesh attack. That is, "œI know the Gospel is Christ and Him crucified, I "œbelieve" it, but how can I know for sure it IS FOR ME." This is why the Sacraments communicated as Sacraments and not "œordinances" (due to our legal bending with that word today) are wonderful condescensions to the believer and STRENGTHEN faith, this also is why 1 and 2 are critical. Because it COMES TO ME, TO YOU specifically. That is the Gospel in water, bread and wine by the Words of institution come specifically upon and to you, the person and not just some general broadcast that may leave you wondering, "œIs it for me." Because the Gospel is only the Gospel TO YOU if it is Good News FOR YOU. So that when you were baptized and take the bread and wine the Gospel comes TO YOU specifically. What is again significant here is seeing this as God coming to YOU in the ceremony (the direction of worship heaven to earth, receiving). The coming to YOU in water and bread and wine with the Word of Gospel instituted to it assures you that it IS for you. Such assurance refreshes and strengthens your faith that may be struggling due sin, the devil, the world and the flesh or all of them that you´ve dealt with throughout the week. This is the true meaning of a sacrament as a means of grace that is contra Rome´s legal sacraments and many Credistic churches legal ordinances. What is instituted to the elements is crucial, otherwise the elements are just elements or elements that carry forth a wrong message. This is why in their fledgling church they still being baptistic are starting to use the term sacrament also rather than ordinance "“ they´ve begun to grasp the crucial idea of communicating the Gospel VERY clearly (though baptism still remains a bit of an issue).

LBCF comes a long way to this but not completely as some of the other confessions which are stronger to the point. In still hedging on the term "œsacrament" due to Rome´s abuse it is a bit weak still yet. Just because Rome abused the Gospel ought not justify us letting Rome rob us of it by changing it in the sacraments. But that´s another discussion. It is still superior to the SB F&M which really is quit legal on these issues. I think there is a reason that good Gospel baptist like John Piper don't adapt and align up completely with things like the SB F& M.

Blessings,

Larry

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

Originally posted by Ivan

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
However, I would not feel comfortable communing with Southern Baptists (99.99999% of them

I think I might be one of the .00001%.

That's = 1.0 × 10^-7. You're very special Ivan.

I feel warm and fuzzy!

 

[Larry Hughes]

The root meaning of the Latin word sacramentum is "making sacred." Though I have used it interchangably in the past with ordinance, I stopped simply because it often connotes Papal trappings and sacramental excesses of Anglicans and Roman Catholics in the Protestant popular imagination. It's extrabiblical phrasing, so I don't think one can be too dogmatic about it, either way.

Ryan,

I agree with Gabriel. We do not change the Gospel just because evil men construe it wrongly. We do not change the message because men abuse it. That would be like saying just because a killer used a scalpel, doctors can no longer use them. The absurdity of it all is obvious.

The key issue is the direction, the receiving and so forth. I having been truly on both sides of this issue I think the most lazy, irresponsible and quite frankly ignorant way to approach this is to remove a term "œjust because" some falsely use it. If anything the fact that Roman Catholics "œexcess" and "œtrappings" have abused the term, then it is all the more crucial to teach it correctly. If we take this foolish approach then we need to stop using the term "œGod" as it is surely most abused both in secular society, religious society and some Christian society.

I can make a very very strong argument over the use of the term "œordinance" in our day. Most folks today, if you ask them, hear the term "œordinance" and think immediately of law to be followed. This in the chain of thought leads to "œhope of reward, for obedience, and fear of punishment for disobedience". Most would equate "œordinance" with something like secular "œordinances", speeding ordinances, zoning ordinances and etc"¦ This is why many many many lay SB for example think that baptism and the Lord´s Supper is an obedience either meriting for the effort OR "œproving their faith" as if to prove to a mob Don their faithfulness unto worthiness. And this is easily ferreted out and proven by simply quizzing the lay of those churches.

When one carefully analyzes say the SB use of these as "œordinances" and the Roman Catholic excesses and abuses as "œsacraments" one will quickly find that in the end analysis both laity view them the same - as works! What we are looking at here is not the superficial "œnaming" of things but the REAL principles underlying them and the way the principles are perceived. E.g. The typical Roman Catholic baptizes because he/she thinks that the work itself is performed by them and thereby, ex opera operato, does the deed. Yet, in ironies of ironies the S. Baptist, and similar factions, consciously operate the exact same way. They don´t think that doing the work of baptism earns the work, but that faith earns the baptism. This is why Luther and Calvin rightly saw that the Roman Catholic´s view and Anabaptistic view were in the end identical. Its functionality and essential principle led to the same end, works and merit, yet the later gave it a white wash of "œjustification by faith alone" paint to cover it up. The typical southern Baptist will scoff at the Roman Catholic saying, "œyou cannot work your way to heaven or work your children into heaven meritoriously by baptizing them. You have to profess faith first." Not seeing that they are doing EXACTLY the same thing sans the children. If baptism = the Gospel by sign and Word instituted to it, then moving to the S. Baptist view which says, "œyou have to possess/profess faith before being baptized", becomes, "œyou have to possess/profess faith before receiving the Gospel." The absurdity thus reveals itself and likewise a works based baptism. And if you base baptism IN faith you are point blank admitting it is not based in the Gospel. It is true that one cannot work one´s way to heaven and by doing baptism merit salvation, but it is equally true that faith does not merit baptism. The flaw for both the Roman Catholic and S. Baptist lies in both seeing it as man´s work rather than God´s work through instruments (the church, parents, pastor) as His arms and legs. Both end up denying both the sovereignty of God in all things and as the mover of all providence. The Roman Catholic thinks he is doing the work when he baptizes an adult or child. The S. Baptist likewise thinks he is doing the work (painted of course in justification language on the front end) when he assesses himself that he has faith or when he sees Reformed or Lutherans who baptize their infants as works (he´s stuck on the idea of it being man´s work, else he´d never makes such a foolish statement). When in reality when ANY baptism takes place, adult or child, by the hands of the parents, pastor and church it is GOD who is moving everything. They miss the real sovereignty and providential operation of God in all things in time and space. It´s not at all unlike Armineans who see when people come to faith that it must have emerged from within them and their wills. It appears that way because God operates in time and space and we only see the "œtime and space" moving, but in reality when faith comes, it is given by God.

Even if you remove the baptism of children from the argument the Roman or SB position cannot stand. When God has commanded baptism it is based upon HIS promise and HIS Word and HIS Gospel. When He commands it to be done it is manifestly not the work of men even though men carry out the command. Men can vainly pretend they are the one´s doing it but then they just usurp the mandate of God and HIS gifts as if it were their own. If a King, which God is, mandates a man, church or pastor to "œdo a thing" and they do it, then it is exactly the same as if God, the King, is doing it. Why? Because it carries His authority and order to do it! This is obvious. However, if a false servant takes that same mandate and falsely attaches to it, "œmy doing it is doing it", then he is trying to rob God. The mandate is still God´s and so is still valid. However, if a man says "œhe is doing it" not as an instrument of God but "œhe himself is doing it", then he is just like a thief whom the great King has given a mandate/gift to deliver for the great King and in the place of the Great King so as to be the King doing it Himself vicariously, but wickely pretending he the instrument is doing/giving it "“ and thus he deceives the receiver.

If I give someone 10 gold coins as a gift to someone for you to deliver in my stead, it´s my gift and your delivery as my instrument should be as if I myself did it but I use you as an instrument to carry it out. However, if when you deliver it you say it is from you (your work), then you have lied and stolen from me and deceived the receiver. For the receiver cannot now know that I delivered it to them via you, but now thinks it is from you. Thus, you now control them since you lied about the gift. This is Rome´s view of baptism and why the Roman church controlled its people by indulgences and so forth. Similarly, if you are the one receiving my gift of ten gold coins via some other messenger as my instrument, like above, and then you (the receiver) think, "œI must already have faith or rebirth to receive this gift", then you the receiver are attempting to rob me of my gift to you by saying it is not my gift to you but your worthiness and fitness (faith in this case or regeneration perhaps) to merit it from me. This is the view of Baptistic baptism of adults only and why they fundamentally cannot understand baptizing children of believers. This IS the most fundamental reason why a Baptist cannot see it, they still cling to the idea that when a parent baptizes their child it is the parent, church and pastor doing it "“ this is entirely false. However, it is driven by the fact that THAT is EXACTLY what Rome taught. Rome says, "œWe the church, priest and parents do it". The Baptist reacts correctly that this TEACHING is wrong but then it reacts incorrectly that when it is ACTUALLY done by the church, parent of pastor that it is still the church, parent or pastor doing it. They are blinded to the fact that it is God doing it, His work through the means of the church, parent and pastor.

Thus, baptism becomes the merit of faith to them rather than the Gospel to them. And NO Baptist ever would use his baptism to support his faith when weakened for to trust in baptism is TOO Roman Catholic "“ the devil´s trick has worked both ways. Thus, in their view, if baptism is based upon "œmy faith" the strength of and so forth, baptism becomes utterly useless to one and in fact Satan will use it against you so you will be rebaptized, that is by a false baptism driven by the devil. Thus, in many baptistic churches quite naturally, just like Rome, arise many new inventions and extra-curricular works for assurance of the soul such as rededications, aisle walking again and again and again, rebaptisms and etc"¦ The soliloquy of the typical Baptist is not at all unlike that of the typical Roman Catholic. And what is worse is that this ends up extending to the Lord´s Table in that it no longer becomes a means of Grace, a true sacrament, but yet another "œlaw" that we will pretend we don´t call a law but yet our deeds prove our real meaning.

Ldh

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
As a person with largely Reformed convictions, I have no problem communing with Lutherans, and hearing the Pastor offer to me "the body of the Lord" and "the blood of the Lord" in communion. Why? I believe that I am truly, by the Holy Spirit and the power of God's Word, feeding on the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, spiritually and with great mystery. However, I would not feel comfortable communing with Southern Baptists (99.99999% of them), as they have such a LOW view of the Sacrament (and wouldn't even dare call it such!), nor would most-if-not-all Calvinistic Southern or otherwise Baptists feel comfortable communing with me at a Lutheran Church ... or a Reformed Church, for that matter. At least, a Reformed Church that does not water down the Sacraments to memorials and well water. When combined with the Word of God and faith, the Sacraments are POWERFUL spiritual acts of God in our lives. Sometimes, that means we can't really explain them all that well, or wrap our finite minds around them. That is okay, really, it is. We don't have to pin down everything and understand every single iota of speculative doctrine available to us. What we have to do is live in a true relationship with God and trust Him at His Word, by His Spirit, through our Savior's authority and power.

Don't you have to be a member of a Lutheran church to commune with Lutherans?

 

[BaptistCanuk]

No Chris. I've been to a Lutheran church and I'm allowed communion there.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
No Chris. I've been to a Lutheran church and I'm allowed communion there.

Well, I meant confessional Lutheran, like LCMS.

On the LCMS website we find the following:

The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=422

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
The root meaning of the Latin word sacramentum is "making sacred."
[Edited on 9-3-2006 by Puritanhead]

Can you elaborate on this etymology?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Brian,

It would depend upon whether one was attending a confessional or non-confessional Lutheran congregation. The mainline denominations in the US and Canada are not terribly confessional. They may not observe the restrictions imposed by the Book of Concord. Indeed, though the LCMS is more confessional, it has a large number of broadly evangelical congregatios that would improperly (by Lutheran standards) commune a Reformed person, whom they confess to be a "crafty sacramentarian."

That you've been communed in a Lutheran congregation doesn't mean that they were acting consistently with Lutheran principles or the Lutheran confession.

rsc

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
No Chris. I've been to a Lutheran church and I'm allowed communion there.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

This was the basis, I suppose, for my baptism by an LCMS minister 45 years ago.

rsc

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
No Chris. I've been to a Lutheran church and I'm allowed communion there.

Well, I meant confessional Lutheran, like LCMS.

On the LCMS website we find the following:

The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=422

 

[Larry Hughes]

Gaberial's point is well taken. I myself would align more with the Reformed folk that lean Lutheran rather than baptistic for the very reasons he cites above. I've always seen that the early Reformed and Lutherans on the sacraments have far more in common with each other than the Baptist. In fact I find that the baptist have far more in common with Rome on the sacrament/ordinance issues.

What I've discovered is that Reformed that align with Baptist sans Lutherans have a strong legal tendancy in a lot of things, its not overt but its very subtle. Personally I'm very cautious of a Reformed/Baptist alignment without a Lutheran presence, the Gospel tends to get buried!

Now I'm speaking here on the broad level, I realize individuals can and do think differently. One of my best baptist friends and brothers is ALL but Lutheran in his thinking of the sacraments, even as far as he can go with baptism for adults (I suspect its just a matter of time though before that changes).