Real Presence

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This may get my hand slapped, but you know what, I just don't care.

Some Baptists would deny that we are Protestant. Some affirm it.

Nevertheless, the statement was made:

"Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all affirm the real presence of Christ in holy communion even though they hold very different views about the meaning of "real presence"."

I deny it, but, what are your views.

Is this correct, yes or no?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you deny it then you cannot call yourself a Calvinist. He affirmed it.

Fact: One can deny one or nearly all of the T.U.L.I.P. outline, and still be a Calvinist.

John Calvin supported "infant baptism" as taught to him from his Catholic days.

Most Baptists don't accept "infant baptism' as the RCC or as John Calvin taught. I don't accept infant baptism, does that mean I can't call myself a Calvinist even though I believe in what his theology teachs with the exception of infant baptism?

No, come over the Semper Reformanda area and ask anybody.

Just because I disagree with him onthe set wo points, does not disqualify me as a Calvinist.

Historically, Baptist Confessions have been "Calvinist' by nature.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Fact: One can deny one or nearly all of the T.U.L.I.P. outline, and still be a Calvinist.

If one denies "nearly all" of Tulip, then what would it mean for them to be a Calvinist?

John Calvin supported "infant baptism" as taught to him from his Catholic days.

Most Baptists don't accept "infant baptism' as the RCC or as John Calvin taught. I don't accept infant baptism, does that mean I can't call myself a Calvinist even though I believe in what his theology teachs with the exception of infant baptism?

It would make you less of a Calvinist.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If one denies "nearly all" of Tulip, then what would it mean for them to be a Calvinist?



It would make you less of a Calvinist.

Gues you have never heard of "4 point Calvinism' or 3, etc.

Like I said, come over the SR area and debate it, or ask.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi DD,

Well, I've never been one to believe that Jesus is physically or spiritually present in the emblems of the communion. I've always understood that when Jesus told his disciples to 'do this in remembrance of me', that's what he meant. He meant for us to use the practice of communion as a time to reflect and remember all that he has done for us.

In this world today, we often lose sight of all that Jesus has done, and I'm confident that Jesus knew that. Just as Paul tells us not to forsake the gathering of believers. He wasn't saying that going to a worship fellowship was part of our salvation. He was letting us know that we were going to need to stick together to strengthen and encourage one another. There's a lot of enmity against God in this world and we need to help each other along.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,625
Canada
✟745,522.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I believed in the real presence when I first became a Christian and than left that position for a while eventually coming back to it.

I believe in the real presence.

The Battle for the Table

John Calvin insisted, as did the Anglicans, on the true presence of Christ, but he also insisted that the presence of Christ is through His divine nature. His human nature is no longer present with us. It is in heaven at the right hand of God. We still are able to commune with the human nature of Christ by means of our communion with the divine nature, which does indeed remain united to the human nature. But that human nature remains localized in heaven. In the debate, Calvin fought a war on two fronts. On the one hand, in dealing with the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics, he refused to use the term substance with respect to the presence of Jesus in the sacrament. But over against those disciples of Zwingli, who wanted to reduce the sacrament to a mere symbol and memorial, Calvin insisted upon the term substance. Here the term substance had two different nuances. With respect to Luther and Rome, the term substance meant “corporeal” or “physical.” With respect to the debate with Zwingli, Calvin used the term substance as a synonym for “real” or “true.”

From the London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689:

“…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…” 30.1

“…Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed…”

“…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…” 30.7

A Baptist Catechism:

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation?

A. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)

Q. 107. What is the Lord’s Supper?

A. The Lord’s Supper is a holy ordinance, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace. (1 Cor. 11:23-26; 10:16)

Q. 108. What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord’s Supper?

A. It is required of them that would worthily (that is, suitably) partake of the Lord’s Supper, that they examine themselves, of their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body; of their faith to feed upon Him; of their repentance, love, and new obedience: lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves. (1 Cor. 11:27-31; 1 Cor. 5:8; 2 Cor. 13:5)

May the Lord bless you as you feed, spiritually, upon Him.

jm
PS: It's difficult to read the early church fathers and believe they held the Lord's Supper as a memorial.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,409
45,364
67
✟2,924,171.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Fact: One can deny one or nearly all of the T.U.L.I.P. outline, and still be a Calvinist.

Hi DD, I used to debate with a close Arminian friend of mine online who, like so many Arminians, held the 5th petal of TULIP in common with us. Her name was Penny, and she laughingly called herself, "One-Point Penny" :) Dr. Geisler also calls himself a Calvinist, but that is a seriously difficult claim to believe once you know what he teaches (for me anyway). Maybe we should discuss what we think the basic/minimum requirements should be to be considered a Calvinist over in SR?

John Calvin supported "infant baptism" as taught to him from his Catholic days. Most Baptists don't accept "infant baptism' as the RCC or as John Calvin taught.

Actually, he didn't. Rather, he taught that the RCC belief concerning baptism was absolutely wrong, be it paedo or credo, because they teach that the waters of baptism are salvific (=being "born again").

Yours and His,
David
 
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Site Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,999
2,484
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟558,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
This may get my hand slapped, but you know what, I just don't care.

Some Baptists would deny that we are Protestant. Some affirm it.

Nevertheless, the statement was made:

"Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all affirm the real presence of Christ in holy communion even though they hold very different views about the meaning of "real presence"."

I deny it, but, what are your views.

Is this correct, yes or no?

God Bless

Till all are one.

I thought that was a strange statement myself, since I do not know of any Protestants (Baptist or otherwise) who believe that the elements of Holy Communion become in substance the very Body and Blood of Christ.

Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans have a belief in the elements being the Body and Blood of Christ, but not in the same way as Orthodox/Catholic believers do. So that statement above, taken in the most straight forward understanding, i.e., that the very substance is changed, is not true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Site Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,999
2,484
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟558,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
We do not believe the elements become the Body and Blood but (speaking for Reformed credo and paedobaptists) we believe Christ is present spiritually. There is no change in substance.

Yes, that's what I said......y'all folks don't believe the elements become.

Jesus, on the other hand, said "This IS...." For me, it is cased closed.
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,409
45,364
67
✟2,924,171.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
We do not believe the elements become the Body and Blood but (speaking for Reformed credo and paedobaptists) we believe Christ is present spiritually. There is no change in substance.

As a long-time Presbyterian, I'm with Calvin (and apparently Luther as well, towards the end of his life anyway .. who then agreed with what Calvin wrote in his Treatise on the Lord's Supper), that Christ is really and truly present in the elements "spiritually", but His body and blood remain with Him in Heaven.

This was a problem for our RC/EO and Lutheran friends, who together with us believe that Christ has remained 100% human (as well as 100% Divine, of course) since His Incarnation, until they came up with the doctrine of ubiquity (which is a discussion that might prove to be interesting to have sometime :)).

--David
p.s. - the Evangelical Free Church (which I am now a part of) holds an interesting view of things concerning both the Supper and Baptism. Somewhat like our teaching on Calvinism and Arminianism (the Free Church does adhere to or even recommend one position over the other), the individual member is allowed a certain amount of freedom in what he/she believes concerning the ordinances (in part anyway).
If anyone is interested, here is our official position:

Evangelical Convictions: A Theological Exposition of the Statement of Faith of the Evangelical Free Church of America (181-182) summarizes our understanding of the ordinances and affirms:
  1. Christ has given His church two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper, and the practice of these ordinances is an essential distinguishing mark of a church
  2. these ordinances are signs, that is, visible and tangible expressions, of the gospel, and as such they serve to strengthen our faith—“confirming and nourishing the believer”
  3. the signs (water in baptism, the bread and grape juice or wine in the Lord's Supper) must be distinguished from what they signify (God's saving work in the gospel and Christ's presence with us) [n. 79. Thus we deny baptismal regeneration and the doctrine of transubstantiation]
  4. the practice of these ordinances does not save us, and we receive spiritual benefit from them only when they are celebrated in “genuine faith” in Christ
  5. the ordinances serve to separate the believer from the world and to give a visible designation of those who belong to the body of Christ
Our Statement denies that:
  1. either baptism in water or participating in the Lord's Supper is the instrumental cause of regeneration
  2. the grace of God is automatically and effectually conveyed through the administration of the ordinances themselves
In addition, our Statement does not prescribe the “time” or “mode” of baptism (allowing for both credo- and paedobaptist practices) nor does it define the precise manner in which Christ is present in the Lord's Supper (allowing for a variety of historic Evangelical views).
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,552
18,494
Orlando, Florida
✟1,256,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm not a Baptist but this has been an enlightening thread, as I was unaware that any Baptist taught a spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper. I encountered a statement by Russel Moore a while ago that sounded quasi-Lutheran.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/06/a-lutheran-among-calvinists

[In communion] Jesus is speaking to you, “My body was broken. When you swallow this juice, Jesus is speaking to you, my blood was shed for you, my veins were opened for you. There is no condemnation for you. Rest in the truth of the gospel.

@JM , can the Lord's Supper function as a means of assurance in Baptist practice? It Lutheranism, the sacraments as a physical means of the external Word are an important "anchor" for our faith.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,625
Canada
✟745,522.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Yes, that's what I said......y'all folks don't believe the elements become.

Jesus, on the other hand, said "This IS...." For me, it is cased closed.

Jesus was not holding his body when he held the bread so obviously he was referring to it spiritually. Are you suggesting the bread was his body in that moment?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Site Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,999
2,484
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟558,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Jesus was not holding his body when he held the bread so obviously he was referring to it spiritually. Are you suggesting the bread was his body in that moment?

What does "IS" mean?

You are trying to use human logic and rational thinking to explain that which is mystery.

Jesus used human language.

Is means is, not "represents."

Furthermore, if the Protestant idea of the Real Absence (i.e. Bare Memorial Meal Only) is true, then how's come for 1500 years it was not taught? From the very beginning, the teaching, even among doctrinal heretics, was that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood. From where did they learn and pass down such a thing if not directly from the Apostles who went out and evangelized the world?
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,625
Canada
✟745,522.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
First, you are not a Baptist and therefore cannot push your theological agenda here. If you continue you will be reported.

What does "IS" mean?

You are trying to use human logic and rational thinking to explain that which is mystery.

Language is based on symbolism interpreted using logic. You ask a logical question and then accuse me of being overly rational. smh

Jesus used human language.

Is means is, not "represents."

Read John 6 for more context.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

They followed Christ to get a meal, Christ had to tell them He was the living bread and that you had to long for him and believe on him to have eternal life. It was a hard teaching. They left Him.

Consider that in light of your human tradition.

To ignore the context of a passage is ruinous. Would you believe 'sounding the trumpet' in Matthew 6.2 referred to a real trumpet?

Furthermore, if the Protestant idea of the Real Absence (i.e. Bare Memorial Meal Only) is true, then how's come for 1500 years it was not taught? From the very beginning, the teaching, even among doctrinal heretics, was that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood. From where did they learn and pass down such a thing if not directly from the Apostles who went out and evangelized the world?

This is just fuss and bluster. The real presence was taught by scripture and the early church, what you don't find is a change in substance, in either source.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,625
Canada
✟745,522.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
@JM , can the Lord's Supper function as a means of assurance in Baptist practice? It Lutheranism, the sacraments as a physical means of the external Word are an important "anchor" for our faith.

I would tend to agree with Lutheranism on this point. The Lord's Supper is a means of grace just as a sermon is. We need both the sermon and the Supper.

media gratiae: means of grace; i.e., Word and sacraments as the means by which the grace of God is operative in the church. The term is used by both Lutheran and Reformed orthodox, although the Lutherans often substitute a stronger term, organa gratiae et salutis (q.v.), instruments of grace and salvation. The identification of Word and sacraments as media gratiae does not intend to exclude a general or common operation of grace but rather to indicate the function of both Word and sacraments in the regeneration (regeneratio, q.v.) and sanctification (sanctificatio, q.v.) of man as the instruments or objective channels of special or saving grace (gratia specialis). Word and sacraments are thus instrumental both in the inception of salvation and in the continuance of the work of grace in the Christian life. In addition, Word and sacraments are the sole officially ordained or instituted instruments or means of grace. God has promised the presence of his grace to faithful hearers of the Word and faithful participants in the sacraments. Thus the right preaching of the Word and right administration of the sacraments are the marks or identifying features of the true church (notae ecclesiae, q.v.). The Lutherans differ with the Reformed in rooting saving grace more totally in Word and sacrament. Without denying the efficacy of grace in Word and sacrament, the Reformed can argue the nonreception of that grace and also the ineffectual calling of the external Word (Verbum externum, q.v.) in the case of the nonelect or reprobate. – Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms : Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1985). 187-88.
Thomas Brooks would tend to express a Reformed Baptist view:


“[Assurance] was the principle end of Christ’s institution of the sacrament of the Supper that he might assure them of his love, and that he might seal up to them the forgiveness of their sins, the acceptance of their persons, and the salvation of their souls (Matt. 26:27-28). The nature of a seal is to make things sure and firm among men; so the Supper of the Lord is Christ’s broad seal, it is Christ’s privy-seal, whereby he seals and assures his people that they are happy here, that they shall be more happy hereafter, that they are everlastingly beloved of God, that his heart is set upon them, that their names are written in the book of life, that there is laid up for them a crown of righteousness, and that nothing shall be able to separate them from him who is their light, their crown, their all in all.”

“In this sacrament Christ comes forth and shows his love, his heart…his blood, that his children may no longer say, ‘Does the Lord Jesus love us? Does he delight in us?’ but that they may say with the spouse, ‘I am my beloved’s and his desire is towards me’ (Songs 7:10).”
Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi DD, I used to debate with a close Arminian friend of mine online who, like so many Arminians, held the 5th petal of TULIP in common with us. Her name was Penny, and she laughingly called herself, "One-Point Penny" :) Dr. Geisler also calls himself a Calvinist, but that is a seriously difficult claim to believe once you know what he teaches (for me anyway). Maybe we should discuss what we think the basic/minimum requirements should be to be considered a Calvinist over in SR?

I merely wanted to point out that whether you agree with all or a few of the TULIP outline, does not matter. Personally I agree with them all, and disagree with Calvin about "infant baptism". And as quoted above, because I don't agree with Calvin 100%, I should not be allowed to call myself a Calvinist.

Funny that the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message had a clause that basically said, you can agree to all, some, or none of what it says, and still call yourself a Baptist.

Actually, he didn't. Rather, he taught that the RCC belief concerning baptism was absolutely wrong, be it paedo or credo, because they teach that the waters of baptism are salvific (=being "born again").

Yours and His,
David

In an article written by Lawrence Justice, "Are Baptists Reformed" he writes:

"To the Reformers in the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church was still "the church", and it only needed reforming. They sought to reform a church which they regarded as the true body of Christ. They assumed that both the baptism, and the ordination of the Roman Church were still valid. Neither John Calvin nor any other Reformers denounced their Catholic baptisms."

Source

And that is what I based my opinion on.

And yes, BTW, I have read, and studied "Institutes".

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here again, whether or not a "group" agrees, or disagrees is not the issue.

Baptists have been included in the group known as "Protestants". Some firmly agree, others do not.

I have produced more than enough evidence to refute that claim that "Protestants...affirm real presence".

So to say "Protestants (of which Baptists are included) affirm real presence" is a falsehood. Period.

I've been a Baptist for over 40 years, and not even in seminary classes have I heard that.

I was just asking for opinions of fellow Baptists on the validity of the statement.

Thanks for your input too "Light of the East".

It also affirmed what I said.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0