Baptist/Memorialist view of communion

[CanIHunt]

I am trying to learn about different churches. Can someone help me find some online resources in support of the memorialist/baptist view of taking communion? I can find basis definitions, but nothing on why Baptist's feel it is the right view. Alternatively, I would like to also see arguments against the Baptist view. Thank you.

 

[classicalhero]

Well it what a symbol is about, a representation of a reality, not the reality itself. The Lord's Supper is based on the Passover which is a very symbolic meal that the Jews have. The problem is that many groups take a literal meaning on this when it is very much a symbolic meal. We ar told in Hebrews that Jesus died once and for all for our sins, but each time a Catholic takes communion, they are literally saying this is his body and blood and basically are re-crucifying him again, which we don't need to do.

 

[JM]

I am trying to learn about different churches. Can someone help me find some online resources in support of the memorialist/baptist view of taking communion? I can find basis definitions, but nothing on why Baptist's feel it is the right view. Alternatively, I would like to also see arguments against the Baptist view. Thank you.

Not all Baptists are united on the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Some Baptists are strict memorialists, others are sacramentalists and personally…I hold to symbolic parallelism.

Memorial view:

“Symbolic memorialism of Zwingli—basically, the bread and wine are symbols of the past grace of Christ on the cross.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lASO9Un1EQU

Sacramental view (many Reformed Baptists hold to this view):

“Symbolic instrumentalism of Calvin—basically, the bread and wine are symbols through which, as instruments, one receives Christ.”

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=619131839270

Symbolic parallelism:

“Symbolic parallelism of Bullinger—basically, the bread and wine are symbols but at the same time faith receives Christ on a parallel track.”

“When the bread is eaten outwardly, there is a ‘at the same time’ an inward feeding on Christ’s body. God is offering that which is signified by the elements, just as in the preaching the offer of the gospel is given. This view is found in Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession (1566; see BC 5.183; 5.203). This emphasizes the ‘present tense’ – indicating what is the happening as believers participate in the Lord’s Supper. Gerrish notes: ‘This, of course, does take us beyond Zwingli, whose characteristic tense is the past, not the present. In Zwingli’s view, the elements call to mind something that has happened: Christ’s body was broken, we have turned to him in faith. And yet Bullinger’s parallelism is not Calvin’s position either, for it lacks the use of instrumental expressions; the outward event does not convey or cause or give rise to the inward event, but merely indicates that it is going on.’ See Gerrish, ‘Sign and Reality,’ 124. Gerrish notes that ‘where Calvin and Bullinger never agreed was over Calvin’s belief that God performs the inward through the outward,’ Grace and Gratitude, 167 n.29. For Calvin, God in sacraments ‘does not feed our eyes with a mere appearance only, but leads us to the present reality and effectively performs what it symbolizes.’ See Inst. IV.15.14 and IV.17.3.”

Introducing the Reformed Faith: Biblical Revelation, Christian Tradition By Donald K. McKim

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[CanIHunt]

thanks

 

[CanIHunt]

Thank you again for the answer. I really do not understand this part though. Can you help me to understand?
Symbolic parallelism:

“Symbolic parallelism of Bullinger—basically, the bread and wine are symbols but at the same time faith receives Christ on a parallel track.”

“When the bread is eaten outwardly, there is a ‘at the same time’ an inward feeding on Christ’s body. God is offering that which is signified by the elements, just as in the preaching the offer of the gospel is given. This view is found in Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession (1566; see BC 5.183; 5.203). This emphasizes the ‘present tense’ – indicating what is the happening as believers participate in the Lord’s Supper. Gerrish notes: ‘This, of course, does take us beyond Zwingli, whose characteristic tense is the past, not the present. In Zwingli’s view, the elements call to mind something that has happened: Christ’s body was broken, we have turned to him in faith. And yet Bullinger’s parallelism is not Calvin’s position either, for it lacks the use of instrumental expressions; the outward event does not convey or cause or give rise to the inward event, but merely indicates that it is going on.’ See Gerrish, ‘Sign and Reality,’ 124. Gerrish notes that ‘where Calvin and Bullinger never agreed was over Calvin’s belief that God performs the inward through the outward,’ Grace and Gratitude, 167 n.29. For Calvin, God in sacraments ‘does not feed our eyes with a mere appearance only, but leads us to the present reality and effectively performs what it symbolizes.’ See Inst. IV.15.14 and IV.17.3.”

 

[JM]

It simply means we experience grace by acting in faith when we participate in communion. The elements of bread and wine, unlike the sacramentalist view, function as a memorial but we partake of Christ spiritually through faith alone. Hope that helps.

 

[skypair]

I am trying to learn about different churches. Can someone help me find some online resources in support of the memorialist/baptist view of taking communion? I can find basis definitions, but nothing on why Baptist's feel it is the right view. Alternatively, I would like to also see arguments against the Baptist view. Thank you.

I take the symbolic view that is, probably, closest to the Baptist one.

The bread speaks of the LIFE of Christ broken for us. He literally, His whole life, was giving us parts of His truth and leading His life to that end.

The wine speaks of the DEATH of Christ for our sins. How does this fit into the ordinance?

When we take of the cup, we are declaring that we are saved in Christ by His death/blood. When we take of the bread, we are declaring, from a heart "worthy" of partaking of the table, that we are living His life through our own life. That we are breaking the bread of life with others — evangelizing, teaching, keeping holiness, etc.

So communion is not just a remembrance by us but a reminder to us of Jesus Christ life and death.

skypair

 

[CanIHunt]

thank you

 

[JM]

This might be of use. Taken from the Philadephia Baptist Catechism. (written between 1707 and 1814.

_____________________________________________________________________

Q. 194. What is the Lord’s Supper?
A. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ.
“Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me. — 1 Corinthians 11:24

Q. 195. What are the benefits of the Lord’s Supper to believers?
A. They are confirmed in their faith, they are spiritually fed, they are reminded of the debt they owe unto Christ, and they are rededicated to His service and worship.
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” — 1 Corinthians 10:16 See also John 6:53-57

Q. 196. What are the elements used in the Lord’s Supper?
A. Bread and wine.
“Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying Drink ye all of it;” — Matthew 26:26, 27, 29 See also 1 Corinthians 11:23

Q. 197. What do the elements of bread and wine signify?
A. They signify the body and blood of Christ.
“Take, eat: this is My body,… This cup is the new testament in My blood:” — 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25

Q. 198. Who should partake of the Lord’s Supper?
A. Those who can spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified.
“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” — 1 Corinthians 11:27

Q. 199. Can ungodly persons partake of the Lord’s Supper?
A. Not lawfully, for they are unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot feed upon Him spiritually.
“For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” — 1 Corinthians 11:29