• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Real Presence

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
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.

Hi JM,

But, isn't Christ present spiritually in pretty much every moment of a born again believer's life? It is what I believe Paul was referring to when he encouraged believers to make everything subject to Christ. Jesus is always with us. This is what he told his disciples. But we know that this is a spiritual presence. So, yes, for the born again believer who partakes of communion, Jesus is spiritually present with that person at the time. He is also spiritually present with that believer as he walks out the door and down the street. However, for the one partaking of the communion emblems who is not born again, then it's just, as our great leader has referred to it, 'a little piece of bread and cup of wine'.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
62
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟107,834.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi JM,

But, isn't Christ present spiritually in pretty much every moment of a born again believer's life? It is what I believe Paul was referring to when he encouraged believers to make everything subject to Christ. Jesus is always with us. This is what he told his disciples. But we know that this is a spiritual presence. So, yes, for the born again believer who partakes of communion, Jesus is spiritually present with that person at the time. He is also spiritually present with that believer as he walks out the door and down the street. However, for the one partaking of the communion emblems who is not born again, then it's just, as our great leader has referred to it, 'a little piece of bread and cup of wine'.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I was under the impression that born-again, regenerated Christians were "born of the Spirit", "infilled with the Spirit", and "led by the Spirit"?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
62
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟107,834.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
One other point. I am a Southern Baptist.

I make no apologies for that.

But one of the very first Southern Baptist Theologians (John Leland Dagg), wrote in 1857:

"Lord's Supper was designed to be a memorial of Christ, a representation that the communicant receives spiritual nourishment prom him, and a token of fellowship among the communicants. The rite is commemorative. The passover served for a memorial of deliverance from Egypt; and, year after year, as the pious Israelites partook of it, they were reminded of that marvellous deliverance, and were required to tell of it to their children. The passover was instituted on the night of that deliverance. The Lord's supper was instituted on the night when Jesus was betrayed to be crucified; and serves for a memorial of his sufferings and death. When we remember him, we are to remember his agonies, his body broken, and his blood shed. In preaching the gospel, Paul determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified. So, in the eucharist, Christ is presented to view; not as transfigured on Mount Tabor, or as glorified at his Father's right hand, but as suffering and dying. We delight to keep in memory the honors which they whom we love have received; but Jesus calls us to remember the humiliation which he endured. To the lowest point of his humiliation, the supper directs our thoughts. The simple ceremony is admirably contrived to serve more than a single purpose. While it shows forth the Lord's death, it represents at the same time the spiritual benefit which the believer derives from it. He eats the bread, and drinks the wine, in token of receiving his spiritual sustenance from Christ crucified. The rite preaches the doctrine that Christ died for our sins, and that we live by his death. He said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."(13) These remarkable words teach the necessity of his atoning sacrifice, and of faith in that sacrifice. Without these, salvation and eternal life are impossible. When Christ said, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed,"(14) he did not refer to his flesh and blood, literally understood. He calls himself the living-bread which came down from heaven.(15) This cannot be affirmed of his literal flesh. To have eaten this literally, would not have secured everlasting life; and equally inefficacious is the Romanist ceremony, in which they absurdly imagine that they eat the real body of Christ. His body is present in the eucharist in no other sense than that in which we can "discern" it. When he said, "This is my body," the plain meaning is, "This represents my body." So we point to a picture, and say, "This is Christ on the cross." The eucharist is a picture, so to speak, in which the bread represents the body of Christ suffering for our sins. Faith discerns what the picture represents. It discerns the Lord's body in the commemorative representation of it, and derives spiritual nourishment from the atoning sacrifice made by his broken body and shed blood. A third purpose which this ceremony serves, and to which it is wisely adapted, is, to signify the fellowship of the communicants with one another. This is taught in the words of Paul: "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."(16) A communion or joint participation in the benefits of Christ's death, is signified by the joint partaking of the outward elements. "What communion," says he, "hath light with darkness; and what concord hath Christ with Belial?" "Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."(17) In these words of Paul, to sit at the same table, and drink of the same cup, are regarded as indications of communion and concord. Believers meet around the table of the Lord, in one faith on the same atonement, in one hope of the same inheritance, and with one heart filled with love to the same Lord. A notion has prevailed extensively, that a spiritual efficacy attends the outward performance of the rite, if duly administered. Some mysterious influence is supposed to accompany the bread and wine, and render them means of grace to the recipient. But, as the gospel, though it is the power of God unto salvation, does not profit unless mixed with faith in those who hear it; much less can mere ceremonies profit without faith. In baptism, we rise with Christ through the faith of the operation of God; and in the supper, we cannot partake of Christ, and receive him as our spiritual nourishment, but by faith: "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith."(18) The contrary opinion makes these sacraments as they have been called, saving ordinances, and substitutes outward ceremony for vital piety."


13. John vi. 53., 14. John vi. 55., 15. John vi. 51., 16. 1 Cor. x. 16, 17., 17. 1 Cor. x. 21., 18. Eph. iii. 17.


A Treatise on Church Order, John L. Dagg, Chapter V, Communion.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: miamited
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was under the impression that born-again, regenerated Christians were "born of the Spirit", "infilled with the Spirit", and "led by the Spirit"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Hi DD,

Yes, that's true. However, Jesus did say that he would never leave us nor forsake us. So, I believe that in the life of the born again believer, there is a presence of Jesus. There is, for that person, the understanding that Jesus is with him/her. Now, perhaps when Jesus said that he would never leave or forsake us, he was referring to the existence of the indwelling Holy Spirit. After all, he and the Spirit are one.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
62
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟107,834.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi DD,

Yes, that's true. However, Jesus did say that he would never leave us nor forsake us. So, I believe that in the life of the born again believer, there is a presence of Jesus. There is, for that person, the understanding that Jesus is with him/her. Now, perhaps when Jesus said that he would never leave or forsake us, he was referring to the existence of the indwelling Holy Spirit. After all, he and the Spirit are one.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Never debated anything against that. Just merely pointing out that according to scripture, after the point of Salvation, everything in scripture is related to the Holy Spirit.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,475
3,732
Canada
✟874,555.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Hi JM,

But, isn't Christ present spiritually in pretty much every moment of a born again believer's life? It is what I believe Paul was referring to when he encouraged believers to make everything subject to Christ. Jesus is always with us. This is what he told his disciples. But we know that this is a spiritual presence. So, yes, for the born again believer who partakes of communion, Jesus is spiritually present with that person at the time. He is also spiritually present with that believer as he walks out the door and down the street. However, for the one partaking of the communion emblems who is not born again, then it's just, as our great leader has referred to it, 'a little piece of bread and cup of wine'.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Good question Ted.

Christ is especially present in the means he gave to us, in what Reformed Baptists call the ordinary means of grace which include preaching and the sacraments or ordinances.

The Baptist Confession reads, “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened” (1689 Confession 14.1).

Philadelphia Baptist Catechism ch 30

Q. 194. What is the Lord’s Supper?

A. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ.

Scr. “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.

Scr. “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. 198. Who should partake of the Lord’s Supper?

A. Those who can spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified.

Scr. “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

We are to use the appointed means given us in "the grace of faith."

Yours in the Lord,

jm


 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,475
3,732
Canada
✟874,555.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
So to say "Protestants (of which Baptists are included) affirm real presence" is a falsehood. Period.

This is an anachronism.

Smyth, the "founder" of the Baptists, was really a Mennonite who embraced Melchoirite Christology, believing Christ did not take on human flesh at His birth. If the author is to be believed Smyth denied much of the Reformed doctrine that was being taught in mainland Europe at the time and was thoroughly influenced by the Mennonites and even rejected the doctrine of original sin!

The separatist congregations that Smyth helped to established eventually became General or Arminian in theological persuasion while the other non-conformists in the fold because Particular Baptists. Smyth and his followers also poured instead of immersion. The first congregations that would be recognized as Baptist came out of the Puritan and non-conformist movement in England.

We are Protestants.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
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.
This seems to be a question that might be answered merely by counting noses.

The denominations that believe in the Real Presence and that are nearly universally classified as Protestant include the Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and (Dutch) Reformed. They amount to about 300 million or a little more, the others (including the Baptists and all sorts of non-denominational churches and groupings) amount to about 400 million.

If Baptists are NOT included, it looks like a toss-up.

However, there are several problems with counting. Different denominations count membership totals differently. Also, certain churches that are widely considered to be cults are included in the non-Real Presence group and probably should not be. It may be wrong to consider them to be non-Christian, but they are not really Protestant. With them and the Baptists excluded from the category of Protestants, the Real Presence Protestants would probably have a small edge, but only then.

Of course, if the question were about Christians overall (or Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians as the OP put it), rather than just Protestants, the believers in Real Presence (or their churches, to be more precise) would have a huge lead.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mary of Bethany

Only one thing is needful.
Site Supporter
Jul 8, 2004
7,541
1,081
✟364,556.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
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 agree with you, Deacon Dean, that this statement isn't (or at least wasn't) true about Baptists. I was Baptist (in the SBC) until my late 30s, and I would never have said that the Lord's Supper was anything other than a memorial that Christ commanded. The idea of any sort of "real presence" was not discussed, and I never heard it suggested otherwise. Obviously I changed my mind about that, but not as a Baptist. :)
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,135
45,787
68
✟3,103,760.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
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.

Hi again DD, I don't agree with everything he taught either, though like you, I am a five-pointer. My main thought here is that it might be interesting to start a thread and see if a consensus can be reached among us about what we believe the minimum requirements should be to be considered a Calvinist.

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.

My thought here was that as Calvinists, we need to go to great lengths to make what we believe (which also includes what the Reformers believed) known, and as clear to everyone else as possible, because what Calvinists actually teach and believe is so often misrepresented and/or misunderstood (as I know that you know ;)).

To say that, "John Calvin supported infant baptism as taught to him from his Catholic days", is simply untrue and it just adds to the confusion about what Calvin taught, and about what we Calvinists believe. While we could simply say, "Calvin approved of infant baptism", I think it would be far better to say that, "while John Calvin approved of infant baptism, he did so in a wholly different manner (non-regenerational) than was taught to him from his Catholic days.", as that would put an end to the confusion (at least of that portion of what he/we teach/believe).

Do Reformed Baptists teach that a new believer should seek a credobaptism if they were already baptized as an infant?

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - I'll let you know if I start that thread in SR as I'm hoping that you'll join in :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟94,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
The reason that Baptists have always called baptism and the Lord's Supper ordinances is because they have historically denied any presence which is why others call them sacraments.

Certainly the Lord is "present" whenever two or three are gathered in His name but we don't call corporate worship a sacrament. His presence by the Spirit is the same when we practice the ordinances.

There is no special presence when someone is baptized or we partake of the bread and wine.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,475
3,732
Canada
✟874,555.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Do Reformed Baptists teach that a new believer should seek a credobaptism if they were already baptized as an infant?

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - I'll let you know if I start that thread in SR as I'm hoping that you'll join in :)

The infant baptism is performed based on the parents faith and not on the child's own faith so yes they would be baptized for the first time as an adult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,475
3,732
Canada
✟874,555.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Twin and Dean will point out I am Reformed so I tend to view things differently.

The reason that Baptists have always called baptism and the Lord's Supper ordinances is because they have historically denied any presence which is why others call them sacraments.

Certainly the Lord is "present" whenever two or three are gathered in His name but we don't call corporate worship a sacrament. His presence by the Spirit is the same when we practice the ordinances.

There is no special presence when someone is baptized or we partake of the bread and wine.

The word ordinance and sacraments were used interchangeable by the early Calvinistic and Reformed Baptists, it was the Arminian wing that preferred the term ordinance and also preferred to sprinkle when baptizing. This can be demonstrated by examples found throughout their works.

An ordinance is a legal term, something that must be observed legally and is incumbent on the Christian to perform. It's a legal duty.

A sacrament is a visible sign, a physical sign of an inward grace given to the Saint based on faith and faith is a gift of God.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
  • Like
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟94,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Twin and Dean will point out I am Reformed so I tend to view things differently.



The word ordinance and sacraments were used interchangeable by the early Calvinistic and Reformed Baptists, it was the Arminian wing that preferred the term ordinance and also preferred to sprinkle when baptizing. This can be demonstrated by examples found throughout their works.

An ordinance is a legal term, something that must be observed legally and is incumbent on the Christian to perform. It's a legal duty.

A sacrament is a visible sign, a physical sign of an inward grace given to the Saint based on faith and faith is a gift of God.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
While what you say is true we are commanded to observe baptism and the Lord's supper. Which would make them ordinances.

What I have studied of sacraments is that special grace is imparted through them. That I believe has been the Reformed view and the point of the arguments between transmutation, transubstantiation and con substantiation.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,475
3,732
Canada
✟874,555.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
While what you say is true we are commanded to observe baptism and the Lord's supper. Which would make them ordinances.

What I have studied of sacraments is that special grace is imparted through them. That I believe has been the Reformed view and the point of the arguments between transmutation, transubstantiation and con substantiation.

We partake of Christ spiritually, this is true. This interpretation was also held by the early church fathers, abused by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What I have studied of sacraments is that special grace is imparted through them. That I believe has been the Reformed view and the point of the arguments between transmutation, transubstantiation and con substantiation.
Isnt the point of the arguments between trans, con, etc. in Holy Communion more a matter of Real Presence vs. representationalism than about grace being imparted ?
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟94,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Isnt the point of the arguments between trans, con, etc. in Holy Communion more a matter of Real Presence vs. representationalism than about grace being imparted ?
Sacraments are called a means of grace by Presbyterians in their writings on the subject. The Westminster Confession is a little bit more ambiguous but still leaves no doubt as to the Sacraments being a means of grace.

I would give you quotes but my iPad won't allow me to copy and paste. At least I haven't learned how to do it yet.
 
Upvote 0

nonaeroterraqueous

Nonexistent Member
Aug 16, 2014
2,915
2,726
✟196,517.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
"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 disagree with the statement. The communion cannot be physically real, by virtue of the fact that its chemistry obviously does not change. To concede the point to some degree and say that it is Christ's spiritual presence (the Holy Spirit) is to suggest that the Holy Spirit inhabits a wafer, when the reality is that the Holy Spirit inhabits us, both before and after we bite that cracker and sip that juice (wine). I do not suggest that communion has no bearing on our relationship with the Spirit, though, for it does. Dining with friends and family also have bearing on our relationships with them, but we don't need to eat our friends and family for them to have a real presence at the dinner table.

I would also argue to those who suggest that a symbolic understanding of the sacraments is deprecatory of the rite that the only thing being deprecated, here, is symbolism in general. Just knowing the way the human mind works, there's really only a little hop from a symbolic thing to a real thing, if the symbolism is taken seriously. People are so absorbed with symbols every day, that they have no idea how tethered they are to this device. We interact with symbols to such a degree that we forget that they're symbols. The words on this page are symbols to evoke words in your head, which are symbols to evoke ideas, which are symbols of real things. I would say that symbolic interactionism with communion is just as good as a real presence, because it affects a person just as much and affects their relationship with Christ just as much. One is not in any way deficient for thinking that the Holy Spirit is not literally living inside of a wafer or that the wafer does not magically turn into a piece of human flesh.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I disagree with the statement. The communion cannot be physically real, by virtue of the fact that its chemistry obviously does not change.
The belief called Transubstantiation holds that the chemistry, i.e. substance, does change. It's just not observable (according to the doctrine).

To concede the point to some degree and say that it is Christ's spiritual presence (the Holy Spirit) is to suggest that the Holy Spirit inhabits a wafer, when the reality is that the Holy Spirit inhabits us, both before and after we bite that cracker and sip that juice (wine).
Let's use the proper language when discussing this matter. The host and the wine can be inhabited by the Holy Spirit or by Christ himself without denying that God can inhabit a person in another way also. God inhabited a burning bush, so this doesn't seem too hard for him to also do.

That doesn't mean that I personally believe in Transubstantiation, just that the issue needs to be accurately described before it's denounced..
 
Upvote 0