Baptist Commuion

I am going to a Baptist Communion service tonight, and I was wondering what makes the Sacrament itself valid. Obviously, Baptists don't believe in the real presence, so would that mean that I wouldn't get the graces imparted on me as if I took an Anglican Eucharist?

 

As much as I respect the Baptists for remaining largely committed to orthodoxy, their denial of Infant Baptism and the Real presence is one major point of disagreement with Anglicans, from which they branched. That's not to say that Anglicans believe those who weren't baptised as infants are destined for hell, or even those who take a non-sacramental communion. People can only be guilty of taking communion unworthily if the presence has been consecrated to it beforehand, or else they can't make any offense against the spirit, but at the same time, they won't get any particular grace given through the eucharist either.

 

I agree. I also respect Baptists for not succumbing to Liberalism like many other Protestant Churches. Basically, what I'm asking is if I take communion from a church that only sees it symbolically, will it be valid and will I receive the same sacramental graces as if I took it from a Church who believed in the Real Presence?

 

Perhaps if you believe in your conscience that it is more than what the Baptists say it is (simply a memorial), but I believe without proper consecration, the real presence is not evoked, and therefore, would not offer any more grace according to Anglican theology than whatever the mere symbolism of the memorial view would do for someone.

 

What is proper consecration?

 

The Trinity, (God/Christ/The Holy Spirit) is omnipresent at all times and in all places. God is that in which we live and move and have our being. God's presence is 'real' everywhere and at every time. A Celebrant is not a 'medium'. The words of consecration are not a magic formula. The validity of the sacrament is not dependent upon the conduct of the celebrant, it is dependent upon the faith of the recipient and God alone.

All sacraments are symbolic. That is the meaning of the word sacrament. The Communion is symbolic of the communion the believer has obtained with God through regeneration and circumcision of heart and the infusing of new life in Christ through repentance and faith in God's Saving Grace. Without that precondition no communion is valid to any individual. Validity is a question of the recipent's hearts intent, not upon strict adherence to formulaic recitations or symbolic ritual.

That having been said however, all things should be done in good order and The Eucharist should be celebrated according to what has been instituted by Christ himself and as recorded in holy scripture.

 

Matthew 18:18-20
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.’​

Whilst I would always opt of the holy tradition, and the authority of the Church as exercised through the historic episcopate, I am certainly not about to tell the Lord where he may be present. Frankly it is above my paygrade. My reading of scripture leads me to conclude that Christ will be present, and I don;t say that to offend my more reformed sisters and brothers in faith, but rather to acknowledge that which my Eastern siblings in faith refer to as the ineffability of God.

 

The rite of Holy Communion here depends on several things:
1. Clergy must be present. Laity have no ability to perform the liturgy of consecration and offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

2. Liturgy must be present. Just any ol' words and happy feelings do not constitute a Divine Service.

3. Intention. The intent must be to deliver the recipient's soul into direct contact with God; "take, eat, this is my Body"


Baptists do not have clergy. It is laity all the way down, even those who attempt to preach or preside over church services. Although all Christians obtain the priesthood of believers, an ordination by a bishop is necessary for entering the ministerial priesthood, for becoming a deacon or priest according to the order of Melchisedech.

Baptists do not have the liturgy of consecration or Holy Communion. They just have an hour set aside to sing a couple of praise-and-worship songs, and give out some crackers. That does not constitute a liturgy of holy communion.

Baptists do not intend to provide you with the Spiritual Food of the most blessed Body and Blood of our Lord.

So the question is, can you receive the Body and Blood,
-from laity,
-at a praise-and-worship 'event',
-where no one is trying or even wants to supply you with the Spiritual Food?

 

Clergy did not exist as we now know them for the first century +, of the existence of the church.

May we have chapter and verse from Holy Scripture on why you deem their presidency as essential to salvation? (Presumably we agree that the Eucharist is Salvific, or at the very least a means of Grace).

I ask this not to question the role of clergy at the Eucharist, I am fully in support of that, but merely to clarify the position according to actual scripture, rather than go with, "any ol' words and happy feelings".

 

This I think also is in need of some affirming scripture to support its assertion. I may be ignorant, but I have not come across any scripture defining entry requirements to the order of Melchizedek. I would be grateful therefore for information in the form of a scripture reference from him on this point.

Wycliffe and his Lollards got into hot water over the issue of preaching without a bishop's licence. The embarrassing thing for the church at that time was the fact that the average Lollard actually knew what they were taking about when it came to understanding and preaching The Gospel and the Bible. Whereas many of the 'properly bishop licensed clergy' could not even recite The Lord's Prayer or any of the creeds from memory. The average licensed priest was little more than a secular magistrate in those days. Ignorance was rife.

I realize though that there is a difference between having a bishop's license to preach, (I had one from my bishop myself as a layman Reader), and being ordained. Lollards were ordained, but not licensed and therefore incomeless without stipend.

Whether or not one's preaching is 'anointed', depends upon The Holy Spirit and the gifts that proceed from God himself. That is not something that can be conferred by any human agency, bishop or otherwise. It can only be requested of God and ascertained by the faith of the ordinand and the bishop who imparts the ordination.

 

There's a couple of errors here:

1. The church did not begin in the New Testament or at Pentecost. That's a Romish fiction, because they're trying to tie the Church to St. Peter. In Anglican doctrine, the Church has existed from at least Moses and Aaron. Thomas Bilson traces the descent of the Church through the Old Testament. John Jewel calls Aaron a bishop, and Lancelot Andrews more accurately calls Aaron an archbishop. This is why when our Lord had the tumults with the priests and levites, he did not counsel his followers to abandon the Church of the Old Testament, but rather to listen to them. With his coming, the Church was remade to be sure, and the priesthood of propitiatory sacrifice was done away with Christ who is the everlasting High Priest, but it was merely re-made, not made. Take a look at the Anglican books on the topic.

2. Not sure what you mean by presidency. Whom is that referring to?

3. If you're asking whether clergy as such as 'necessary', then yes, that is the Anglican teaching. The prayer book teaches that only the priest may pronounce the Words of Absolution, or conduct the Liturgy of Holy Communion, and things like that.

 

The person who presides at The Eucharist. In the early days of the church after Pentecost it would not have been necessarily a priest, as we know them today. They are a later ecclesial innovation.

I have no problem with this. All should be done in good order. That does not make the priesthood 'necessary' though, just desirable. A Lay Reader leads the people in prayer and general confession, the only part of absolution that cannot be said by a layman is 'you' and 'your'. The Reader always should use 'us' and 'our'. The same goes for the blessing. 'We', 'us' and 'our' again. God forgives sins and blesses His people, even when a priest is not present, therefore their presence is not essential for the purposes of salvation for any individual. As I said, just desirable.

 

Let's put it this way. You couldn't not be a priest, to conduct the liturgy of Holy Communion, or pronounce the words of Absolution.

The rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer are not suggestions, but rules/commands.

 

Nevertheless Stalwart, we are not here talking about salvation for individuals but merely about church structure and discipline. God regenerates whoever God decides to save, and needs no priest or layman to enable him to do so. As Christ's church we each of us merely cooperate with God in his enterprise to save His creation. The Anglican church has decided that our cooperation with God should be coordinated and focused within the conformity of a 'good ordered' discipline. Thus the difference between us Anglicans and non-conformists.

What absolution offers is not a potential forgiveness, to be actualized in faith. Absolution offers instead a real and accomplished forgiveness in Christ, to be received by faith. If you believe the latter, rather than the former, then you believe in objective justification.

 

This is, of course, not what the Apostle Paul teaches in his epistles. The Body and Blood of the Lord is uniquely present in the sacrament of communion and those who receive unworthily drink judgement on themselves as they profane the Body and Blood.

 

Naturally, they did. We see Christ instituting the Apostles, who in turn instituted deacons, elders and overseers (i.e bishops, priests and deacons).

As far as the wider question, the Anglican formularies and their face value meaning are clear on this:

Article XIX: Of the Church

THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

How are they duly ministered? Well Article 23 answers this...

Article XXIII: Of Ministering in the Congregation

IT is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same.

Who is lawfully called?

The Ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer answers this:

It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture, and ancient Authors, That from the Apostles time, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publique prayer with imposition of hands, were approved, and admitted thereunto by lawfull authority. And therefore to the intent that these orders may be continued, and reverently used, and esteemed in the Church of England; No man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawfull Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tryed, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopall Consecration or Ordination.

Baptist orders and communion lack these and thus it seems difficult to believe that there is truly eucharistic grace there. That being said, God is not limited only to His instituted sacraments and since they are Christians we can safely assume they are part of His broader Church via baptism and their confession of faith.

 

All of the above comments are good. I was raised Baptist, and my mother is still in the SBC. What we believe occurs in the Eucharist (the bread and wine become a vehicle for receiving Christ), and what we believe we receive in the Eucharist (Christ, Grace), they don't. For them it is simply a memorial service.

 

It is I believe both an efficacious means of grace to the faithful and also a memorial, regularly reviving gratitude within the believer that "Christ died for you", so we are appropriately "Thankful". That is why we "Eat and drink these holy things".

 

Yes, Tiffy, there is a memorial aspect to the Eucharist. However, for the Baptists, that is all there is.

 

It does have the merit of avoiding the possibility that people might indulge in ignorant superstition. I have even heard one female parishioner say she considers the priest an actual male stand in for Jesus. (Quaint but incongruous if Jesus is also physically in the bread and wine as well). All sorts of quaint ideas are allowable as long as they don't actually get preached as doctrine but just remain personal 'beliefs'.

However I doubt that any Anglican could adopt the practice of disposing of surplus consecrated elements by feeding it to the birds, as I have heard reported by someone who attended an outdoor Baptist communion service once. Too much bread was consecrated so a full loaf of bread was liberally distributed to our local feathered friends. Just didn't seem right somehow, to those Anglicans who witnessed it, though we must admit, God loves the birds too. Luke 12:7.

I doubt if God actually minded very much, but we Anglicans are much more careful how we tidy up and dispose of left overs. Is that superstitious or just prudent?