Against Real Absence

Baptists Should Return to their Historical Roots on Communion

Baptists are currently undergoing an identity crisis. Perhaps this crisis has been a part of the Baptist tradition from the start. Baptists have spent the past four centuries defending their distinctives so often it has led to the neglect of other doctrine. So much so that any doctrine outside of this cannot be fully claimed as authentically Baptist. This has led to controversy over even the most uncontroversial aspects of our faith such as basic, historic trinitarianism (e.g. the debates over the Nicene Creed at the recent SBC convention). The Baptist movement as it stands today suffers from an intense uprootedness from its ancient and Protestant heritage. Lack of a rooting in history has led Baptists to forsake many aspects of the historic Baptist tradition outside its basic distinctives¹. One area in which the Baptist church greatly suffers from neglect are the sacraments. Specifically, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. 

The Baptist fathers held communion to be of the utmost importance. A meal in which the Spirit feeds us the body and blood of Christ spiritually, nor carnally, yet truly for our nourishment². For the last century or so, Baptists have opted for a belief in the “real absence” of Christ³. Since the Supper does not actually do anything, communion is had as infrequently as possible and rarely treated as an essential aspect of worship⁴. An accurate term for Baptist celebrations of the Supper could be “rarely communion.” However, this is far from the traditional Baptist view of the Lord’s Supper and has no doubt hampered Baptist congregations spiritually. To see this, one must study the history of the Baptist movement as a product of Reformational Christianity and trace the incursion of memorialism into Baptist churches. Furthermore, an examination of Baptist confessions, catechisms, hymns, and theological works will reveal a high view of the sacrament to be commonplace throughout the historic Baptist tradition. 

Our Protestant Roots

The Protestant Reformation revolutionized the Christian west. A direct product of the Reformation, Baptists formed as they departed the Church of England to practice regenerate church membership and congregational polity. Yet, Baptists maintained their Reformational identity in every indistinct aspect. Thus, it is important to have a right understanding of what the Reformation did and did not do. The Reformers did not break from the catholic tradition. They sought reform of the church by means of a return to the catholic tradition. Hence, the Reformation was, in a sense, more catholic than the Catholics, since it was firmly grounded in the teachings of Christian antiquity from which Rome had strayed⁵. Therefore, Protestants receive as their heritage everything good in the Christian Tradition writ large.

The Reformation’s connection to the historic Christian tradition is essential for its legitimacy. The Reformers gave us a proper lens with which to view tradition: that is, the principle of sola Scriptura. The Protestant Reformation advanced sola Scriptura, not solo Scriptura. Baptists, perhaps more than all Protestant traditions, hold strongly to Scripture as their only final authority and fervently maintained sola Scriptura. However, while it is important to remember that tradition holds an authority subordinate to Scriptural authority, but tradition does not hold zero authority⁶. Baptists intentionally identified as descendants of the Reformation and persisted they were not radicals, even though they were “commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptist”⁷. Maintaining continuity with the Reformation and greater Christian Tradition was a major factor in early Baptist theological development. Therefore, besides the essential shifts on the subject and mode of Baptism, the early Baptists inherited the teaching of the Reformers on the importance of the Word and Sacrament in the life of the believer. Baptists inherited the Reformation views of the sacraments as a means of grace and the real presence of Christ in the Supper, this view having reigned supreme for two centuries of Baptist history⁸.

Historic Protestant theology teaches that there are two Sacraments: Baptism and Communion⁹. This teaching rejects the Roman notion that there are seven, and the modern evangelical notion that there are zero. Unfortunately, most modern Baptists either underappreciate or poorly understand the Reformed teaching of the sacraments¹⁰. Nevertheless, Baptists have utilized the language of sacrament to describe the means of grace for all four centuries of their existence¹¹. Throughout Baptist history, ordinance has been used in place of the term sacrament. However, early Baptists used the term ordinance and the term sacrament interchangeably, not to deny a conveyance of grace, but to focus on Christ’s ordination of the sacraments¹². 

In short, grace is “unmerited favor.”¹³ The Reformers taught, contrary to Rome, that salvation came by grace alone through faith alone¹⁴. God ordinarily distributes this grace, through the Son, by the Spirit via means¹⁵. It is truly a participation in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). Hence, we can claim Christ is spiritually present in the Supper, rather than carnally present, because his body is in heaven. How the Spirit communicates the benefits of Christ to us is a mystery, but mystery is an illegitimate reason to reject the teaching of Scripture¹⁶.  

The poor sacramental practice of Rome led to an overcorrection by some to reject entirely the means of grace. However, it is important to note that the sacraments do not convey grace on their own. They are only effectual means of salvation because of the work of the Spirit through them to those who have responded in faith to the gospel (i.e. the elect)¹⁷. Furthermore, Baptists, along with the broader Reformed Protestant tradition, maintained sacramentalism while arguing against any form of justification necessarily occurring at their administration¹⁸.

The Incursion of Memorialism and Consequences Thereof

Modern Baptists overwhelmingly reject the traditional view of the Supper in favor of a mere memorialism in which Christ is absent. However, memorial views of the Supper were uncommon among the early Baptists. The incursion of memorialism took place over centuries due to a plethora of outside pressures on the Baptist movement. First, Ulrich Zwingli originated the doctrine. Scholars dispute whether he entirely rejected the Reformed view. Perhaps he merely refuted Christ’s physical body being present in the elements. After all, his own successor taught a real, spiritual presence of Christ in the supper¹⁹. However, Zwingli did seem to reject fifteen-hundred years of Christian consensus by divorcing the material and spiritual elements of the ordinances²⁰. Second, the Enlightenment introduced Rationalism to the church, which ushered in the strongest rise of memorialism into the Baptist movement as the mystical became unpalatable to those in the church that had been persuaded by rationalistic tendencies²¹. The Enlightenment separated the seen and unseen realms. Memorialism, as a result, is a secular reimagining of the supernatural element of Communion. For well over a millennium, the Church had understood the Spirit to work through material means²². As most errors are replicas of previous errors, memorialism repackages Gnostic tendencies by denouncing the physical in light of the spiritual²³.

The final and most devastating incursion of memorialism took place during the Second Great Awakening. The onset of Revivalism radically altered Protestant liturgy across a myriad of traditions. Memorialism, though focused on one aspect of worship, primed Baptists for revivalism by shifting the whole of Baptist liturgy from an Augustinian view of spiritual formation in worship to merely a “cognitive emphasis.”²⁴ No longer do we receive, but we respond. The Supper, and subsequently, our worship, is no longer focused on God and His work in us, but on us and our ability to properly respond to what God presents to us.  This shift was cemented by the revivalism of the Second Great Awakening. Revivalism singled out conversion as the only important aspect of Christian life. Since the ordinances do not convert, they lost their importance to revivalist Baptists²⁵. Whereas Baptist liturgy once concluded with a celebration of the Supper, it shifted to an invitation to respond²⁶. Furthermore, this invitation or altar call purposed to single out those either unsaved or unassured for the sake of causing anxiety to push one towards a decision to convert²⁷. Twentieth-century Baptists opted nearly universally for an altar call, undermining the importance of the Supper and removing any joy from its rare appearances²⁸. Baptists traded the spiritual nourishment communicated to believers in the Supper for the self-centered invitation to respond however one feels, and reverted to the error of Rome in failing to offer the Supper to the laity with any frequency²⁹.

Baptist Confessions: General and Particular

Having defined Baptists as a product of the Reformation and traced the harmful incursion of memorialism into the Baptist tradition, a thorough examination of numerous Baptist documents throughout history is needed as proof of what I am arguing to be the traditional view of the Supper as being truly present throughout Baptist history. The early English Baptists, the fathers of Baptist churches, penned several consensus documents that prove the sacramental view of the Supper to be prevalent at the onset of the Baptist tradition. By their popular nature, consensus documents carry more weight than other types of documents. While the Baptist movement can be separated between General and Particular streams, these two streams agreed on this issue of the sacraments in their confessions. 

In 1679, General (or Arminian) Baptists produced their confessional statement The Orthodox Creed. Article 27 identifies the “two sacraments” of Baptism and Communion to be “ordinances…appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ…to be continued in His church to the end of the world.”³⁰ Article 33 states that the Lord’s Supper serves the purpose of a “perpetual remembrance” of Christ’s death. However, the confession goes further, stating that the Spirit conveys through the Supper “all the benefits of His death and resurrection and spiritual nourishment and growth in Him.” The Supper seals our “continuance in the covenant of grace.” Furthermore, the article claims that in this “Holy sacrament” believers and Christ achieve “union with each other.” It concludes with a denouncement of the Lutheran and Catholic teachings on real presence. It makes no mention of memorialism³¹.

The Particular Baptists formed the final version of their confession in 1689. It is commonly referred to as the Second London Confession. There is little debate over the idea that this is by and large the most influential Baptist document in the history of the Baptist tradition. Particular Baptists (also known as Reformed or Calvinistic Baptists) experienced much more growth and influence in England and, thus, their confession reached a wider audience. Furthermore, in 1742, this confession was word for word adopted (with the addition of two articles) and used by the Philadelphia convention in America under the name of the Philadelphia Confession. It was printed and distributed by Benjamin Franklin to a wide audience. Later, the Charleston Baptist Association adopted the very same confession under the title of the Charleston Confession. Every delegate to the first Southern Baptist Convention held to this confession. Its teaching was the standard for the Baptist movement well over two centuries and, therefore, holds more weight than any other Baptist document ever produced³². Lastly, the Reformed Baptists had very successful missionary campaigns which took their theology across the globe. 

Chapter 28 of the Second London Confession is titled “Of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.” It is here we find the adoption of the term “ordinance.” The term sacrament is entirely absent from this confession in all 32 of its chapters. However, as revealed earlier, this change in terminology was not a change in theology of the sacraments, but a shift in focus on Christ’s ordination of them³³. This is evidenced in the clear teaching of spiritual real presence in paragraph 7 of Chapter 30, which is titled “Of the Lord’s Supper.” It states the following:

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all 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.

There is no mistaking the sacramental theology of this paragraph, despite the absence of the term itself. Once again, the ordinance is only effective for “worthy receivers.” It does not convey grace ex opera operato, but the Spirit makes the sacrament effective for those who partake in faith. The wine and bread remain merely wine and bread. Yet, through these elements, believers are granted spiritual nourishment.

Baptist Catechisms

Two major catechisms were produced by Baptists in the 17th Century as well. In An Orthodox Catechism, Hercules Collins consistently uses the term sacrament and teaches “sacraments are holy signs and seals.”³⁴ He echoes the consensus that through the Supper, the Spirit unites us “more and more to Christ’s blessed body.” In The Baptist Catechism, Benjamin Keach avoids the term sacrament to keep with the Second London, since his catechism is relationally the same to the Second London as the Westminster Shorter Catechism is to the Westminster Confession. In his personal works, however, he employed the term sacrament.³⁵ Question 93 teaches that the Word, baptism, the Lord’s supper, and prayer are the “outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption” (i.e. means of grace). Furthermore, he states these means are “made effectual to the elect for salvation” by the Spirit. Yet, this is “not by any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them” but by “the blessing of Christ” and the “working of the Spirit.” Therefore, baptism and the Lord’s Supper may be appropriately called “effectual means of salvation.”³⁶ This is by no means teaching baptismal regeneration, nor is it claiming that these signs justify. Rather, it is emphasizing the benefits of Christ communicated by the Spirit through the sacraments. Again, the Spirit is not bound to these means, but ordinarily works through them. 

Second-Century Baptists to the Modern Day

Besides the prevalence of the Second London under its various labels, 18^th Century Baptists maintain a sacramental view of the Supper in their theological works. William Kiffin, William Mitchel, David Crosely, and Isaac Stavely all helped carry the sacramental view of the Supper into and throughout the Baptist movement in the 1700s. Furthermore, Andrew Fuller, speaking of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, says “the sign, when rightly used, leads to the thing signified.”³⁷ Baptist Eucharistic hymns also taught this view of the Supper to Baptist congregations during the 18^th Century. Joseph Stennet I wrote, “That we might drink his sacred Blood/ And on his Flesh might feed.”³⁸ Also, Anne Dutton penned perhaps the best stand-alone Baptist work on the Supper titled Thoughts on the Lord’s Supper. In this work, she says of our union with Christ in Communion that the sacrament “admits us into the nearest approach to his glorious self, that we can make in an ordinance-way on the earth, on this side the presence of his glory in heaven.”³⁹

Though the 19^th and 20^th Centuries saw Baptists largely reject their traditional view of the Lord’s Supper, there remained many theologians who retained and taught spiritual real presence. Charles Spurgeon consistently used the sacramental definition of the ordinances; that is, that they are “outward and visible signs of an inward and invisible grace.”⁴⁰ His own Eucharistic hymn, “Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands,” is full of the warmth of Christ’s presence.⁴¹

Throughout the 20^th Century, Baptists largely had to contend with the threat of liberalism, specifically regarding the inerrancy of Scripture. While the fight against liberalism ultimately won out, a need for course correction in a myriad of other aspects of Baptist life remains (see fn. 26). One of the more influential groups advocating for a Baptist ad fontes, or a return to the sources, is Founders Ministries, who operates within the SBC and holds to the doctrine Second London Confession in full. However, the most important group advocating a historically Protestant vision for the modern Baptist church is the Center for Baptist Renewal. Following the 20^th Century work of conservative Baptist academics David Dockery and Timothy George, the Center envisions Baptist churches in which “the two sacraments, or ordinances, of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are celebrated, along with prayer and the preaching of the Word, as the ordinary means of grace and the central acts of Christian worship.”⁴²

The Path Forward

If the Supper truly nourishes, modern Baptist evangelicals are missing out on one of God’s primary means of grace. While modern Baptists have lost their sacramental heritage, there are numerous steps Baptists can take to move towards a more traditional and, more importantly, scriptural view of the Supper. First, Baptists have no need to fear the word sacrament. Baptists have freely used this language for all four centuries of their existence, especially for the first half of Baptist history⁴³. Baptists should cherish the means of grace and acknowledge their centrality to the Christian life. Likewise, Baptist congregations are currently a starving people. They rarely receive the spiritual nourishment present in the Supper. A helpful course correction in this aspect would be a move towards weekly communion. Such a view is not foreign to the Baptist tradition and was clearly the practice of the early church⁴⁴. Though likely to be controversial, Baptists also should seek to offer wine alongside grape juice, a historically novel element, when observing the Supper. The Scriptures teach that God gave wine “to gladden the heart of man” (Ps. 104:15). Thus, I believe Christ instituted the ordinance with wine intentionally, and we should respect the elements with which he chose. Replacing the element with juice negates this celebratory aspect of the Supper⁴⁵. However, I understand the necessity for patience and prudence in transitioning to wine in a historically anti-alcohol culture; thus, it will likely be best in most circumstances to offer both wine and juice to the people for the sake of conscience in both directions. Finally, Baptists should celebrate the Supper with joy and thanksgiving.  The detrimental effects of memorialism on Baptist worship can be considered an accretion of Enlightenment and revivalist influences on the foundation of the more individualistic Baptist distinctives of regenerate church membership and believer’s baptism. However, the negative consequences of memorialism were foreseen by the Protestant reformers who disavowed Zwingli and his teachings on the sacraments (e.g. the Marburg Colloquy). As products of the English Reformation, Baptists received the Reformed view of the Supper as their doctrinal heritage. Baptists should view the Supper as an important issue. The Reformers saw the Supper as so important that it seemed appropriate to them to, as John Knox said, “utterly damn the vanity of those who declare the sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs.”⁴⁶ While such language may seem harsh to modern ears, it reveals the fervor with which the Reformers advocated a proper view and practice of the Supper. Baptists would do well to retrieve this fervor with charity and grace.

---

Image Credit: Unsplash

Share This