I would agree with Reformed views on the table, now. Before I was Reformed I didn’t understand them and would have been against that view.

Just wanted to clarify as far as I am concerned. I also do not know many Reformed Baptists, really, so I couldn’t be too much of an authority on this.

To answer your question, I came across this statement in the Wikipedia article referenced above: “By contrast, the next generation Reformer John Calvin’s view was that Christ is spiritually but not physically present in the sacrament, but some later Calvinists such as Charles Hodge tend more towards Zwingli’s memorialism than Calvin’s doctrine.”

I do think that Baptists and possibly some Reformed Baptists, gradually changed on their position regarding the Supper. I can’t speak for Reformed Baptists—and they are definitely a small minority among Baptists today—but I think it is obvious that many Baptists believe like Zwingli. (And that is what I said, Baptist, not Reformed Baptist.) But it might be that some Reformed Baptists changed as well.

Does that help?

While it is true that this led to the persecution of Anabaptists, who chose to express their “entusiasm” outside the bounds of civil law (which, if they were right–and some had basically Reformed theology, but many didn’t–would’ve been right), I think it also helped establish the Reformation, in Luther’s case especially, due to his backing by the government. Without their aid, when push came to shove against the Roman Church, the Reformers would have been eliminated and the Reformation may have never taken place.

Furthermore, an old book I’ve been reading by Thomas Lindsay of Glasgow, Scotland, points out that the seeds of religious liberty existed in the Reformers’ doctrine, but they were not able to thoroughly apply it for the reason I gave above, for which Calvin’s experience with the Geneva City Council proves as a good example. The Reformers didn’t always get everything they wanted. Now I know the Reformers were in some cases pretty “enthusiastic” about outlawing Anabaptist heresy, but just as we’ll ask of our descendants who find some fault with our current political positions in the future, let us view the Reformers in the context of their times, and distinguish the good from the bad without throwing out the baby with the bath water.

On the Lord’s Supper, when you say Zwingli’s view of the Supper is comparable to modern Baptists, do you include Reformed Baptists in that category, or do you see any similarity among Reformed Baptists and the rest of the Reformed tradition. I don’t go to a Reformed Baptist church, but I have viewed the similarities between the London Baptist Confession’s statement on the Lord’s Supper and the Westminster Confession. The Baptist Confession seems to be a condensed version of Westminster, retain much of Westminster’s wording, so I always figured the Reformed Baptists went Zwinglian after they began moving away from their Reformed theology on everything else, too. Can you fill in the blanks for me on that?

Here is the quote (with the older style English “f”s changed to “s”s when appropriate).

“Zuinglius and Oecolampadius were more esteemed by the learned men of their time, than any other reformers; because they had more moderation. Zuinglius was successful against the enthusiasts, called Anabaptists: and some have confidently affirmed, that he was for putting them to death; and said, ‘let him who dippeth again, be dipped; that is, drowned:’ but it is a very improbable story, since Minius Celsus himself, namely, Sebastian Castellio, whose testimony in points of this kind ought to be credited, having publickly defended his position, ‘that heretics ought not to be put to death;’ appeals to the authority of Zuinglius, and affirms, that the Anabaptists at that time never suffered on account of their opinions, as heretics, but of their evil actions, as perjured and seditious rebels.

The first Anabaptists shewed a surprizing mixture of folly, stupidity, wickedness, and religious frenzy. An immoral fanatic is of all animals the most dangerous to the church and state; and the history of these Anabaptists is an everlasting monument of the mischief which such people can perpetuate.”  (from pg. 58)

It is true that Anabaptists refused to be involved in the state, and may have even broken laws due to their beliefs. And I think there may be some truth to what this guy was saying. However, I agree that the Reformers view of believer’s only baptism was not very charitable at the least.

I look at Reformation Day like I look at July 4. America isn’t perfect. In fact, America has done much evil. But all things considered, the world is a better place today because of the United States. I can still celebrate the blessings that have accrued to me because of the Founding Fathers and what they did, even if I realize that not everything they did was good.