I have wondered about that myself as pertains to the difference between Reformed Baptists and other Reformed groups. I know obviously there is a difference about how baptism is regarded, but are there many Reformed Baptists now who would affirm what the London Confession of 1689 says about the Lord's Supper?
Quote
Those who, as worthy participants, outwardly eat and drink the visible bread and wine in this ordinance, at the same time receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and receive all the benefits accruing from His death. This they do really and indeed, not as if feeding upon the actual flesh and blood of a person's body, but inwardly and by faith. In the supper the body and blood of Christ are present to the faith of believers, not in any actual physical way, but in a way of spiritual apprehension, just as the bread and wine themselves are present to their outward physical senses.
What I am asking is this: would a "memorial" view of the Sacrament be more common than this view among Reformed Baptists? And I am asking for my own edification in this--not trying to debate the merits of either view.

I know the Southern Baptists that I know personally would hold to the "memorial" view--but then they are not Reformed--so I am curious about the differing positions among Baptists and how it may relate to the other Reformed groups.

Theo