Should infants/toddlers receive Communion?

bbbbbbb said:

No. Examining themselves as all people are commanded to do prior to partaking. No. They don't need to understand that. You have no evidence of the slightest capability on the part of an infant to examine itself.

Click to expand...

The babies I know make the results of examining their hunger pretty evident, in my experience.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

This discussion is not about church membership or Baptism or the parting of the Red Sea or the Passover Meal. It's about participation in the Eucharist.


Here's what Scripture says about that: "A person must EXAMINE himself and THEN eat the bread and drink from the cup"


How do babies do that?

Click to expand...

what examination would a baby need to do?

Why do you think you and others here are more deserving of partaking of the Eucharist than a child?

CaliforniaJosiah said:

I understand. So, how do you suggest all be "obedient" to what Paul by inspiration, proclaims: "A person must EXAMINE himself and THEN eat the bread and drink from the cup?"


And how, exactly, does a baby do that?






.

Click to expand...

As I have said before and I will say again, a baby is an obvious an exception to this verse. A baby that has been baptized into Christ has no need to confess their sins because they are pure and blameless in the eyes of the Lord. Each person is held accountable to the extent that they become aware of their sins as they develop and mature. A baby has not begin such development and is therefore exempt of self-examination or confession of sins.

This really is a strange position to take for those who profess infant baptism. Other's can make the same argument against paedobaptism which you are making here against communion; an argument based on all people having to profess his/her faith before being immersed while providing scripture which seems to require such a profession. For you to say that belief/awareness of sins for babies is necessary for one sacrament yet not necessary for another is simply inconsistent.

cubinity said:

The babies I know make the results of examining their hunger pretty evident, in my experience.

Click to expand...

Cute. What do you do about babies that are not in the least bit hungry when something is thrust into their mouths?

Ortho_Cat said:

As I have said before and I will say again, a baby is an obvious an exception to this verse. A baby that has been baptized into Christ has no need to confess their sins because they are pure and blameless in the eyes of the Lord. Each person is held accountable to the extent that they become aware of their sins as they develop and mature. A baby has not begin such development and is therefore exempt of self-examination or confession of sins.

This really is a strange position to take for those who profess infant baptism. Other's can make the same argument against paedobaptism which you are making here against communion; an argument based on all people having to profess his/her faith before being immersed while providing scripture which seems to require such a profession. For you to say that belief/awareness of sins is necessary for one sacrament yet not necessary for another is simply inconsistent.

Click to expand...

Are unbaptized babies therefore unfit for communion because they have unconfessed sins and are impure and sinful?

bbbbbbb said:

Cute. What do you do about babies that are not in the least bit hungry when something is thrust into their mouths?

Click to expand...

Whose doing the thrusting? Sounds ill conceived the way its written.

bbbbbbb said:

Are unbaptized babies therefore unfit for communion because they have unconfessed sins and are impure and sinful?

Click to expand...

Nope, but they aren't fit for communion because they haven't put on Christ through baptism. We don't believe babies are inherently guilty of sin at birth or guilty of "original sin" as you might call it.

bbbbbbb said:

Cute. What do you do about babies that are not in the least bit hungry when something is thrust into their mouths?

Click to expand...

Whoops

Thekla said:

Whoops

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

No. Examining themselves as all people are commanded to do prior to partaking. No. They don't need to understand that. You have no evidence of the slightest capability on the part of an infant to examine itself.

Click to expand...

Their capability to examine themselves is commensurate with their ability to be factious and schismatic. Paul's whole point in chapter 11 is unity, which is fulfilled in the Eucharist.

Ortho_Cat said:

As I have said before and I will say again, a baby is an obvious an exception to this verse. A baby that has been baptized into Christ has no need to confess their sins because they are pure and blameless in the eyes of the Lord. Each person is held accountable to the extent that they become aware of their sins as they develop and mature. A baby has not begin such development and is therefore exempt of self-examination or confession of sins.

Click to expand...

I see. So, you just give some a complete "pass" on the mandate (a rather all-embracing one, I'm sure you'll agree).


I feared so. Because as I so stressed in my first post on this issue, I'm STRONGLY desirous of embracing your position. It "fits" very well with my theology. I WANT to agree with you. But there IS that very strong verse. IMO, we can't just totally ignore it. And it seems, that's exactly what you do. I find it unacceptable to teach in direct contradiction of Scripture - and saying, "but just ignore the Scriptures" doesn't quite work FOR ME - especially when i it is SO clear, SO clearly linked to something so important. That the EO can just ignore such a clear verse troubles me - but nonetheless, I don't question your heart or faith.


I asked my question because I WANT - powerfully - to agree with your position. After a lot of rabbit holes, we got to the final point: Such requires ignoring a very powerful, very clear, very obvious Scripture. I think I NEED to stick with some position that doesn't require and do that.

This really is a strange position to take for those who profess infant baptism.

Click to expand...

There is no such mandate for Baptism, no such Scriptural mandate I must ignore in order to embrace my theology and practice there.

For you to say that belief/awareness of sins for babies is necessary for one sacrament yet not necessary for another is simply inconsistent.

Click to expand...

Quote me where I said that one must have faith before being Baptized? Quote me where I said that one must have faith before communing? What Paul says is that each PERSON (anthropoi - homo sapiens) must EXAMINE himself and THEN eat of bread and drink of the cup. It seems you are just ignoring that.


Okay. I think I've got it. I AM disappointed and sad. And I think, unfortunately, the Western church is right on this one as much as I didn't want it to be.






.

Kristos said:

Their capability to examine themselves is commensurate with their ability to be factious and schismatic. Paul's whole point in chapter 11 is unity, which is fulfilled in the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

And the cause of the schism? People who weren't going hungry eating all the food. Does a baby have the capacity to, by their own decision, steal someone else's lunch while being cuddled in their parent's arms? I doubt it, but maybe.

cubinity said:

And the cause of the schism? People who weren't going hungry eating all the food. Does a baby have the capacity to, by their own decision, steal someone else's lunch while being cuddled in their parent's arms? I doubt it, but maybe.

Click to expand...

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Is a baby not a person?

Click to expand...

Yes.
But does a newborn need to examine its life to see where, and how, it has sinned against God, when it has no concept of either?

The answer to your question is; it can't.
It can't, a) because it doesn't now God and has no concept, or knowledge, of having sinned against him, (because it hasn't); and b) because it lacks the tools to be able to analyse, discern, confess and receive forgiveness.

But like I said; were the disciples any better at the Last Supper? Did Jesus tell them they could only share his last meal if they had done this? And how many of them knew and understood what the crucifxion and atonement were all about? If they had, wouldn't they have been expecting the resurrection?

CaliforniaJosiah said:

I see. So, you just give some a complete "pass" on the mandate (a rather all-embracing one, I'm sure you'll agree).


I feared so. Because as I so stressed in my first post on this issue, I'm STRONGLY desirous of embracing your position. It "fits" very well with my theology. I WANT to agree with you. But there IS that very strong verse. IMO, we can't just totally ignore it. And it seems, that's exactly what you do. I find it unacceptable to teach in direct contradiction of Scripture - and saying, "but just ignore the Scriptures" doesn't quite work FOR ME - especially when i it is SO clear, SO clearly linked to something so important. That the EO can just ignore such a clear verse troubles me - but nonetheless, I don't question your heart or faith.


I asked my question because I WANT - powerfully - to agree with your position. After a lot of rabbit holes, we got to the final point: Such requires ignoring a very powerful, very clear, very obvious Scripture. I think I NEED to stick with some position that doesn't require and do that.





There is no such mandate for Baptism, no such Scriptural mandate I must ignore in order to embrace my theology and practice there.




Quote me where I said that one must have faith before being Baptized? Quote me where I said that one must have faith before communing? What Paul says is that each PERSON (anthropoi - homo sapiens) must EXAMINE himself and THEN eat of bread and drink of the cup. It seems you are just ignoring that.


Okay. I think I've got it. I AM disappointed and sad. And I think, unfortunately, the Western church is right on this one as much as I didn't want it to be.






.

Click to expand...

I'm not accusing you of saying one has to have faith before being baptized, but I am saying that you're being inconsistent by saying one must "examine themselves" before communion, but they don't need to have a profession of faith before baptism. I guess I find it contradictory how one could agree with the premise of infant baptism, yet disagree with infant communion. To me it only makes logical sense to either entirely agree with both or entirely disagree.

Many people say that there are biblical "mandates" regarding baptism and one's profession of faith beforehand, as in the article below:

What does the Bible say about infant baptism?

yet you clearly disagree with these people, that faith or a profession of faith is necessary to receive the sacrament of baptism, although seemingly, there are verses which could be used in such a way as to make a case for the necessity of all people (including babies) to believe or repent before baptism, such as the one below:

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

So then, let's use the same line of thinking. Now this definitely sounds like a mandate to me. In fact, it is even in the imperative. Repent and be baptized. So then, how is a baby, and infant, able to repent? Turn from their ways? Can you explain to me how a infant, is able to repent? If you cannot, then tell me why you embrace infant baptism, which "apparently" contradicts this biblical "mandate" above?

It appears to me at least that your only way out here would be to say that a baby isn't require to repent (Unless you say the parents repent for them?) Again, you're in the same boat here which you are accusing us of being in. Either way you slice it, you're going to have to grant an exception to children here to uphold your belief in infant baptism.

I only bring this up because it relates with the topic at hand, as I'm trying to understand your train of thought here and draw a parallel. I don't think it is worth starting its own thread, but if you want to, we can.

Strong in Him said:

Yes.
But does a newborn need to examine its life to see where, and how, it has sinned against God, when it has no concept of either?

Click to expand...

I don't think our sin is the thing to be examined. I think a baby can examine the thing Paul wants us to examine: our hunger.

Strong in Him said:

does a newborn need to examine?

Click to expand...

Here's the answer Paul gives (by divine inspiration):


"Let each person examine himself and then eat of the bread and drink of the cup." "Person" here is antropoi, the most all-inclusive term for homo sapiens.

The answer to your question is; it can't.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps there are two options:

1. You disregard what God clearly says in Scripture.

2. You conclude a baby can't do as is required - and thus isn't to participate.

It seems the EO has chosen #1.






.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Here's the answer Paul gives (by divine inspiration):


"Let each person examine himself and then eat of the bread and drink of the cup." "Person" here is antropoi, the most all-inclusive term for homo sapiens.








Then perhaps there are two options:

1. You disregard what God clearly says in Scripture.

2. You conclude a baby can't do as is required - and thus isn't to participate.

It seems the EO has chosen #1.






.

Click to expand...

What is the standard for determining if someone is capable of self examination ?

The command to examine our hunger is not totally physical in nature. The real issue is, are we consciously aware of those more needy than we are, and can we manage our hunger through our own resources, thus leaving the Lord's Supper for them? So, it's really a social awareness issue.

Therefore, I would say that a cognitive human who is physically capable of sympathizing with the needs of others ought to have enough social decency to do everything in their power to save the resources for those more needing them. If that person happens to be in the decision-making capacity for others, such as young children, then I see it as that person's social responsibility to help that dependent behave appropriately and to teach that dependent the core social issue that makes such behavior appropriate, so that they dependent will grow up making the right decision for themselves.

cubinity said:

The command to examine our hunger is not totally physical in nature. The real issue is, are we consciously aware of those more needy than we are, and can we manage our hunger through our own resources, thus leaving the Lord's Supper for them? So, it's really a social awareness issue.

Therefore, I would say that a cognitive human who is physically capable of sympathizing with the needs of others ought to have enough social decency to do everything in their power to save the resources for those more needing them. If that person happens to be in the decision-making capacity for others, such as young children, then I see it as that person's social responsibility to help that dependent behave appropriately and to teach that dependent the core social issue that makes such behavior appropriate, so that they dependent will grow up making the right decision for themselves.

Click to expand...

I agree, to the extent of course of the child's developmental capacity

(God gives us nothing more than we can bear, and also stretches us by challenging us -- which I think is a good model for parenting )