infant communion

[lmnop9876]

I saw infant communion mentioned in another thread, and thought it might be an interesting subject to discuss.
did the Jewish children also eat the Passover? I'm not talking about sharing in the meal, but about eating the actual sacrificial lamb.
was it the practice of the early Church?
is there any theological or Scriptural objections to it?

 

[Jon_]

(1 Corinthians 11:27-29 KJV)​

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
​

I think the biggest objection to administering communion to infants is this passage in particular. An infant does not at all appear to be capable of heeding or obeying Paul's commandment here. He says that one should examine himself and discern the Lord's body. It's difficult to imagine an infant understanding the significance of communion. Moreover, they are pretty much at our mercy as to partaking or not. If we feed them the bread and wine, is that honoring God? Is that obedience on their part or an impious gesture on ours? I believe it is the latter. I don't think infants should be administered communion, nor small children until such time that they can give an account of the meaning of the sacrament.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[DrWarfield]

I saw infant communion mentioned in another thread, and thought it might be an interesting subject to discuss.
did the Jewish children also eat the Passover? I'm not talking about sharing in the meal, but about eating the actual sacrificial lamb.
was it the practice of the early Church?
is there any theological or Scriptural objections to it?

Did the Jewish children also eat the Passover?
Yes! They most certainly did eat the Passover meal. Now there are some Reformed revisionists who will argue that they didn't, but their arguments are about as convincing as those who claim that Jesus turned water in grape juice, rather than wine.

Was it the practice in the early Church?
It is hard to tell, but I would infer that it was from the fact that Jewish children ate the Passover meal, and nowhere does the NT change the pattern for the Lord's Supper.

Are there any theological or Scriptural objections to it?
Well the only one anti peado-communionists put forward is the quote from 1 Corinthians 11:28, " A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup." The answer to this objection, if one is Reformed, is quite simple. If we waive the requirement of "repent", of the "repent and be batised" part, for the children of believers, in regards to peado-baptism, then why do we require "examine himself" of children of believers in communion? We take the faith of the parents on behalf of the child in baptism, so we should do the same with regards to communion.

Now if we still maintain that paedo-communion is biblically wrong, then we must, in good conscience, state that paedo-baptism is biblically wrong. On this point the Reformed Baptists are consistent, and good on them for seeing the biblical implications of paedo-baptism. My question is simple, When will the Reformed and Presbyterian people become consistent? Either allow your children to rightfully partake of the body and blood of Christ in communion, or go to the local Baptist Church, bow before the alter and repent of your paedo-baptist views!

 

[Jon_]

Now if we still maintain that paedo-communion is biblically wrong, then we must, in good conscience, state that paedo-baptism is biblically wrong.

No, I'm sorry, but this does not follow. The two sacraments are distinctly different with distinctly different purposes. Baptism is the sign of membership in the covenant of grace, communion is the sign of fellowship in the church of Christ.

On this point the Reformed Baptists are consistent, and good on them for seeing the biblical implications of paedo-baptism.

Sure, they are consistent. Unitarians are consistent with their misinterpretations of Scripture too. But again, the inference between paedobaptism and communion is invalid.

My question is simple, When will the Reformed and Presbyterian people become consistent?

Show it to be inconsistent. Are you Presbyterian/Reformed? Have you not read your catechism?

Question 168: What is the Lord’s Supper?

Answer: The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is showed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with other, as members of the same mystical body.

Question 169: How has Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?

Answer: Christ has appointed the ministers of his Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.

Question 170: How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord’s Supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?

Answer: As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.

Question 171: How are they that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to prepare themselves before they come unto it?

Answer: They that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer.

Question 172: May one who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s Supper?

Answer: One who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account has it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s Supper, that he may be further strengthened.

Question 173: May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper, be kept from it?

Answer: Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ has left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.

Question 174: What is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the time of the administration of it?

Answer: It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions, heedfully discern the Lord’s body, and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints.

Question 175: What is the duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?

Answer: The duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, is seriously to consider: How they have behaved themselves therein, and with: What success; if they find quickening and comfort, to bless God for it, beg the continuance of it, watch against relapses, fulfill their vows, and encourage themselves to a frequent attendance on that ordinance: but if they find no present benefit, more exactly to review their preparation to, and carriage at, the sacrament; in both which, if they can approve themselves to God and their own consciences, they are to wait for the fruit of it in due time: but, if they see they have failed in either, they are to be humbled, and to attend upon it afterwards with more care and diligence.

Question 176: Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper agree?

Answer: The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits; both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other; and to be continued in the church of Christ until his second coming.

Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ?

Answer: The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.

Either allow your children to rightfully partake of the body and blood of Christ in communion, or go to the local Baptist Church, bow before the alter and repent of your paedo-baptist views!

Tsk, tsk. And you attend seminary?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Knight]

My question is simple, When will the Reformed and Presbyterian people become consistent? Either allow your children to rightfully partake of the body and blood of Christ in communion, or go to the local Baptist Church, bow before the alter and repent of your paedo-baptist views!

As someone who does not subscribe to infant baptism I can honestly say that I do not support this view and it does NOT represent the views of all others who hold to credo-baptism.

Sir, I believe you go way too far in your assertions.

 

[StAnselm]

No, I'm sorry, but this does not follow. The two sacraments are distinctly different with distinctly different purposes. Baptism is the sign of membership in the covenant of grace, communion is the sign of fellowship in the church of Christ.

Hang on - isn't there an inconsistency here? I'm with DrWarfield - if the church is the covenant community, then anyone who is a member of the church should take communion. The Lord's Supper is the covenant meal.

Surely "let a man examine himself" applies to adults in the same way "repent and be baptised" applies to adults - if we say infants can be baptised prior to repentance, why can't we say that they can have communion prior to being "of years and ability to examine themselves"?

We can't argue for credocommunion merely on the basis of the Westminster's standards acceptance of it - indeed, many Presbyterian churches hold to paedocommunion. Besides, the Cathechism's distinction here seems a bit arbitrary, anyway.

 

[DrWarfield]

No, I'm sorry, but this does not follow. The two sacraments are distinctly different with distinctly different purposes. Baptism is the sign of membership in the covenant of grace, communion is the sign of fellowship in the church of Christ.


Sure, they are consistent. Unitarians are consistent with their misinterpretations of Scripture too. But again, the inference between paedobaptism and communion is invalid.


Show it to be inconsistent. Are you Presbyterian/Reformed? Have you not read your catechism?




Tsk, tsk. And you attend seminary?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

"Tsk, tsk. And you attend seminary?"

To quote a stack of quotes from Catechisms and Confessions does not answer the objection. Nor does the simple logic, supposed logic at that, that the sacraments are different.

Yes I attend Seminary and I am Reformed from the top of my to the souls of my feet, and everything in between. What I am not is an inconsisitent Calvinist. The fact remains that "repentance" is waved for the children of believers simply because they can't furnish faith. Now in baptism we are saying that the child is a member of the covenant, as a member of the covenant is follows that they should receives the sacrament of the covenant, namely communion.

Now the only way to object to all of this is to be a closet Baptist, or a pseudo Baptist. I admire the Baptist for trying to be consistent, although horribly wrong. I do not admire the Reformed person who is completely inconsistent.

Regards, your brother in Christ,
DrWarfield

 

[DrWarfield]

As someone who does not subscribe to infant baptism I can honestly say that I do not support this view and it does NOT represent the views of all others who hold to credo-baptism.

Sir, I believe you go way too far in your assertions.

Brother I love lively debate and I often engage in hyperbole, if my hyperbole has offended you, then I apologise for that offence. Now I do want to explain myself. I was actually making the point that as a Baptist you are consistent in your views and administaration of the sacraments. Although I disagree with your Baptistic view, nevertheless I admire your applicatioin of logic within your Systematic framework. At the same time I was arguing, albeit with hyperbole, that the paedo-baptist who also maintains an anti paedo-communion position is thoroughly inconsistent in his/her theology of the sacraments.

 

[DrWarfield]

No, I'm sorry, but this does not follow. The two sacraments are distinctly different with distinctly different purposes. Baptism is the sign of membership in the covenant of grace, communion is the sign of fellowship in the church of Christ.


Sure, they are consistent. Unitarians are consistent with their misinterpretations of Scripture too. But again, the inference between paedobaptism and communion is invalid.


Show it to be inconsistent. Are you Presbyterian/Reformed? Have you not read your catechism?




Tsk, tsk. And you attend seminary?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Sorry about the typos in the last post.

You wrote, "Have you not read your catechism?'

Yes I have, and quite frankly I am disturbed when my Reformed brethren are seen to elivate the Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms above the Scriptures. We can disagree on this matter, but let us not get into a personal slinging match. Show me from Scripture that I am wrong and I will change my opinion/position. Merely quoting a Catechism is not going to do it for me.

Those who know me well will agree that as far as the Reformed faith goes I am thoroughly in love with all things Reformed. Now having said that please bear in mind that being Reformed is not a matter of a 100 point check list and having to tick every box. We are able to disagree on some matters, unless we have Perfectionist view of faith and practise.

There were some essential differences even among the great Reformers of the 16th and 17th Centuries. Also bear in mind that the Westminster Confession of Faith and the other Westminster Standards are consensus documents. At that great assembly, in my opinion the greatest of all assemblies since the Apostolic Age, there were Episcopalians, Congregationalist and a hand full of Presbyterians. To put it in a nutshell both paedo-communion and credo-communion are Reformed. The question is which one is Biblical?

Your brother in the Reformed faith,
DrWarfield

 

[DrWarfield]

No, I'm sorry, but this does not follow. The two sacraments are distinctly different with distinctly different purposes. Baptism is the sign of membership in the covenant of grace, communion is the sign of fellowship in the church of Christ.


Sure, they are consistent. Unitarians are consistent with their misinterpretations of Scripture too. But again, the inference between paedobaptism and communion is invalid.


Show it to be inconsistent. Are you Presbyterian/Reformed? Have you not read your catechism?




Tsk, tsk. And you attend seminary?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

You wrote, "Baptism is the sign of membership in the covenant of grace, communion is the sign of fellowship in the church of Christ."

Are you arguing that baptised children of believers are not entitled to "fellowship" in the church of Christ?

 

[Knight]

Brother I love lively debate and I often engage in hyperbole, if my hyperbole has offended you, then I apologise for that offence.

There is no need. No offence was taken.

Though I admit to not being a huge fan of hyperbole. I will ask that you exercise care in the future as statements like the ones you made earlier could put those in my camp in a bad light. That is what I was protesting against.

 

[ClementofRome]

Clem enters the building at his own risk...

OK, catechism aside...I believe that 1 Cor 11 has been incorrectly used to fence the table for centuries. I heard Dr. Scott Hafemann preach a sermon many years ago titled CONTEXT IS KING! That sermon left an mark on me that lasts to this day.

1 Cor 11:17-34 is written against the backdrop of abuse. The Corinthians were abusing the Lord's Table....getting drunk with the blood of Christ and acting in a gluttonous manner as to the body of Christ. This is pure sacrilege. He demands that they cease approaching the Table in this manner and that they examine themselves with respect to the nature of the Table. The "unworthy manner" is an abusive manner.

I would not suggest that one should force feed an infant the elements at all, however, I am a strong proponent of welcoming the children to the Table under the proper guidance of the believing parents who will in turn explain the sacred nature of the Table. At what age? It would all depend. My oldest would have been able to understand my instruction concerning the table as early as 3 or 4....my youngest would probably not have understood the instruction until probably 6 or so. I have to agree with DrWarfield that if paedo-baptism is proper, then it is consistent of allow for padeo-communion. If there are other arguments against paedo-communion I am glad to hear them, but 1 Cor 11 cannot be used against the practice.



Clem tiptoes quietly out of the room and waits for the door to get slammed in his direction...

 

[cygnusx1]

I thought you were a baptist Jon ?

I seem to remember you saying you were ?

 

[Jon_]

Hang on - isn't there an inconsistency here?

No.

I'm with DrWarfield - if the church is the covenant community, then anyone who is a member of the church should take communion. The Lord's Supper is the covenant meal.

Well, then, if the church is the covenant community, we should allow everyone without exception that attends church to partake. (After all, there was not such thing as "church membership" in the New Testament.) That's the implication of this argument, but I highly doubt you would allow unbelievers or unrepentant believers to disgrace the Lord's Table.

Perhaps you would like to define and lay out the significance of the term "covenant meal" too. As it stands, it has virtually no meaning, and I can't comment on it for that reason.

Surely "let a man examine himself" applies to adults in the same way "repent and be baptised" applies to adults - if we say infants can be baptised prior to repentance, why can't we say that they can have communion prior to being "of years and ability to examine themselves"?

Because the command to "repent and be baptized" are two separate commands that are independent of one another. This is the same mistake that the Baptists make when they make the argument that one must repent before being baptized. That's not what Peter said. He said that they should repent and be baptized. Baptism represents the ingrafting of the believer into Jesus Christ (among other things). Since the people Peter was preaching to were not a part of the body of Christ, they needed repentance (unto salvation) and baptism (into the body).

We can't argue for credocommunion merely on the basis of the Westminster's standards acceptance of it - indeed, many Presbyterian churches hold to paedocommunion.

Says who we can't? I just did. It's true some "Presbyterian" churches practice communion. It's also true that some "Presbyterian" churches deny the inerrancy of Scripture. I suppose you'd say we can't argue with them on the basis of Westminster, either.

Besides, the Cathechism's distinction here seems a bit arbitrary, anyway.

No more arbitrary than this comment. If you don't believe it, then maybe you need to find a new Confession.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

To quote a stack of quotes from Catechisms and Confessions does not answer the objection. Nor does the simple logic, supposed logic at that, that the sacraments are different.

Judging by this comment, I would guess that you didn't read the answers. I suppose I'll have to cite them in context for you to read them.

The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is intended for "they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood" and in so doing "have their union and communion with him confirmed." Through the sacrament they "testify and renew their thankfulness." The sacrament is to be administered to the communicants "in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them." After the manner of "worthily" partaking, the communicants "do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death." "They that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer." May any who profess faith be denied the table, then? "Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith . . . may and ought to be kept from that sacrament . . . until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation." What, then, is the responsibility of the communicant during the time of administration of the elements? "It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions, heedfully discern the Lord’s body, and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints."

Now, if you still do not understand my protest to paedocommunion on the basis of the catechism, then I'm afraid we don't have anything else to talk about. The catechism is patently clear that communion is for professing believers who are in such good standing as to be recognized as being worthy of the table.

Yes I attend Seminary and I am Reformed from the top of my to the souls of my feet, and everything in between. What I am not is an inconsisitent Calvinist.

Good. Me too and me neither. But that raises the question of why you reject the clear teaching of the catechism.

The fact remains that "repentance" is waved for the children of believers simply because they can't furnish faith.

Surely you must understand that the practice of paedobaptism is a requirement of Scripture, and not an impious "waving" of repentance because infants are incapable of faith (a dubious assertion, and one that cannot be demonstrated). That is the Reformed understanding, after all.

Now in baptism we are saying that the child is a member of the covenant, as a member of the covenant is follows that they should receives the sacrament of the covenant, namely communion.

This is the same argument used by Anselm (the forumite, not the saint), so I'll use the same ad hominem refutation. You wouldn't allow an unrepentant believer to disgrace the Lord's Table, would you? Then why would you allow a child until such time that he should recognize his own sinfulness and the sacrifice of Christ?

Now the only way to object to all of this is to be a closet Baptist, or a pseudo Baptist. I admire the Baptist for trying to be consistent, although horribly wrong. I do not admire the Reformed person who is completely inconsistent.

You have fallen very short of showing anything approaching inconsistency, so I fail to see why you keep making this assertion.

Yes I have, and quite frankly I am disturbed when my Reformed brethren are seen to elivate the Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms above the Scriptures.

Now I greatly question how "Reformed" you are. Do you not know and believe that the creeds are as they are because they accurately represent the Scripture? Do you not accept the creeds because they are representative of the Scriptures? If not, then I fail to see on what basis you claim the label "Reformed," for Reformed means one who adheres to the historic symbols of the Reformed faith.

Furthermore, your argument is a complete straw man. I hardly elevate the Reformed creeds above Scripture, I only believe they accurate represent the doctrines laid out in the Scriptures. Anyone of my brethren here could testify that I am militantly sola Scriptura. That's hardly the issue. You're just throwing out smoke.

We can disagree on this matter, but let us not get into a personal slinging match. Show me from Scripture that I am wrong and I will change my opinion/position. Merely quoting a Catechism is not going to do it for me.

Did I not already give you 1 Corinthians 11:28?

There were some essential differences even among the great Reformers of the 16th and 17th Centuries. Also bear in mind that the Westminster Confession of Faith and the other Westminster Standards are consensus documents. At that great assembly, in my opinion the greatest of all assemblies since the Apostolic Age, there were Episcopalians, Congregationalist and a hand full of Presbyterians. To put it in a nutshell both paedo-communion and credo-communion are Reformed. The question is which one is Biblical?

Indeed, that is the question. I believe the Westminster Standards have answered this question faithfully and biblically. If you disagree with the catechism, then be my guest. But I hardly see how you can present any Scriptures that we should feed the elements to infants. This appears to be a great error in distinguishing the significance and practice of baptism with the significance and practice of communion.

Are you arguing that baptised children of believers are not entitled to "fellowship" in the church of Christ?

Are you talking about the visible or invisible church of Christ? I was talking about the latter.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Clem enters the building at his own risk...

OK, catechism aside...I believe that 1 Cor 11 has been incorrectly used to fence the table for centuries. I heard Dr. Scott Hafemann preach a sermon many years ago titled CONTEXT IS KING! That sermon left an mark on me that lasts to this day.

1 Cor 11:17-34 is written against the backdrop of abuse. The Corinthians were abusing the Lord's Table....getting drunk with the blood of Christ and acting in a gluttonous manner as to the body of Christ. This is pure sacrilege. He demands that they cease approaching the Table in this manner and that they examine themselves with respect to the nature of the Table. The "unworthy manner" is an abusive manner.

I can appreciate that there is an historical context for the verse, but to say that the historical context of the verse limits the significance to just the historical practice is simply wrong. The commandment that "one should examine himself" does not just mean only "don't be gluttons and drunkards with the elements." Moreover, we should also not forget Christ's commandment, "This do in remembrance of me." How can an infant take communion in remembrance of Christ? And still, the statement in v. 31 that "if we judged ourselves, we should not be judged," appears to clearly point to the idea that we should prepare ourselves and partake of the elements in a worthy and reverent manner.

I think we may take some guidance regarding the observance of the "new" Passover (the Lord's Supper) from the observance of the former Passover. In that same sacrificial meal, one of the Israelites who was unclean in his sin could not participate in the meal, as ascribed by the law (see Lev. 7:19-21). While, as Christians, we no longer observe the ceremonial practices of the law and are not "clean" or "unclean," there are definitely parallels between the two. Those who were unclean were so by willful transgression of the law, and as such, were to be kept from the sacrificial meal. Those who were clean (clean of conscience in the context of the Lord's Supper) were commanded to observe the meal.

In returning to 1 Corinthians 11, it does appear there was abuse concerning the sacrament (vv. 21-22), but a fortiori to say that this is all the passage means is to make an argument with no validity. The command to examine is given generally, not specifically. "Let a man examine himself," is a universal proposition, not one directed only at the Corinthians. And Christ's command to partake "in remembrance" of him is also clear and universal.

I would not suggest that one should force feed an infant the elements at all, however, I am a strong proponent of welcoming the children to the Table under the proper guidance of the believing parents who will in turn explain the sacred nature of the Table. At what age? It would all depend. My oldest would have been able to understand my instruction concerning the table as early as 3 or 4....my youngest would probably not have understood the instruction until probably 6 or so.

I agree. I see no purpose in denying the Lord's Table to a child who understands the sacrament. I would never argue against that. I am only talking about infants and very young children who are as yet unable to understand and properly observe the Lord's Supper. It is they that I maintain should not be given the elements.

I have to agree with DrWarfield that if paedo-baptism is proper, then it is consistent of allow for padeo-communion.

I realize you both make this claim, but I fail to see the validity of this inference. The sacraments are distinctly different, both in administration and covenantal significance. Baptism is for the visible church and the Lord's Supper for the invisible church. I certainly see no scriptural basis for the claim. Thus far, the position stands on an argumentum ad ignorantum, which foundation is quite suspect.

If there are other arguments against paedo-communion I am glad to hear them, but 1 Cor 11 cannot be used against the practice.

Well, I didn't hear Hafemann's sermon, so I can't be sure that his exegesis warrants such a universal denial of such an interpretation, but at least within the context (which IS KING!) of this discussion, I'd say that this assertion is without merit.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I thought you were a baptist Jon ?

I seem to remember you saying you were ?

No, not anymore, Cyg. That was quite an old thread. Every now and then, it gets resurrected, which is good, because reminders of my past errors only encourage me to be on the guard for present ones as well.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[DrWarfield]

Judging by this comment, I would guess that you didn't read the answers. I suppose I'll have to cite them in context for you to read them.

The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is intended for "they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood" and in so doing "have their union and communion with him confirmed." Through the sacrament they "testify and renew their thankfulness." The sacrament is to be administered to the communicants "in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them." After the manner of "worthily" partaking, the communicants "do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death." "They that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer." May any who profess faith be denied the table, then? "Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith . . . may and ought to be kept from that sacrament . . . until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation." What, then, is the responsibility of the communicant during the time of administration of the elements? "It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions, heedfully discern the Lord’s body, and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints."

Now, if you still do not understand my protest to paedocommunion on the basis of the catechism, then I'm afraid we don't have anything else to talk about. The catechism is patently clear that communion is for professing believers who are in such good standing as to be recognized as being worthy of the table.


Good. Me too and me neither. But that raises the question of why you reject the clear teaching of the catechism.


Surely you must understand that the practice of paedobaptism is a requirement of Scripture, and not an impious "waving" of repentance because infants are incapable of faith (a dubious assertion, and one that cannot be demonstrated). That is the Reformed understanding, after all.


This is the same argument used by Anselm (the forumite, not the saint), so I'll use the same ad hominem refutation. You wouldn't allow an unrepentant believer to disgrace the Lord's Table, would you? Then why would you allow a child until such time that he should recognize his own sinfulness and the sacrifice of Christ?


You have fallen very short of showing anything approaching inconsistency, so I fail to see why you keep making this assertion.


Now I greatly question how "Reformed" you are. Do you not know and believe that the creeds are as they are because they accurately represent the Scripture? Do you not accept the creeds because they are representative of the Scriptures? If not, then I fail to see on what basis you claim the label "Reformed," for Reformed means one who adheres to the historic symbols of the Reformed faith.

Furthermore, your argument is a complete straw man. I hardly elevate the Reformed creeds above Scripture, I only believe they accurate represent the doctrines laid out in the Scriptures. Anyone of my brethren here could testify that I am militantly sola Scriptura. That's hardly the issue. You're just throwing out smoke.


Did I not already give you 1 Corinthians 11:28?


Indeed, that is the question. I believe the Westminster Standards have answered this question faithfully and biblically. If you disagree with the catechism, then be my guest. But I hardly see how you can present any Scriptures that we should feed the elements to infants. This appears to be a great error in distinguishing the significance and practice of baptism with the significance and practice of communion.


Are you talking about the visible or invisible church of Christ? I was talking about the latter.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I am not going to denounce my vows in this forum or any other forum for that matter. I am not here to defend a catechism, nor am I here to slander anything Reformed. I am merely putting it to you that you should build your argument on Scripture and not on a Catechism. Prove to me that 1 Corinthians expressely forbids paedo-communion.

Now to your distinction of visible and invisible Church, show me this distinction from Scripture. Such a distinction has no beariing on the topic at hand.

Is a baptised child of a believer a member of the Covenant, or not? If they are then they are entitled to the same privilege that you and I enjoy. If you believe that baptism is a mere "dedication" then you are consistent in your argument. But as soon as you say that then you are no longer Reformed in your view of baptism. My children are not the spawn of Satan, they are covenant members and should be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

The sacraments are distinctly different, both in administration and covenantal significance. Baptism is for the visible church and the Lord's Supper for the invisible church.

Here's what I'm not sure about. I don't think we can say that baptism is for the visible church and the Supper for the invisible. We simply aren't able to work with that distinction, because we are only given the visible church to work with. How can we ensure that only the invisible church members participate?

 

[JimfromOhio]

There was a discussion regarding those who are mentally disabled in the communion. Many of us were not sure how much a person with mentally challenged understand what communion really means. It was decided that it is up to the parents of the child whether that child should be involved in the communion or not. Another point is that, regardless whether if a person really understands what the communion mean, we must not forget that God knows all and He alone knows who truly understand what communion really means.

My daughter is mentally challenged. My wife and I believes that she understands her salvation and we allowed her to be involved in the communion.

God knows all our habits, plans, aims, desires, attitudes, ambitions, etc. are known to Him. “You understand my thoughts from afar” (v.2b). “He knows the secrets of the heart” (Ps. 44:21b). Jesus said, “God knows your hearts” (Lk. 16:15). The LORD said to Samuel, “God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (I. Sam. 16:7). Again to King Solomon God said, “The LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever” (1 Chron. 28:9).

“He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God” (Rom. 8:27).