why infant baptism

[Erinwilcox]

Scriptural evidence:
God says to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you. Circumcise your sons as a sign of this covenant." (children) and "all strangers who come into you must be circumcised." (believers) (paraphrase mine) and St. Paul says, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

St. Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

Jesus Christ says, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

St. Paul says, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" (children partook of this baptism as well as adults)

St. Paul says, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

circumcision was the old sign and seal of the covenant, baptism is the new sign and seal of the covenant.

Extra-Biblical evidence (Early Church Fathers):
St. Polycarp states that he has served Christ for 86 years, which other contemporary sources state was his age.
St. Justin Martyr states that many old men and women have been disciples of Christ from their childhood
St. Cyprian and the Council of Carthage did not dispute the practice of infant baptism. Instead, they were merely deciding if it should be on the 8th day like circumcision, or asap after birth.
St. Irenaeus: (120-202 AD): "He came to save all through Himself - all I say, who through Him are reborn in God-infants, and children, and youth, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord."
Origen (185-254 AD): "For what is sin? Could a child who has only just been born commit a sin? And yet he has sin for which it is commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job 14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this reason the Church received from the Apostles the tradition to administer baptism to the children also. For the men to whom the secrets of divine mysteries had been entrusted knew that in everyone there were genuine sinful defilements, which had to be washed away with water and the Spirit." and: "Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. What sins? Whenever have they sinned? In fact, of course, never. And yet: 'No one is free from defilement.' (Job 14:4) But defilement is only put away by the mystery of baptism. That is the reason why infants too are baptized. "
Hippolytus (170-236 AD): "And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them."
None of the Early Church Fathers (except Tertullian, who believed post-baptismal sin was unpardonable) denied or questioned infant baptism.
Source of quotes from Fathers: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7067.asp

in addition, much early church art depicting young children being baptised. whether this was because the person being baptised was a 'babe in the faith,' or because they were actually infants is debatable though.

Yeah, but what was much of early church art? Hate to say it, but it was Romish art. . . Now of course Peter, Paul or Jesus never denied infant baptism, but neither did they ever mention it. Rather, Jesus spoke of believer's baptism. Also, if circumcism was the precursor to infant baptism, why baptize the infant girls? Were the infant girls in Abraham's time left out of the covenant because they weren't circumcised? No. So why baptize them now?

 

[Jon_]

Yeah, but what was much of early church art? Hate to say it, but it was Romish art. . . Now of course Peter, Paul or Jesus never denied infant baptism, but neither did they ever mention it. Rather, Jesus spoke of believer's baptism. Also, if circumcism was the precursor to infant baptism, why baptize the infant girls? Were the infant girls in Abraham's time left out of the covenant because they weren't circumcised? No. So why baptize them now?

These objections are covered in the sermon by Dr. Riddlebarger that I previously posted.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

Look, if ya'll want to baptize your infants, that's fine with me. It's kind of like our dedicating our infants to the Lord (although our church doesn't do that, we did so in other churches). . .I think that they are kind of like the same thing (sort of). But, as a Baptist, I also believe in believer's baptism. Christ was sent to be our example for baptism. Therefore, if God really wanted the infants baptized, wouldn't He have told Mary and Joseph to baptize the Christ?

So, if you want baptize infants-fine. . .just baptize them again as believers and we will all get along just fine.

 

[Jon_]

Look, if ya'll want to baptize your infants, that's fine with me.

But, if it's the wrong way to administer the sacrament, why would you be okay with that? Not trying to poke fun, just testing your convictions.

It's kind of like our dedicating our infants to the Lord (although our church doesn't do that, we did so in other churches). . .I think that they are kind of like the same thing (sort of).

You're right. There's a bit of hypocrisy and a lot of bad theology involved in "dedicating" infants, as opposed to baptizing them.

But, as a Baptist, I also believe in believer's baptism. Christ was sent to be our example for baptism. Therefore, if God really wanted the infants baptized, wouldn't He have told Mary and Joseph to baptize the Christ?

Well, no. God would not have had Mary and Joseph baptize Christ because baptism was not yet instituted as a sacrament in the church. It did not become a sacrament until Christ gave the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19).

So, if you want baptize infants-fine. . .just baptize them again as believers and we will all get along just fine.

Oh, no, no, no.

(Ephesians 4:5 KJV) One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
​

Rebaptism (Anabaptists, anyone?) is an appalling misuse of the sacrament of baptism. I would encourage you to read what Martin Luther wrote on this particular subject in his Large Catechism. It is an extremely distorted and malignant misappropriation of the sacrament to rebaptize someone (who was properly baptized), as if the first baptism were somehow useless or inapplicable.

This is precisely why Reformed churches will not rebaptize someone who was baptized in an Arminian church. It is because the baptism, provided it was done with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a valid baptism. It would be an offense against the sacrament to insist that the person be baptized again. Unfortunately, this is something that Baptist churches have fallen into great error regarding. They frequently require that someone be baptized to be a member, even if baptized previously, even if in another Baptist church.

I'm not pointing any fingers, here; I'm only saying that this does happen, and it comes from a critical flaw in understanding regarding the sacrament.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[JJB]

With all the infant/child dedications we've seen, I always come away wondering why it is done? I find them rather confusing and muddled.

We are so pleased that we had our children baptized with the promise of the Lord's covenant.

 

[Imblessed]

When I first came into this room, one of the issues I had a really hard time with was infant baptism. I was raised Quaker and we don't baptise at all(nor take communion)--so it was particularly hard for me to come to terms with it.

One thing regular baptists need to do is look at the reasoning from a covenantal standpoint. This is very important. If one does not believe in Covenantal Theology, then one can never understand the view of a reformed paedobaptist.

Once I looked at paedobaptism from this viewpoint, I could totally understand and accept infant baptism (within reformed circles). It's not at all the same as the Catholics(and others) do it.

I'm still not a paedobaptist, but only because I'm not Covenantal. I'm halfway there, but that may be as far as I ever get.


I'm not sure who is was that said the reason they post in this room is because of the Doctrines of Grace that are upheld here--and not so much in the baptist room---but they are dead on. There are several regular posters in here that are not reformed, but we all feel more comfortable here than elsewhere.

this has come up time and again, and as Jon mentioned we hash it out, but we are tolerant and would never let it divide us......this particular room is unique in that, I think. The Doctrines of Grace bind us together and we are all willing to give and take---but there's no reason we should stand by and not claim our beliefs, or not say what we believe just because we know there are others who don't feel the same way!!!

We can have intellegent arguments here....heck, we love to argue! In love of course!

 

[Imblessed]

But, if it's the wrong way to administer the sacrament, why would you be okay with that? Not trying to poke fun, just testing your convictions.


You're right. There's a bit of hypocrisy and a lot of bad theology involved in "dedicating" infants, as opposed to baptizing them.


Well, no. God would not have had Mary and Joseph baptize Christ because baptism was not yet instituted as a sacrament in the church. It did not become a sacrament until Christ gave the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19).


Oh, no, no, no.

(Ephesians 4:5 KJV) One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
​

Rebaptism (Anabaptists, anyone?) is an appalling misuse of the sacrament of baptism. I would encourage you to read what Martin Luther wrote on this particular subject in his Large Catechism. It is an extremely distorted and malignant misappropriation of the sacrament to rebaptize someone (who was properly baptized), as if the first baptism were somehow useless or inapplicable.

This is precisely why Reformed churches will not rebaptize someone who was baptized in an Arminian church. It is because the baptism, provided it was done with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a valid baptism. It would be an offense against the sacrament to insist that the person be baptized again. Unfortunately, this is something that Baptist churches have fallen into great error regarding. They frequently require that someone be baptized to be a member, even if baptized previously, even if in another Baptist church.

I'm not pointing any fingers, here; I'm only saying that this does happen, and it comes from a critical flaw in understanding regarding the sacrament.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I agree here. I don't hold to re-baptism at all......and for more reasons than is posted here....

 

[Jon_]

We are so pleased that we had our children baptized with the promise of the Lord's covenant.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Bob Moore]

Jon_,

Re: post #24. Exactly. Thank you for always getting right to the heart of the matter.

 

[Jon_]

Thank you for always getting right to the heart of the matter.

I don't think I could beat around the bush or sugarcoat it even if I wanted to. I'm not sure I know how. :o

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

But, if it's the wrong way to administer the sacrament, why would you be okay with that? Not trying to poke fun, just testing your convictions.


You're right. There's a bit of hypocrisy and a lot of bad theology involved in "dedicating" infants, as opposed to baptizing them.


Well, no. God would not have had Mary and Joseph baptize Christ because baptism was not yet instituted as a sacrament in the church. It did not become a sacrament until Christ gave the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19).




Oh, no, no, no.

(Ephesians 4:5 KJV) One Lord, one faith, one baptism.


​

Rebaptism (Anabaptists, anyone?) is an appalling misuse of the sacrament of baptism. I would encourage you to read what Martin Luther wrote on this particular subject in his Large Catechism. It is an extremely distorted and malignant misappropriation of the sacrament to rebaptize someone (who was properly baptized), as if the first baptism were somehow useless or inapplicable.


This is precisely why Reformed churches will not rebaptize someone who was baptized in an Arminian church. It is because the baptism, provided it was done with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a valid baptism. It would be an offense against the sacrament to insist that the person be baptized again. Unfortunately, this is something that Baptist churches have fallen into great error regarding. They frequently require that someone be baptized to be a member, even if baptized previously, even if in another Baptist church.

I'm not pointing any fingers, here; I'm only saying that this does happen, and it comes from a critical flaw in understanding regarding the sacrament.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Okay, okay. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. . .I agree. . .believer's baptism. However, if a paedobaptist want to join a Baptist church, on of the requirements will usually be believer's baptism. . .that is what I meant.

So. . .as for baptism and Christ, why did John the Baptist and Christ baptize in the Jordan before the Great Commission?

 

[Knight]

But, if it's the wrong way to administer the sacrament, why would you be okay with that? Not trying to poke fun, just testing your convictions.

Because we don't believe it to be the wrong way. So no, I don't have a problem with it. This is the crux of the argument and we're going to have to agree to disagree on it. (or else we'll be at this for a long time.)

You're right. There's a bit of hypocrisy and a lot of bad theology involved in "dedicating" infants, as opposed to baptizing them.

Not if you understand that dedication is not a sacrement and is merely a custom. There is no Biblical mandate for or against it.

Well, no. God would not have had Mary and Joseph baptize Christ because baptism was not yet instituted as a sacrament in the church. It did not become a sacrament until Christ gave the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19).

Agreed.

I have no problem with chruches that practice infant Baptism. (Apart from baptismal regeneration of course...) However, I have never been convinced from Scripture that this is a Biblical mandate.

I do not stand alone on this.

 

[hlaltimus]

You won't have to worry about baptizing Moses' way since there is no scriptural command that I know of either in the law or the prophets to induce a Jew to baptize. The Jewish nation was clearly forbidden to add to their law as is clear from Deuteronomy 12:32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Now, as it is evident from the historical, poetical and prophetical books added unto the law of Moses, these books must then have been added in some way which did not violate that precedent set by Moses. Well, they didn't really add to the body of moral substance already found in the Pentateuch but only utilized it. Nor did they add to the letter of the Ceremonial Law by way of commandment...So why John's baptism then? That moral and ceremonial law forbid new obligating additions within it, but did not forbid additions without it, or traditions. Here is John's baptism which was observed, because all of those Jews knew that it was just that, a tradition which they kept in cooperation with the Law and the Prophets while not violating any commandment or principle contained therein. Since the baptism of John was a tradition added unto the law, prosecution for misuse of the ceremony was impossible with respect to the mode, as no mode was ever stipulated in the first case, but was prosecutable by way of indictment if the principles involved were violated, which was the case of John's displeasure with the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew chapter 3. Step on a commandment or principle ordained by Moses and "Watch out!" Step on a purely traditional mode and no prosecution was then possible. If this is true, then a hot-headed debate by Baptists and Paedobaptists looses steam as the really important issue of New Testament baptism was not as much the mode as it was in what was represented by that ritual. Jesus did command us to perform the ritual of baptism, and since all of the so called "iron clad arguments" favoring one mode over another each have a few holes in them, prosecution of the ritual should be in regards to violations of the moral quality of the ritual and not so much over the mode. Ha! My mode better illustrates death and resurrection! Ha again! My mode better illustrates the giving of the Holy Spirit, etc., etc, forever. This does not make the mode of baptism of non-importance, it makes the mode non-prosecutable and the moral lesson of the ritual supreme. I am not so sure that John didn't have a conch shell in his hand, and another cannot undisputedly prove that he didn't as Paedobaptists know a few things about lexicons too.

 

[Jon_]

However, if a paedobaptist want to join a Baptist church, on of the requirements will usually be believer's baptism. . .that is what I meant.

Right. This basically means that someone who was baptized as an infant could not become a member of a Baptist church without defaming the sacrament (in the Reformed view).

Do credobaptists generally feel it is perfectly okay to rebaptize someone who was baptized as an infant?

So. . .as for baptism and Christ, why did John the Baptist and Christ baptize in the Jordan before the Great Commission?

The apostle whom Jesus loved answers this in his gospel:

(John 1:26, 27 KJV) John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
​

John's baptism was the type of baptism that Jesus Christ would fulfill with the archetype of baptism, which is commanded at the Great Commission. Again, a lot of this has to do with Covenant Theology and Typology, which are probably unfamiliar concepts for you. Some Baptist denominations repudiate Covenant Theology and Typology, so I'm not sure where you stand on these and how much you know about them. In any case, the author of Hebrews talks about Old Testament types of baptism too:

(Heb. 9:8-12 KJV) The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;) Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
​

This is one of the defining passages for Typology (all of Hebrews, for that matter). In it, the author spells out that the Old Testament observances of sacrifice and baptisms (divers washings) were types that pointed to Christ's fulfillment of them as the archetype. It is spelled out here that Christ is the lone perfect sacrifice that appeases the Father. David, speaking by the Spirit, clearly saw that the "carnal ordinances" of Old Testament sacrifice could not save:

(Ps. 40:6 KJV) Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
​

In another Psalm, David more clearly expounds the sacrifices required by God (of man—these sacrifices are still not salvific):

(Ps. 51:17 KJV) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
​

Even still, Jesus Christ is the alone sufficient sacrifice for the remission of sins and the cleansing of the elect.

(Heb. 7:27, 28 KJV) Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
​

And finally, we see that baptism in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit is itself a part of the fulfillment of the gospel.

(Titus 3:5, 6 KJV) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
​

And also:

(Rom. 6:4, 5 KJV) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
​

And still there are many more verses that we could look at to illustrate the typological identity between Old Testament practice and New Testament fulfillment. There is an old saying in Presbyterian/Reformed circles. I'm not so sure how common it is outside of them, but it rings, "What is latent in the Old Testament is patent in the New Testament." Therefore, we should look back to the Old Testament to see the fulfillment of what is recorded there in the New Testament. In doing this, we will better understand God's revelation and the full purpose of his redemptive plan for his elect.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Imblessed]

Jon,

you asked if credobaptists generally feel it's ok to rebaptize.....

I can only answer for our church, since it's my only experience with any kind of baptist church(I was Quaker before joining this church), but at our church, infant baptisms are acceptable. The ONLY time our pastor will do a re-baptism is if the person who was baptized as an infant truly feels it was not a valid baptism and requests it. Or if it was a baptism done by an unorthodox church(ie: Not in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit)

Other than that, an infant baptism is fine.

Again, I'm not sure how other baptist churches feel, but I was under the impression that only anabaptists re-baptize, hense the name.....

I have a question for you. Do you consider a Catholic baptism to be genuine? I ask that because their infant baptisms are done with a completely different spirit, if you know what I mean...

 

[Jon_]

Jon,

you asked if credobaptists generally feel it's ok to rebaptize.....

I can only answer for our church, since it's my only experience with any kind of baptist church(I was Quaker before joining this church), but at our church, infant baptisms are acceptable. The ONLY time our pastor will do a re-baptism is if the person who was baptized as an infant truly feels it was not a valid baptism and requests it. Or if it was a baptism done by an unorthodox church(ie: Not in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit)

Other than that, an infant baptism is fine.

Well, that's good. I know there are a few militant baptist churches out there that absolutely refuse infant baptism and will require someone to be rebaptized before they will admit them as members. I'm glad to hear your experiences have been different.

I have a question for you. Do you consider a Catholic baptism to be genuine? I ask that because their infant baptisms are done with a completely different spirit, if you know what I mean...

The short answer is no, and the long answer would end up getting this post edited and me getting an unofficial warning.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

(Rom. 6:4, 5 KJV) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Jon, funny that you'd mention this verse since this is the verse that we generally say at our baptisms. We use it because it is baptism is the outward sign of an inward reality. If we are truly Christians, then our old man has been buried with Christ and our new man (converted) was raised with Him. Thus, baptism is a symbol of what has happened in the heard. . .as we are dunked into the water, that signifies our old man being buried with Christ, as we are raised up out of the water, it is symbolic of our new man being raised with Christ to newness of life.

Question: do you allow your infants to partake of the Lord's Supper? That is a sacrament as well. We believe that the sacraments should be administered only to those who are savingly attached to the Lord Jesus Christ.

From our Shorter Catechism:

Question 100: What is Baptism?

Answer: Baptism is a sacrament of the new covenant instituted by Jesus Christ,1 to be unto the person baptized a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death, burial, and resurrection; of his being ingrafted into Him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up himself unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.2

Matthew 28:19
Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:26-27

+

Question 101: To whom is baptism to be administered?

Answer: Baptism is to be administered to all those who credibly profess repentance towards God,1 faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ,2 and to none other.

Acts 2:38; Acts 2:41

+

Question 102: Are the infants of professing believers to be baptized?

Answer: The infants of professing believers are not to be baptized, because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, nor certain inference from them, to baptize such.1

Deuteronomy 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Acts 8:12; Acts 10:47-48

+

Question 103: How is baptism rightly administered?

Answer: Baptism is rightly administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body of the believer in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to Christ's institution,1 and the practices of the apostles,2 and not by sprinkling or pouring of water, or dipping some part of the body, after the tradition of men.

Matthew 3:16; John 3:23
Acts 8:38-39

 

[HiredGoon]

I was raised baptist and was part of a non-denom campus ministry for years during college. Twice every year this campus ministry would have a retreat which would culminate in the baptism of several students, they really made a big deal about it. Many of those students had been baptized as infants either in a romish or mainline protestant church. They wanted to claim their faith as their own, they believed being re-baptized would show everyone that it was their choice that they were following Christ, and not their parent's. Personally I believe there's a bit of pride (though none would admit it) and good ol' American individualism at the root of this kind of thinking. My parents whom were raised in mainline protestant churches, were re-baptized when they became baptists. I still have credo-baptistic family and friends, and it wasn't that long ago that I was a credobaptist, so I can really symphatize with that kind of thinking. But I can't help but feel sad when looking back on those rebaptisms. They really weren't necessary. You can confess your faith in Christ without being re-baptized. When they're rebaptized I think it's a bit disrespectful to the Sovereign Lord, doubting His sovereign ability to work in their lives without their credobaptism. That's just my opinion looking back from a reformed perspective, not intended to offend.

In the OPC, and I think this is true of most reformed churches, we accept any baptism as long as it was trinitarian and performed by an ordained clergyman, and that goes for Roman Catholic ones as well.

 

[Jon_]

Jon, funny that you'd mention this verse since this is the verse that we generally say at our baptisms. We use it because it is baptism is the outward sign of an inward reality.

Yes, that part of the significance of baptism.

If we are truly Christians, then our old man has been buried with Christ and our new man (converted) was raised with Him. Thus, baptism is a symbol of what has happened in the heart. . .as we are dunked into the water, that signifies our old man being buried with Christ, as we are raised up out of the water, it is symbolic of our new man being raised with Christ to newness of life.

Yes, that is part of the symbolism of baptism.

Question: do you allow your infants to partake of the Lord's Supper? That is a sacrament as well. We believe that the sacraments should be administered only to those who are savingly attached to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Is an infant capable of examining himself? Is the infant even capable of willingly partaking of the Lord's Supper?

From our Larger Catechism:

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 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 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.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

Yes, that part of the significance of baptism.


Yes, that is part of the symbolism of baptism.


Is an infant capable of examining himself? Is the infant even capable of willingly partaking of the Lord's Supper?

From our Larger Catechism:



Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Okay, you agree that these things are part of the symbolism of baptism. But how can any of that apply to an infant? The questions that you asked regarding the Lord's Supper apply to baptism. Is an infant even capable of willingly partaking in baptism. . .a sacrament? We only allow Christians to partake of the sacraments. . .only Christians can have the Lord's Supper and only Christians can be baptized.