Regional Synod of Canada - Reformed Church in America

Pioneer Christian Monthly

Date - Mar/86

Contributor - Ray Dekker

Title - The Lord's Supper: Part 2

Topic - Lord's Supper

11. Synopsis of view that only Baptized confessing members may partake.

As the views presented in the first article hinged on the belief that the Lord's Supper are analogous in the same sense that baptism replaces circumcision in the New Covenant, so this View hinges on the distinctions between the two sacraments. Secondly, while the first view presented contends that children did in fact partake of the Passover meal, this view contends that they did not.

The differences which exist between the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are not imagined and therefore must be considered in the formulation of anything as important as the church's practice of the Lord's Supper. While it is not debated that both sacraments are a means of grace there are differences and these differences define in part who the recipients of each sacrament may be. "Baptism signifies and seals what lies at the basis and inception (emphasis mine) of a state of salvation, to writ, union with Christ, cleansing from the pollution of sin, and cleansing from the guilt of sin." (John Murray. Christian Baptism) In other words the results of that conferment of grace are not complete until conversion. Murray adds, "The Lord's Supper on the other hand, signifies something that is consequent upon the state of salvation. It presupposes that which is sealed by baptism." Other differences are the following: The Lord's Supper is an act of commemoration and communion, things which baptism are not; the once-for-allness of baptism versus the frequent participations in communion; the initiation element of baptism versus the edification emphasis of communion.

Another major consideration on which this view is dependent is that while the opposing view holds that infants and children partook of the Passover meal, this view holds that there is no substantial evidence to support that children did in fact partake. The historical evidence so heavily relied upon is not nearly so weighty as they propose. There is in fact no endorsement of children in the Lord's Supper by any early church figure earlier than 251 A.D. when Cyprian refers to infant communion in his writings entitled "On the Lapsed" (9,25). It is noteworthy that earlier church fathers, more noteworthy than Cyprian, such as Origen, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, make no mention whatsoever in any of their writings, at least the ones presently known of. It is further argued that there is not even any evidence that children partook of the Passover meal between its institution and the first century A.D., and in fact it is likely to have died out completely as a practice in between. This would partially explain the lack of information in the Jewish writings as well, viz. the Talmud. Would the Jews, who were so attentive to detail, merely overlook something as significant as who could partake in the Passover, one of their most important feasts? Unless there is clear support in biblical and historical materials that originate from the time period in question, one is on shaky ground to attempt to justify such an important doctrine which claims to be founded in precisely such sources.

The following biblical evidence is also appealed to by those holding to this view. Adherents to this view insist that Exodus 12:26-27 which reads, "And it will come about when your children say to you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' that you shall say, 'it is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord..."',is in actuality implying that if children asked their parents to explain to them the spiritual meaning of the Passover, the passage infers that only those who could understand its meaning could legitimately participate. In all fairness it is possible that a child's enquiry concerning the meaning of the Passover meal was never meant to be a test as to whether one could partake, but was meant as an opportunity for instruction. This was in fact a common form of pedagogy in Jewish culture. Passages such as Deut. 6:6-9 are compared with a subsequent passage within the same context such as 6:20-21 in order to demonstrate that the children were to be nurtured in certain statutes prior to their ability to understand and appreciate them. These passages obviously do not give sufficient evidence either way and therefore it would be unwise to hinge an entire dogma on it alone. The most weighty scripture passage on which adherents to this view hang their practice is I Cor. 1 1:27-32. It is in this passage that most theologians of the Reformed tradition see the proper recipients of the Lord's Supper defined. Calvin writes, "Do we wish anything plainer than the Apostle's teaching when he exhorts each man to prove and search himself, then to eat of this bread and drink of this cup? A self-examination ought therefore to come first and it is vain to expect this of infants." (Institutes IV, 1 6) Upon initial consideration of this passage it would seem that Paul is not requiring a person to be morally faultless before partaking, but that the person is at least applying moral scrutiny to his/her lifestyle and relationship with Christ. Here then is the inference that the ability to comprehend the sacrament is necessary and therefore profession of faith is an essential precondition to participation in the sacrament. Accordingly, the Westminster Confession also restricts communion to "worthy receivers". It is argued that this passage, which demands that each person "examine" him/herself before partaking makes it absolutely clear that there must be something concrete to be tested for an examination to be required. In this case the object to be tested is one's faith and conduct, obviously things a child cannot test objectively in him/herself, at least according to the holders of this view. Perhaps, in all fairness to children, it may be said that they can often do this better than adults.

There is as an alternative an equally valid interpretation of this Corinthian passage however. This passage must be read in context with II: 20-27 where one reads of the Corinthian church's abuses of this celebration which was intended to proclaim their unity. By their abuses they were in fact not examining the body, meaning here the body of believers, and hence by partaking they were in actuality demonstrating disunity. The Corinthian's failure was that by partaking the way they were they were not proclaiming Christ's death as something that was done for them. By their actions they were not united in the faith with the rightful participants and that is the reason of their unworthiness. Their problem was in their relationship with each other. This has a modem application. Believers who are present for the Lord's Supper but feel unworthy to participate because of their sins are exactly those who should partake. This is a table where we proclaim the forgiveness and acceptance each of us needs. It is the Lord's Table, not the church's table. This is the place where by faith we are to experience afresh the forgiveness and acceptance of God and the unity we have with each member of the body. This interpretation holds that the real parallel to the Corinthian's unworthiness for us is in the horizontal relationships we have with fellow covenant community members. People who are at odds with each other or who are not otherwise one in the Spirit cannot judge the body rightly because they do not see everyone in the body as one with them, with the result that they do not see Christ's sacrifice as having been done for each party. As well, to partake in such a condition does not hold high the unity of the church. In a sense by partaking when one is at odds with others is to proclaim you are one, when in actuality you are not. That is what Paul is teaching here when he tells us to "examine the body". This interpretation adds further weight to the argument of those wanting to admit all baptized members.

Having given and discussed partially the evidence used by this position from a historical and scriptural base, it is only right that we also address the sociological issue addressed by those who believe children should be admitted to the Lord's Supper. Just because a child does not participate in an activity such as the Lord's Supper does not mean it will produce a feeling of "not belonging" in that child. Active participation is not necessary to recognize meaning and significance in an activity. Children can be made very much a part of the communion service without actually ingesting the elements. What are needed, rather than totally excluding or including them for merely sociological or psychological reasons, are innovative, yet biblical ways to incorporate them into this celebration as part of the covenant community. It is ungrounded to blame the flight of many of our young people out of our fellowships on not including them in the Lord's Supper. Rather, one might discover that the reason many of our young people and not so young people leave the church is the incredulity of the parents and the church who have not taken the covenant promises seriously and who, consequently, in a certain sense, have disowned the essential conditions of the covenant.

So, we can see that deciding whether children should be permitted to the Lord's Supper is not all black and white when we consider the historical, biblical, and sociological evidence presented by both views. It is hoped that this article will introduce you to the issue and that you will take it upon yourself to study the issue in greater depth on your own or in your churches. God is not a God of confusion and He will show you the truth if you seek after it in prayer and in the Holy Spirit.

Please click the "Back" button of your browser to return to previous page.