By Luke Welch
At Kuyperian, it would be fair to peg us as proponents of including all the baptized in the Lord’s Supper. In earlier months, I kept writing as if I were going to be discussing the topic, but I kept falling short and only talking about baptism. So I have been dying for a chance to finally enter into the discussion of that blessed fourteen letter word: paedocommunion.
And here we are. I will start now. And today’s post will be relatively short: a summary of longer, future arguments.
LOCUS CLASSICUS
1 Corinthians is the place the battle must be won or lost, though many other passages matter to the discussion. For today’s listeners, 1 Cor 11 is the roadblock. In soon-to-come posts the following will be spelled out. For now a summary of my series of arguments.
THESIS
1 Corinthians 10-13 teaches paedocommunion implicitly, and does not exclude children from the Lord’s table.
A – BODY means THE CHURCH
1 Corinthians 10-13 is a section intensely focused on the unity of the church; the controlling metaphor for the section is “one body made of many members (body parts).” We should expect “body” in this section to be a reference to the church, unless in some instance it is clearly a reference to something else.
B – IF YOU ARE WASHED, YOU EAT
There is a one to one correspondence between those who are baptized and those who are in the body, and then also between those who commune and those who are in the body. All the baptized commune. There is no non-communing member of the church.
C – PAEDOCOMMUNION PRECEDENCE
In this section, Paul explains the Eucharist by telling story after story illustrated by feasts that included children.
D – THE “WORTHINESS-TEST” IS NOT NEW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Those same feasts also required that participants be worthy and examine themselves. All the while, they included children.
E – THE WARNINGS ARE NOT TO CHILDREN
The major problems being addressed are high-handed sins: idolatry, flagrant immorality, and hypocritical use of the unity meal to treat the poor as second class citizens in the kingdom.
F – PAUL WANTS REPENTANT EATERS, NOT HARD HEARTED ABSTAINERS
No positive command is given as a prerequisite for entrance to the meal. Mostly we mistake corporate or liturgical actions as individual tests of worthiness.
—
SINCE YOU ARE ITCHING FOR HOMEWORK
See if you can identify what I mean before I post longer explanations!
—
UPDATE: Part 2 of this discussion can be found here:
Paedocommunion – One of the Most Un-Well Reasoned Things Calvin Ever Said
—
Luke Welch has a master’s degree from Covenant Seminary and preaches regularly in a conservative Anglican church in Maryland. He blogs about Bible structure at SUBTEXT. Follow him on Twitter: @lukeawelch<>
1 Corinthians 11, baptism, communion, eucharist, Paedocommunion
Can you briefly reiterate the reason for baptism from your theological grid please? Is Paedo-Theology at all rooted in a potential fear that kids could go to hell via john 14:6 being extreme and literal?
Paedo-Theology is not rooted in the fear the kids could go to hell, but rather in the faith/hope that God will keep His many promises concerning His children’s children.
Ron thanks. – Sure, as in Abrahamic covenant.
But, there are New covenant clarifications for the full application of the eternal promises of Abrahamic covenant, correct? Most specific, right standing before God through belief in Jesus alone. It’s not the practice of paedo-baptism that is troubling. I may be misunderstanding it completely.
To me it’s the linkage to promises that are reserved, ultimately for believers, not participants of rituals. for instance, if i baptize my infant, raise him in our home with xian practice and love, and as a teenager he dies, having never believed and confessed Jesus, he has no heirship to any promises, in my reading of scripture. So i am struggling with the paedo-arguements or rationale.
I think D – the examine yourselves section – has to be taken in context and related to the audience and situation. This was not Paul making a new rule or qualification that needed passed before taking the Lord’s Supper, as so many seem to latch on and make it out to be. He was dealing with a church body that were doing so many things wrong, and he was out to correct them. So, because they were doing the Lord’s Supper wrong as he clearly stated, he said THEY – the Corinthians addressed who had the issues – were to examine themselves. This is not to be passed on and made a qualification for communion to us today, unless of course a church is likewise so whacked out in their practice that they too need to examine themselves.
Hey, guys. Thanks for your comments and questions. I am anxious to get to answer them. I will try to get real answers written as my work schedule permits.
If anyone else reading has helpful comments, I would encourage you to go ahead and add it on here…maybe I can get to all the comments in one sitting.
BJ, in my understanding, Baptism is the sign and seal of the New Covenant. This is parallel in its use to the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision (see Genesis 17 to read the most important passage on the subject). God’s promises have always been “to you and your children.” In both cases, for baptism and earlier for circumcision, the “sign” was a sign indicating 1) that God had made certain promises, and 2) that the person receiving it was an owner of those promises.
Multiple passages link baptism and circumcision, most clearly heard in Colossians 2. But it is seen in many other places, like Ezek 36.25-27, which puts together baptism, circumcision, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
My point is that God way of making covenanted promises has always been “to you and your children” and marked out by an entrance sign. And we see the same in the beginning of the covenant of baptism in acts 2:
“37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 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. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.””
Notice that the promise is still “for you and your children,” and it still contains an entrance sign – baptism – the one sign which is everywhere linked to circumcision.
The inclusion of children in baptism was also the only practice of the church for 1500 years.
You asked if people holding this view are afraid that their children would be damned without coming through Jesus to the father. I am going to venture the guess, please tell me if I am mistaken, that you might mean that paedobaptists are afraid that their children have to have some ritual to make them “come through Christ,” since they are not old enough to make a verbal profession of faith.
Supposing that to be what you mean, let me answer that, no – I am actually confident that when my children are born, they are born into Christ, as the promises of God indicate. And they are also commanded to be given the sign of the promise. Since they already are in him.
Interesting rationale. I mean that without sarcasm. I would agree that if you raise up a child in the faith proverbially he will not go astray. However a proverb is not a promise. See Noah, a ‘righteous’ human restart and yet sin rebounded nearly immediately.
‘you and your children’ could mean descendants following that are elect, although not literally all descendants may actually be elect. (note cain and able; yes they are pre-covenant, but it’s a descriptive regarding the ultimate wayward child, i am sure there are post-abramanic covenant examples that escape me)
Gen 17 is specifically spoken to Israel though… and males are circumcised but not females. Even in the OT it is apparent that the object of faith saves the Israelites, not actions associated with faith or tradition. Otherwise the rich young ruler would not have despair at his heart’s exposure from Jesus response to sell his possessions.
Col 2 appears a simple enough linear thought, but I fear the total transfer of the word circumcision here could be errant. I mean that we do not always associate a word the exact same every time it is used in scripture. Luke 18:1-8 compares God to an unjust judge. We should not make a total transfer of God as being unjust however. It’s a small example, but nonetheless.
Moses speaks of a circumcision of heart in Deut 10; Ezek 36 above refers to this a new heart condition and associates the spirit’s renewal. It is God’s doing on the basis of faith. Where Gen 17 appears to be a physical sign to show obedience to a call. I do not mean it was insignificant for the Jew, it was likely more significant for the parent I’d think. Or, the older person brought into the Jews and circumcised as an adult – yikes!
“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”” – the key to interpret this correctly, imho, is the point everyone who the Lord calls… We can certainly bring as much kindling as possible to make a fire but God is the lighter, fluid, oxygen, and eternal forrest, and guy fanning the flame – if you will.
Therefore, our great hope is that God is Good, and Just to all that are saved and those that are not. So in keeping with the biblical tradition of Jesus and identifying with the message of John, then X. Believe & repent, be baptized and partake of the family of God appears to be the order confirmed by Jesus. It seems that if one repaves the other they’d not both be around at the same time. Hence circumcised Jews that were baptized in scripture.
None of my thoughts are terribly thorough, so as you will pick apart this argument. (also, 1500 years of man’s [read church] tradition does not truth make)
ps – …do not partake of the Lord’s supper in vain seems clearly to be to the believer, to inspect by the Holy Spirit his presence on holy ground as the bread and wine are taken. If this is so only the believer should partake. The child must be born again. Only the regenerate should eat and drink freely, but most freely!
Read Rom. 4:1-2, 9-12 (emphasis on 12 contextually) Those who walked as Abraham had. i.e.- believe, by faith, that God saves.
BJ, that’s a good place to go. But I believe that part of the trouble is a prior assumption that faith is limited by intellectual ability. This would mean we don’t have faith while we sleep, or when in a coma, or when we are senile, or before we are old enough to assent to propositional content. Psalms 71, and 22, and 8 help make a good case out loud that says the opposite. Beyond this, God has always included the children of believers in the “in” group of faithful covenant with God. See especially Genesis 17 on this point. But it comes out in the Shema: Dt 6 (teach your children diligently “the Lord YOUR God”). It really would make a long list of all the places where the bible speaks in this language. Notably, “Let the children come to me for the Kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” which was a reference to Hebrew infants being brought by their parents. Not old enough to choose. They are owners of kingdom – they are saved “by faith” and are infants. We know of multiple examples that are specifically, and explicitly said to be filled with the spirit in the womb, or keeping the law in the womb – John the Baptist, Samson, Samuel… There is a unified picture of children of believers being assumed to be believers in the bible, until they demonstrate otherwise. This is the norm. And it is declared even in our worship music (the Psalms).
I fought very hard against this idea when I was arguing for a credo-baptist theology. But seeing that this was the norm of the covenant structure and was even repeated in the promises of the New Covenant (in Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc…) I finally started thinking about what it might mean if the historic practice of the church actually did match the OT and NT practice, and have a theology matching the Bible. Once I was open to seeing it, it made the rest of the Bible make much more sense. I don’t say that you must think so. But that was my experience.
Keep writing comments, eventually I might get to them! Thanks for caring enough about the topic to argue.
Blessings,
Luke
I see your points and I like the idea of looking into this more.
But where does this then leave us when said ‘children of faith’ grow up to walk a life of a non-believer, in voice, belief and actions. Have they then ‘lost’ their salvation?
I find it more plausible to read scripture seeing the object of faith being the active saving component not my faith. Therefore whether kids are ‘of faith’ is irrelevant bc God ensures salvation permanently by his promises and nature. Not my faith that he could do this, but him actively justifying and ultimately glorifying. So salvation is ensured, sustained and given by god whether I sleep, deny or die.
My quick thoughts
Jeff,
Thanks for your comment. I agree that Paul was not trying to establish a weekly routine of self examination before the meal, but I do believe the text of 1 Cor 10 is very persuasive that self-examination is intended for all of God’s worshipers in the Old, and New Testaments and also in the continuing Church. I might say he wanted them to live self-examined lives, and then to freely eat when at Church.
I will be writing soon about this, about what I think is intended in self examination, and that it does not exclude children from the meal at all. Since the Old Testament meals also required self examination, and they included children.
Hi Luke,
I thought I’d share an article I recall reading by Rich Lusk several years ago, that put this topic in perspective for me, even after being convinced from an exegetical standpoint. It’s pastoral and fatherly in tone and that’s what makes it attractive in my view.
[…] won’t comment after the quote. Between the summary post, and this concise argument from Calvin, we should have the necessary tools to start piecing our […]
[…] Finally Discussing Paedocommunion for Real […]