In ch. 5 Venema addresses the NT evidence (or lack thereof) for infant communion in the NT. Thus far Venema has argued that the case from history is mixed at best. The case for paedocommunion from the Reformed confessions does not exist. If the case from the OT is lacking, then the case for paedocommunion is tottering precariously at best.
He proposes to resolve the debate “only on the basis of an argument that considers general features of the New Testament doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and its relation to the Word of the gospel” (78). E.g. the accounts of the institution of the Supper in the gospels “reflect an understanding that may suggest how this question should be answered.
Venema notes (80) is the difference between Baptism as a sacrament of initiation that, in the nature of the case, can only be administered once. Either one is baptized or one is not. The Lord’s Supper, however, “is to be celebrated regularly in the context of Christian worship and the ministry of the Word of God until Christ comes again.” Thus Paul quotes the words of institution (1 Cor 11:25) “this do as oft as ye drink it” with the “obvious implication” that the Supper is to be “celebrated frequently by the church….”
The Supper is to be observed and celebrated “in remembrance of Christ.” Participation is “in response to an imperative….” The sacrament is a sign to be received “remembering and believing” (emphasis original). The Supper requires “the active participation” from the recipient that is not required in baptism (80). This is “particularly significant” for the question of paedocommunion.
He notes that Jesus’ meal with the two men on the road to Emmaus has been understood to refer to the Holy Supper (81) and that the men “knew” that he was the risen Lord. Acts 2:42 records the practice of the Apostolic church and the “breaking of bread” “may be an allusion to the regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper…” (82). If so, then it is is significant that those who ate the Supper are said to have received the preached Word. Communion is observed in the context of the preaching of the Gospel. Venema points to two possible allusions to the Supper in Rev 3;20 and 19:1-9 wherein it is described as a means of fellowship with Christ and in which it could be withdrawn as a matter of discipline.
Thus far, he says, nothing “in this evidence argues for the admission of non-professing children to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper” (83).
Tempus fugit et papyri vocant. More later.
Filed under: Lord's Supper | Tagged: Lord's Supper, NT evidence, paedocommunion
Hey, quick question: I’ve observed the Lord’s Supper outside of my church several times and I am fascinated that some churches use leavened bread. I know that it is a practice in some Reformed churches, but why?
Joe,
I cannot speak for other traditions but I suspect that it’s probably
because the nature of the bread is considered to accidental (non-
essential) to the Supper.
OK. I’ve had the discussion with some other Reformed people who do use leavened bread and they have a lengthy and convoluted explanation mostly stemming from the translation of a Greek word in the NT. Thanks for replying.
[...] May 15, 2009 in Lord’s Supper | Tags: communion, John 6, Lord’s Supper, paedocommunion, passover Part 6 [...]
[...] Part 6 [...]
I wanted to post this long statement here pro-paedocommuniuon.
I know I am not a regular, and I hope I am not intruding by posting an opposing viewpoint post. I commend you as a brother in the Lord, and hope that my argumentation sounds friendly; there is a lot of using all caps for vocal stress. Some of what I have to say is found easily in Tim Gallant’s book, “Feed My Lambs.”
Thanks,
Luke Welch, WinepressFilms.com
—–
John 6 and 1 Corinthians 10 compare the Lord’s supper to Manna. Manna was eaten by ALL the Israelites. This strengthens the claim that Ex 12.47 does indeed mean “the whole congregation” when it is referring to Passover.
In 1 Cor 10, Paul brings up the Manna and the Water from the rock so that he can connect the meal to judgment, and when he does so, he points out that all Israelites were 1) Baptized, 2) Ate, 3) Drank, and that ALL were under God’s scrutiny. But the judgment and scrutiny did not exclude children from the table; rather, it was in a time when Children UNQUESTIONABLY ate the meals in the examples of Paul.
HOWEVER, in his examples of God’s scrutiny, he lists the grumbling (1 Cor 10.10) which comes from a passage (Num 14) where the parents are chided, but not the children.
Paul’s OLD TESTAMENT UNITY is not just an example of a different situation and a BAD IDEA we should avoid by now restricting the meal. It is the SAME situation (The OT people were supping on CHRIST then too, ALL of them – 1 Cor 10.4) but it is a pattern that he keeps insisting we are continuing:
Unity of Body and with Christ demonstrating by the eating:
“The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” (1 Cor 10.16-17, cf. Lev 7.14: “one loaf” in Peace offerings for whole family Lev 10.14)
Unity of Body and unity with the Spirit and with Christ, demonstrating by the baptism and drinking:
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?….For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor 10.16…12.13)
This is the surrounding context of chapter 11. Everyone knows the 1 Cor 12 “One body with many members” section. The Body is the whole church. The body is the bread. The Old Testament people all ate the bread. We all eat the bread. We all are one body. The Old Testament people all drank the spiritual drink, even the children, and they all were drinking of Christ, and we too drink of Christ, all we who are baptized drink of one Spirit.
—”IN REMEMBRANCE” or “For my memorial”?—
We already know that Paul is thinking of MANNA (1 Cor 10.1-4), and the WATER FROM THE CHRIST-ROCK (10.1-4), and that he is thinking of PEACE OFFERINGS (1 Cor 10.7 from Ex 32.6), and we know that the Peace offering was a whole family affair (Lev 10.14). We also know that PASSOVER is on Paul’s mind (1 Cor 5.7-8).
Ex 12.14, and 13.9 say that the Passover is an everlasting memorial. The same language is used in 1 Cor 11.24. This does not require that the children must have a memory, but that it is done to CAUSE the perpetuation of memory (Ex 13). Now, contrary to what some say, Ex 13 does NOT make a requirement that a child be old enough to talk before eating, but Ex 12 DOES say that the amount of food must be prepared according to the number of “eaters” and that the “whole congregation MUST celebrate it.”
According to Ex 12, and 13, Passover is prepared for every eater, since all the congregation must eat of it, and it is used from early age to provoke questions about the story of salvation which Israel had experienced.
—-One final consideration:
Compare the language here in Gen 17, and 1 Cor 11 to see that while the sacraments are SIGNS of who is in the covenant, they also, in some way, ARE the covenant with the people. Circumcision represented God’s covenant with families in Israel from oldest to youngest, and that covenant included oldest to youngest.
Jesus says the Eucharist IS the New Covenant:
The New Covenant BELONGS to infants (Lk 18.15-17, 1 Cor 7.14, Ac 2.38, Rom 6.3-4, Gal 3.27-29) and the Lord’s Supper IS the New Covenant.
Gen 17.9-13
“9As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10THIS IS MY COVENANT, which you shall keep, BETWEEN ME AND YOU AND YOUR OFFSPRING AFTER YOU: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall MY COVENANT be IN YOUR FLESH an everlasting covenant.”
1 Cor 11.25:
“This cup IS the new covenant in my blood.”
—–
Thanks sincerely,
Luke Welch
Luke,
Have you read Venema’s book and considered carefully his arguments before writing this?
Does it mean anything to you that the Reformed Churches categorically reject paedocommunion?
Scott,
Thanks for the reply. I haven’t gotten to read Dr. Venema’s book yet. I would like to read it someday soon. My comments were just things I thought as I was reading the entry above. I would enjoy being able to interact with the book on a more detailed basis.
As to the Reformed standards, I do care what our theological forbears thought and taught. But I don’t find their arguments against paedocommunion at all convincing. But, in order not to back myself into a corner in public on someone else’s blog, I will refrain from saying more now, ESPECIALLY, since the point of your post is reviewing Dr. Venema’s book. I don’t want to talk out of bounds. =)
Blessings,
Luke Welch
Have you read all 10 posts?
No, let me do that next.
Thanks,
Luke
By the way,
I accidentally addressed you as Scott, in the previous comment; I had written it on a text editor beforehand, and I forgot to check before I did. Had I checked, I would have addressed you as Dr. Clark.
Thanks,
Luke Welch
That’s fine. Luke.
Dr. Clark,
You mention in your last large paragraph that the disciples “knew” and that partaking implies believing the gospel. I’m not convinced that children are excluded by having a lesser wisdom/understanding. After all, the kingdom of God is for “such as these.” It is perhaps the adults who need the faith of children and could learn from children taking the Supper in simple faith.
I don’t think it is coincidence that it is a meal. A very small child knows very well whether he is excluded or included in a meal. I believe a very small infant can “discern the body.” As a paedobaptist, you accept an institution that requires belief, but you are unwilling to accept paedocommunion based on lack of belief? The faith of the baptized child is that of his parents, so also the belief and rememberence. It is something a child grows into, yet to which he is never foreign. One thing a very small child can do, who perhaps cannot grasp the full meaning of remembering, is to discern the body – he belongs, and he knows.
How do you see the faith required for baptism and the ability to remember required for the Supper reconciled? If you were a baptist, who rejected paedobaptism, then I would at least understand your position. I know you may refer me to Reformed tradition. But tradition is mixed on this. From the Bible, how are these two things different?
Respectfully,
Daniel
Daniel,
I recommend that you read Dr Venema’s book.