Infant Baptism and the Lord's Supper

[Michael K]

My wife and I are praying about baptizing our daughter. We both come from Baptist backgrounds. Recently, we have come to see that both positions can be defended by Scripture (with a leaning toward's a more Presbyterian view). In a conversation with my wife's brother, he asked the following:

If we allow our daughter to be baptized, then why would we not allow her to have the Lord's Supper?

How might a paedo-baptist respond in brotherly love?

 

[Rom]

Simple answer is that in the Lord's Supper, the Scriptures explicitly ask for us to self-examine ourselves. Which an infant cannot. As the elders are called to fence the table - the elders have the duty to make sure that all those who commune are not profaning the sacrament, to also protect them from further condemnation. So the elders have a duty to make sure that only communicant members are allowed to the table, those who have made a profession of faith and can articulate their examination of their souls.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rom has put it as simply as it can be put.

We have a didactic statement in 1Cor.11:28, in fact it is a command, an imperative, "Do just this:..." It is a "3rd person imperative," a category English grammar lacks (English only presents 2nd person imperatives).

What is commanded? Self-examination. "A man MUST examine himself."

Rom also pointed out the duty of Elders. They are men "who will have to give an account," Heb.13:17, for how they cared for the souls of those entrusted to them. Couple that duty with the fact that 1Cor.11:27 states that unworthy partaking (and we can presume these eating were members) makes one guilty; and that v30 states that some persons have died for this sin; and it becomes clear that guarding the Table involves more than simply checking a persons' baptism.

I would think Baptists generally agree, true? Just because a person is a member and baptized, doesn't mean he has automatic access, correct? There's the whole matter of discipline.

As an additional point, we might as well note that there's no presumption that both sacraments speak in the same way, saying exactly the same things. They are different signs, and the nature of each one is different.Consider how baptism happens to a person, who is essentially passive. This is quite like the new birth, in which men are dead subjects and wholly acted upon. Entrance or initiation into Christ does not engage my will except as an aftereffect.

Whereas in the Lord's Supper, there is a real, willful participation by the partakers. This behavior goes very much in line with our notions of sanctification, which is not an act but a work of God, and one in which our engagement is assumed and granted. The power is not in us, but the new-life principle encourages us to be active and strive.

So, we (Presbyterians) see baptism as an initiatory sign, and communion as the sign of covenant renewal; the one is a sign of identification, the other a sign of confession.

 

[Andres]

Hi Michael,

You ask a good question. A while back I dialogued with a Baptist who had made some false assertions regarding paedobaptism and the Lord's Supper. He saw a connection between the two and, like your brother-in-law, believed that if Presbyterians baptized infants, we should also permit them to the table. Here is his (false) assertion:

Suffice it to say that we Baptists do not abuse our children. Frankly, we are not the ones telling our children they are members of the covenant while denying them a covenant privilege and command-a place at the Lord's Table (communion). We understand your view of the external/internal distinction, we just don't buy it. Baptism and communion go together. At least the Federal Vision and other paedobaptists are consistent in paedobaptism and paedocommunion.

Please read my response to him over at my blog. - Clearing Some Myths Regarding Paedocommunion

Hope this helps!

 

[jandrusk]

Nice blog post and I think you represented the distinction very well.

Hi Michael,

You ask a good question. A while back I dialogued with a Baptist who had made some false assertions regarding paedobaptism and the Lord's Supper. He saw a connection between the two and, like your brother-in-law, believed that if Presbyterians baptized infants, we should also permit them to the table. Here is his (false) assertion:

Suffice it to say that we Baptists do not abuse our children. Frankly, we are not the ones telling our children they are members of the covenant while denying them a covenant privilege and command-a place at the Lord's Table (communion). We understand your view of the external/internal distinction, we just don't buy it. Baptism and communion go together. At least the Federal Vision and other paedobaptists are consistent in paedobaptism and paedocommunion.

Please read my response to him over at my blog. - Clearing Some Myths Regarding Paedocommunion

Hope this helps!

 

[Peairtach]

My wife and I are praying about baptizing our daughter. We both come from Baptist backgrounds. Recently, we have come to see that both positions can be defended by Scripture (with a leaning toward's a more Presbyterian view). In a conversation with my wife's brother, he asked the following:

If we allow our daughter to be baptized, then why would we not allow her to have the Lord's Supper?

How might a paedo-baptist respond in brotherly love?

Just to add even more ("overkill"?):- the Lord's Supper is unsuitable for babies and infants, involving strong drink and a (large?) piece of bread. In a similar way it is unsuitable for those who cannot examine themselves spiritually, young children and those without an accredited profession of conversion. It is a different sacrament with different requiremenrs, baptism being the outer door to the covenant and visible church, which admits you once and for all, whereas the Lord's Supper is the inner door which can be opened or closed.

The comparison with circumcision and the Passover commemoration, does not give us any warrant to automatically admit babies and infants to the Lord'
s Supper, as the Passover was also unsuitable for young children, it could be opened or closed to the covenant people, and only adult males were expected to partake of it.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2