Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Children
Yesterday I posted about JollyBloggers discussion on infant baptism. Today I placed the following thoughts in his "comments" section. I believe my thoughts stand on their own but feel free to follow the link to what prompted them.
As a PCUSA pastor I not only endorse infant baptism, but also (with the informed support of their parents) the inclusion of baptized children in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
I know the PCA does not affirm this. Indeed, the Christian Church both in whole and in part has overwhelmingly deferred (or denied) the taking of Communion until the age of discretion and personal confession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
I was, however, impressed with two points in your January 28 post, each of which supports my position rather than the other:
1. The parallel of baptism and circumcision. The Reformed tradition not only parallels these two covenantal sacraments as signs of our inclusion into God's family by grace, but also parallels the Old Testament sacrament of the Passover meal with the New Testament sacrament of the Lord's Supper; with each representing our salvation by grace through the blood of an atoning sacrifice.
In Old Testament Israel, circumcised children were active participants in the Passover meal. Indeed, one could argue that the modern Seder is self-consciously designed to not only include children but to celebrate the presence of children (with the hiding of the afikomen, the questions, opening the door for Elijah, etc.). A Passover without children is always less than complete for a traditional Jewish family.
Why, then, in the New Testament Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are baptized children of believing parents not permitted to share in the family meal of the Body of Christ? Are grace, forgiveness and salvation only merited by one's knowledge and understanding? Is not the Lord's Supper, as with infant baptism, the Church's proclamation of what Christ has done for US...while we were yet sinners...before we had any knowledge of it at all...before we had come to personal faith?
Do we not all receive the Lord's Supper humbly, with imperfect and incomplete faith, knowledge and understanding (as in a mirror dimly)? At what level of intellect and knowledge are we qualified to recelve God's grace? Is grace meted out by God and received based on one,s IQ or ability to pass a Bible test following Catechism or Confirmation classes?
Does God's grace come to us in two distinctly different ways: One through the faith of the Church (and the parents) in baptism, but only through the personal faith of the mature believer in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Had there been circumcised children with the disciples in the Upper Room would Jesus have refused to allow them to share in the eating of his body and the drinking of his blood?
2. You also present the argument of the principle of "expansion," that the Old Testament "gospel," as a precursor to the New Testament Gospel is lesser in the former and enlarged in the latter. In your own words,
Surely, we cannot say that, in the Old Testament, God allowed circumcised children to eat the Passover Meal so as to teach us to exclude them in the Lord's Supper! Such logic would render the Old Testament completely disconnected with the New. Marcion would be vindicated! (Perhaps I'm getting too carried away with my rhetoric, here. Please forgive).
In any case, I've said far too much for a "comment." Even so, my words might trigger some thoughts, or even a response, from either yourself or my fellow visitors to your wonderful blog. As always, love and aloha in Jesus.
As a PCUSA pastor I not only endorse infant baptism, but also (with the informed support of their parents) the inclusion of baptized children in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
I know the PCA does not affirm this. Indeed, the Christian Church both in whole and in part has overwhelmingly deferred (or denied) the taking of Communion until the age of discretion and personal confession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
I was, however, impressed with two points in your January 28 post, each of which supports my position rather than the other:
1. The parallel of baptism and circumcision. The Reformed tradition not only parallels these two covenantal sacraments as signs of our inclusion into God's family by grace, but also parallels the Old Testament sacrament of the Passover meal with the New Testament sacrament of the Lord's Supper; with each representing our salvation by grace through the blood of an atoning sacrifice.
In Old Testament Israel, circumcised children were active participants in the Passover meal. Indeed, one could argue that the modern Seder is self-consciously designed to not only include children but to celebrate the presence of children (with the hiding of the afikomen, the questions, opening the door for Elijah, etc.). A Passover without children is always less than complete for a traditional Jewish family.
Why, then, in the New Testament Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are baptized children of believing parents not permitted to share in the family meal of the Body of Christ? Are grace, forgiveness and salvation only merited by one's knowledge and understanding? Is not the Lord's Supper, as with infant baptism, the Church's proclamation of what Christ has done for US...while we were yet sinners...before we had any knowledge of it at all...before we had come to personal faith?
Do we not all receive the Lord's Supper humbly, with imperfect and incomplete faith, knowledge and understanding (as in a mirror dimly)? At what level of intellect and knowledge are we qualified to recelve God's grace? Is grace meted out by God and received based on one,s IQ or ability to pass a Bible test following Catechism or Confirmation classes?
Does God's grace come to us in two distinctly different ways: One through the faith of the Church (and the parents) in baptism, but only through the personal faith of the mature believer in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Had there been circumcised children with the disciples in the Upper Room would Jesus have refused to allow them to share in the eating of his body and the drinking of his blood?
2. You also present the argument of the principle of "expansion," that the Old Testament "gospel," as a precursor to the New Testament Gospel is lesser in the former and enlarged in the latter. In your own words,
Following this reasoning the Reformed bias would not be to exclude from the Lord's Supper those who were included in the Passover Meal. The blessing is to increase, not decrease."Keeping this in mind, covenantalists are going to be biased toward seeing an expansion of blessing in the giving of the sign of the covenant, rather than a restriction."
Surely, we cannot say that, in the Old Testament, God allowed circumcised children to eat the Passover Meal so as to teach us to exclude them in the Lord's Supper! Such logic would render the Old Testament completely disconnected with the New. Marcion would be vindicated! (Perhaps I'm getting too carried away with my rhetoric, here. Please forgive).
In any case, I've said far too much for a "comment." Even so, my words might trigger some thoughts, or even a response, from either yourself or my fellow visitors to your wonderful blog. As always, love and aloha in Jesus.
posted by Bird of Paradise at 8:56 PM
<< Home