Larger Catechism:
Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ? A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.
Here are some questions to work out.
1) Is the sign of baptism for an adult different than that of an infant?
WCF 28.1
Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
WCF 28.4 Not only those that do actually profess faith in the obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
**Here there is nothing said to intimate that the one has something more than the other. Indeed, when the very next paragraph says that
WCF 28.5 Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
it is meant to contradict the Anabaptists in the former clause and the Romanist in the latter.
2) If baptism is a sign of “regeneration” and “ingrafting into Christ”, is there a bi-lateral aspect to these two demarcations? That is, when an infant is “ingrafted”, into what is he? And when an adult is ingrafted, into what is he? For instance, in the morning service there are two baptisms scheduled. That of a father and his infant. The father has just come to faith and has met with the session giving a credible profession of the true religion. He is baptised first followed by his child. Are these two separate baptisms? Does the father’s mean one thing and the child’s another? Prove.
3) Does the WCF’s qualification of “and that even to infants” equivocate the sacrament for them? That is, the WCF does not in any way qualify how baptism for the infant is different than the adult. Indeed, it assumes them to be the same. That is, when finished describing what baptism is a se for the worthy recipient, the WCF then asks if infants of believers are to receive the sign too. It answers unequivocally, Yes. And that with no disclaimers at all.
The second majority argument, developing out of Calvin’s theology of communion, was that communion is not effective ex operato, but only through faith. Thus, communion (unlike baptism) requires an active response of faith.
This begs the question: Is Calvin consistent? Calvin along with Luther assume a nascent faith, else the recipient is an unworthy receiver of baptism. In the case of paedocommunion, mightn’t it be argued that upon and age of discretion (what I mean by that is an age where even minimal comprehension is evidenced; i.e. a child recognises by his participation in the rite that he is in fact doing what others are and that therefore, he belongs) that child’s faith can be strengthened in the eating and drinking as his parents divulge to him the import of the meal? In this way, faith is active and nourished while still infant-like. That is to say, ex opera operato is a non sequitor.
What to make of this in light of 1 Cor 11?
First, it will not do to argue that all kids, regardless of expressed faith or otherwise, should have communion. To so argue makes light of Paul’s warning, “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” If this warning has any force as a warning, it must mean that we make some effort to fence the table from the “ignorant and scandalous”; else, we are like the man in Proverbs who sees danger and fails to warn of it.
This argument will not suffice. How much recognition is required here? Take for instance a decretally elect communer. What if one Sunday he is lax in his eating and drinking? Or he does not eat and drink with the same recognition as the previous time. What qualifies as adequate “recognizing”? If a child of the covenant (whatever that means) has a nascent faith, then any participation of the supper is due him as it will only serve to strengthen his faith. It may be rebutted, “But then it is the parents who are doing the discerning and examining and not the child.” This is true. But only in degree. How much less is it so for the pastor or elder to fence the table? Is he not parenting the congregation to some degree? And this is not objected. No. The fencing is meant to be an introduction to the meal and the worshipper is left to himself upon a “judgement of charity” that he will appropriately appropriate the elements. It can be argued that this is no less what the faithful parent does for his child. He introduces the rite and leaves his child to do with that information as he will with a hope that it is faithful consumption. This is no less than what is expected of the adult. Indeed, the weight of faith that the Lord puts in a “child-like faith” is much greater than we.
Children unable to express faith of any sort should probably not receive communion.
This is a dangerous position to hold. What of the elderly? If there is little cognizance in the latter years, is the worshipper to be barred from the table? All the years of previous faithful “recognition” are thrown away b/c he is not able to physically demonstrate an inner exercise? The expression of a faith can be as simple as the eating and drinking. The proof is in the eating.
Against the typical view of the 1 Cor 11 passage, its context shows that the warning is precipitated by the church’s own current situation. Paul, here, is not addressing merely any weekly celebration but the particular Corinthian situation of not truly “coming together” for the meal. Notice what he says.
In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.
There are two possible ways for us to hear Paul here.
1) He is being facetious. The Corinthians are making divisions amongst themselves contrary to the Spirit and the nature of the church. What is their purpose? To show those whom the Lord approves. Are they not all approved? Are they not all the Lord’s? Yes, they are but their behaviour is contrary to the Gospel and much like Peter’s great sin in Galatians. Paul’s satire is meant to shame. He says, “You who go first, do well. Does not your pushing to the front and your eating til you bloat show how much Jesus loves you more than those lesser folk who cannot seem to assert themselves? Yes, you are approved by the Lord, assuredly.”
2) What else is this but an echo of the words of our Lord when he said, “By their fruits you will know them”? Paul is saying here that there are certain ones in the Corinthian church who are differentiating themselves by their behaviour and this is not to their praise. Some are differentiating themselves (detrimentally) to be approved (not really) by God while others (truly) are rejected (not really). Now whether this is for all eternity or for the situation at hand, the answer is “Yes.” Why not consider this a both and? For it is true that the one (situational) can lead to the other (eternal). Paul says that the divisions which come about from this demonstrative living is good for it outwardly shows who is not living at peace with his neighbor. And when this happens, none should participate but leave the “altar” and make peace.
When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?
Here again, is this typical of every church today? Does every church have this debauchery displayed in her celebration? I think not. Indeed, with most churches how will drunkenness even begin when the liquid is mere juice and not the approved fermented pleaser of gods and men? Or how will no one be hungry when after having a morsel of bread (or wafer), he is not able to satiate the precipitated hunger? Indeed, this account of Paul’s is not intended to fence the table for the whole body of Christ worldwide and so prevent the younger believers, too. No. The only way this applies to the whole church in every generation is as a general warning when there are divisions evidenced amongst each other. And when that is the case in any church, no one is safe when they are not remedied.
The fact that Paul is addressing such a limited scope of hearer (i.e. the Corinthian church) limits the application. Paul is addressing a particular failure of the C. church and intends only for others to imitate its precepts when their particular body mirrors that of Corinth.
Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
See here, too. Are there many in my church who have nothing? No. All are well endowed. See? The text itself discriminates the limit of its application.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
Does Paul not already have in mind what this “unworthy manner” is? Surely from the text it cannot be “eating and drinking as a non-believer” or even as a negligent faith-er. Indeed, this passage hardly warns non-believers from partaking (the OT has already done that). The context is a warning for believers who are acting like non-believers. To say it another way, the warning is for God’s children who are acting like the Devil’s. And yet, that is what the subsequent verses are argued as saying.
Here it should be noted that “body” is intended to be particular: it is the bread which is the body.
A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
Of what does this examination consist? As the fencing goes today, it is first an examination of whether one is a believer at all and then secondly of whether one’s heart is right with God and all debts are paid so-to-speak. This is an embezzlement of a later Corinthian passage where Paul more specifically warns to examine just such an idea: “examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith.” But, here, this is not the Apostle’s intention. Here his warning is due to a specific destructive attitude the whole church is exhibiting: division amongst themselves. And what does this do but divide the body (“There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female”), not discerning it rightly (me vs. you). “Am I Christ’s?” he asks. “Yes. And is my neighbor as well? Yes. Then how am I to live against him and eat this meal? Indeed, I cannot.” Anyone, in any time who does this surely, must examine himself. But this is not the nature of every church.
For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Of what does this recognition consist? The interpretation is unambiguously precise. It is of the body.
A) The worshipper must recognize (when there are divisions in the church and the Lord’s Supper is being debauched) the localized gathering of people under the name of Christ as his body, as his physical presence on the earth. A recognition of this reality will lead to peace among the members. If I belong to you and you to me, how can we be divided? If a husband makes his wife whole and the woman her husband, are they two? No. They are the epitome of marriage: they are united in peace. As such they will better incarnate his ministry to a needy world.
B) The worshipper must recognise the significance of his partaking of the elements as a serious matter. Here we see Paul staying with the original meaning of the word body. This is so for Paul begins by alluding to the partaking of the elements when he says, “Anyone who eats and drinks.” Here is communion: eating the bread and drinking the wine. In the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine is the recognition of the body. Whose body? Jesus’ body, the church. Paul is staying with his original meaning. When the worshipper eats and drinks amongst the other members he is declaring the pax. “All is well here”, he says. In so partaking of Jesus’ body, it is counterintuitive to do so when there is division amongst the members. Were a man to eat and drink while divided, he condemns himself. He declares of himself, “I am not united to you for I have this against you…” The offense is either outright or subversive but it is still obvious for it comes out when the elements are dispersed: Me first, you are last.
That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
Here we see a Pauline version of the Johannine churches in Revelation. Those 7 churches are warned against unbelief in various ways upon pains of death. Here, too, Paul notifies his listeners of the plague of the Lord’s Angel: many have died and are dying under the poisonous venom of the asps and it is the Lord who has sent them. What is the remedy? Self-examination. Condemn yourself; reckon your actions as damnable and repent. Do the work of surgery and remove the leaven from your hearts or else the Lord will. If you do it yourself, he will relent. And yet, were the Lord to do the purging himself, the goal is not death but life. He disciplines those whom he loves that they might turn from death and live.
In conclusion, Paul’s original intention in this part of his letter is to address his immediate audience and call them to repentance and holiness. He does not intend to set as a prescription for all successive readers, yea and verily, for anyone else in particular, the Corinthian mandate to examine oneself. This is only so insofar as the Corinthian blight (or that likened thereunto) is reared again in some subsequent generation.
