The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Paedocommunion

The description of unworthy partaking in v. 27. Since what was unworthy in the prior verse was eating and drinking in a dis-unified manner, v. 28 is therefore prescribing a manner of eating and drinking that would reflect ecclesial unity. That is, “Let a person examine/prove himself” is not a prerequisite action that occurs prior to partaking of the Supper, but rather is the manner in which the Supper is partaken of.

Since v. 28 is the contrast to the dis-unified partaking of v. 27, this suggests that the first clause of v. 28 is not an end in itself, but is rather a means to the end of ecclesial unity as the sacrament is being partaken of.

In context, the “examining” that one should do is to see if he is being schismatic in his treatment of others in the body, particularly as he is partaking of the sacrament. Whether or not children can perform this type of examination independently of parental oversight does not seem to be germane to Paul’s concerns here. Paul’s concern in this letter is that “we
who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (10:17) and that “when you come together to eat, wait for each other” (11:33). If parents shepherd their children to respect the unity of the church body during the sacrament, this would seem to cohere with the spirit of Paul’s argument. To me, the supposition that examine here means that
each partaker must independently introspect to see if they have a correct and mature understanding of the sacramental symbolism is foreign to the context and the thrust of the discourse.

Product Description

A growing trend among Reformed churches is the practice of admitting young children to the Lord’s Supper. In Children at the Lord’s Table?, Cornelis P. Venema provides an insightful analysis of the theoretical arguments used by advocates of this recent trend. After clarifying terms and explaining arguments often made in favor of paedocommunion, he considers the history of the church’s confessions, teaching, and practice regarding the proper recipients of the Lord’s Supper. Presenting a historical, exegetical, and systematic treatment of the subject, Venema demonstrates the validity and value of having covenant children partake of first communion subsequent to their personal profession of faith. This is an invaluable resource for every pastor within the Reformed tradition.

Pilgrim
I have read articles on the subject on the Highway and elsewhere.
I was just hoping to get some dialogue on his particular points.

The fact that Lord’s supper is a proclamation of Jesus’ sacrificial death leads Paul to warn the Corinthians of the necessity of self-examination (see 1 Corinthians 11:26-29). “Let a man examine himself” (1 Cor. 11:28). The term “examination” denotes a moral exercise that presupposes a certain level of mental maturity that excludes babies and toddlers. There is to be due preparation before partaking of the elements. In the immediate context, this examination requires discernment or taking proper cognizance of the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:29). The narrow and broad contexts of this passage indicate that this self-examination extends to three different interrelated areas. First, the examination extends to our treatment of Christ’s body, the church. This point is plain from the immediate context, which precipitated Paul’s digression upon the holy supper. Some Corinthians had been guilty of treating poor believers as second-class citizens at the agape feasts that at the time were still held in conjunction with communion. (The Corinthians were probably guilty of following the ancient Greek custom of having different places to sit in the house, along with different quantities and qualities of food as a result of one’s social and economic status. In other words, the rich were eating like gluttons while the poor were going hungry.) Scripture indicates that this ethical examination extends to other areas such as reconciliation with a brother (Mt. 5:23-24) and a refusal to repent of immorality (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13). Self-examination requires knowledge of God’s ethical requirements as well as faith in God’s word, otherwise this examination would be subjective and legalistic. This examination, however, is not to be a morbid introspectionism or an expectation of sinless perfection, for every Christian knows that it is Christ alone and his merits that render him worthy to come to communion.

Second, this examination involves “discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:29) which in context refers to a proper consideration of the meaning and implication of the salvation purchased by Christ. This point is obvious from Paul’s quotation of the original words of institution from Luke 22:19 where the Lord’s broken body is set before our eyes as the atonement for our sins. Remembering Christ’s passion and meditating on how Jesus delivered us from the guilt, penalty and power of sin are connected not only to the sanctifying nature of the ordinance but also to the dire warnings connected to the abuse of the sacrament. Mistreating Christ’s body, the church, by unloving behavior toward the brethren, is an implicit denial of what the supper points to. A proper discernment of Christ’s body (that is, his person and work) leads to a proper discernment of his body, the church. The two are intimately connected.

Third, the context of 1 Corinthians 11:29 indicates that communion also involves a proper recognition of the elements set apart for holy use. The elements are set apart from a common to a sacred use. Therefore, it is wicked and dangerous to use them in a profane manner (e.g., getting drunk). For this reason many commentators view the conclusion of this chapter as an admonition to separate communion from the love-feast or fellowship meal.

Once again note that the admonitions associated with communion presuppose faith, understanding and recognition of biblical ethics. It is totally inappropriate to dismiss the implications of these admonitions by arguing that they only apply to adults because (as noted) the holy supper, unlike baptism, requires faith, knowledge and understanding for progressive sanctification. The attempt to parallel these ordinances doesn’t work without a complete redefinition of communion (i.e., a redefinition in an ex opere operato direction).

The scriptures state to us that the supper is opened foe all of those who have been saved and name jesus as Lord, cannot children do that?

That is why we live it to their parents, as being able to spiritual discern if they would be able to really grasp what is being done here or not...

Perhaps the hang up is on the term children, as we allow for children to partake if members of the church and been water baptized, and our age for that is 12, with a credible profession of faith!