Profession of Faith and the Half-Way Covenant
March 19, 2008 at 11:43 am (Church, Church-Communion, Federal Vision)
This post will finish the review of chapter 22 of RINE. The issues before us are these: is a two-tiered church membership the result of the Half-Way Covenant? Is a two-tiered church membership biblical? Are we placing our faith in something we can see if we require a profession of faith in order to have access to the table?
Wilson would answer yes to the first question, no to the second question and yes to the third question. That is a fair summary, I believe, of Wilson’s argumentation in the rest of chapter 22.
Historically speaking, a two-tiered membership of the church is attested. One can see this in Ursinus’s commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (on question 81), pg. 425, when he says this: “Infants are not capable of coming to the Lord’s supper, because they do not possess faith actually, but only potentially and by inclination.” Olevianus also says that there are two outer bonds of the covenant, and two inner bonds of the covenant. The former are the outward call and our profession of faith. The inner bonds are election and the Holy Spirit. The former can be broken, but not the latter. The former correspond with the outward administration of the covenant. The latter correspond with the substance of the covenant (See Bierma, pg. 103). The whole discussion is valuable (pp. 96-105). Vanderkemp says the same about infants on pg. 122 of his commentary on the Heidelberg. In other words, the question of paedo-communion is very much wrapped up in this discussion. If one believes that there is only one kind of membership in the covenant, then paedo-communion is the logical outcome. However, it is easily demonstrated that the Reformed authors of the 15th and 16th centuries did not view church membership this way. There was a two-tiered membership. This can hardly be the fault of the Half-Way Covenant, of course. Nor does such an arrangement prevent the little children from coming to Jesus, as Ray Sutton supposes. Union with Christ in faith is possible from the womb. However, what is the church supposed to do about whom to invite to the table? Ursinus is clear: “The questions who ought to come, and who ought to be admitted to the Supper, are distinct and different. The former speaks of the duty of communicants; the latter of the duty of the church and ministers” (pg. 424). It is plain from the quote on page 425 that Ursinus does not speak of infants as communicants, even though they are members of the church outwardly speaking.
A two-tiered membership of the church corresponds to the visible/invisible church distinction in ideals. As such its biblical basis rests on that distinction. Of course, it cannot correspond in reality, since many make profession of faith who are hypocrites. But the church must fence the table somehow. The distinction that Ursinus makes helps us here. The church can only do so much in fencing the table. The rest is up to the people’s consciences.
With regard to the third question, Wilson makes a mistake. Requiring a profession of faith does not mean that the church trusts the word of man rather than the word of God (contra Wilson, pg. 185). The Bible speaks about professing with one’s mouth (Romans 10:9, and the content of that profession follows, which rules out an overly wide definition of professing so as to include a baby’s nursing, etc.). A verbal profession of faith is commanded by the Scriptures. If that is commanded, and the church is supposed to do something about that, then does the church stop believing God’s Word in order to listen to a man to see if it is credible? The church must judge so as to exercise church discipline properly. Of course, Wilson will disagree with me here. But I did want to demonstrate not only that the critics’ position on this is Reformed, and not dependent on the Half-Way Covenant, but also, and more importantly, that it is biblical.
Jason J. Stellman said,
March 19, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Shouldn’t we see the Half-Way Covenant (HWC) as the result, and not the cause, of an unnecessarily high fence around the communion table?
In places like Massachussetts in the 1660s you had something like 90% of the adult population attending church, with something like 10% of them communing (they weren’t “born again” yet, you see). Then those people (baptized non-communicants) started having kids, and the rest, as the fella said, is history.
For my own part, I do believe in the inward/outward tiers of church membership, but I am also in disagreement with those who think we should wait until a child gets to his late teens before allowing them to the table since, by then, we’ll know if they’re really saved or not.
All young teens roll their eyes at their mothers and go through puberty. Why not allow them to go through these challenges as full members of Christ’s church, rather than subtly telling them that if they make it through their teen years unscathed, then we’ll give them the right hand of fellowship?
greenbaggins said,
March 19, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I agree completely. I am by no means in favor of keeping the table from teens, or even earlier, if the child demonstrates a clear faith and fruits. I don’t think that there is any one age for a person to be admitted to the table.
HaigLaw said,
March 19, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Excellent summary of Reformed history in the review. Thanks!
Lee said,
March 19, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Otto Thelemann’s “Aid to the Heidelberg Catechism” also discusses the necessity of profession of faith and gives a history of the rite of Confirmation in the Reformed churches or Admission as it used to be called because it was about Admission to the Lord’s Table. Only Thelemann’s discussion comes in the commentary to Question 74 rather than 81. Another helpful source for this debate and the history of two-tiered membership.
greenbaggins said,
March 19, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Thanks much, Lee. Any place this work might be available?
reformedmusings said,
March 19, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Nice job, Lane.
I agree with you that there isn’t an age “limit” on becoming a communicant member. As you say, they need a credible profession of faith, which includes/assumes the elders have seen evidence of its credibility.
Lee said,
March 19, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Lane,
Otto Thelemann’s work is available in electronic format in the RCUS Reference Library. A hard copy is in the church library in Herreid, if you ever need to lay hands on a physical copy.
john k said,
March 19, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Lane, thank you for this post. Several thoughts:
If the church is not able to administer the Table in terms of the visible/invisible distinction because of adult hypocrites, neither can that distinction be a valid reason to exclude covenant children.
Our inability to administer the sacraments according to election and the Holy Spirit’s regenerating is not a failure to measure up to “ideals.” It is part of what it means to be creatures and not the Creator.
The argument in your post is not, I think, that baptized non-communicants are what make up the visible church, and baptized communicants are what make up the invisible church. Since the visible/invisible distinction therefore does not correspond to the “two tiers” of non-communicant/communicant, does the distinction really justify these two tiers? The distinction cuts across both groups.
It would be more biblical simply to argue from the instructions given for observing the sacraments (e.g., 1Cor. 11:29) than to have recourse to the “secret things” in order to keep children from the Table.
Two kinds of membership in the covenant does not in itself rule out paedocommunion, since we do not administer the Supper by the “two inner bonds of the covenant.”
David Gadbois said,
March 19, 2008 at 8:20 pm
For those who frequent Blog and Mablog, you may have noticed the recent dust-up I was in on this very issue.
Most want to make I Corinthians the center of the debate on paedocommunion. While I agree that this is one of the central texts most relevant to the issue, I think it is more useful to argue from the nature of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper - that it is a sacrament that must be partaken of by faith. If we don’t have faith in Christ, we cannot feed on Christ in the Supper. Indeed, it is basic, confessional, and unnegotiable Reformed doctrine that we partake of Christ in the Supper by faith. Anything else is superstitious error.
A very young child (I recall praying to Christ was I was 4) can have faith in Christ, and thus furnish a credible profession. A basic profession, to be sure, but still adequate and credible. An infant, however, cannot - infants are not capable of the notitia element of faith, and therefore cannot apprehend Christ, and therefore cannot apprehend Him in the Supper.
lemonwaffle said,
March 20, 2008 at 10:47 am
RE #9, David:
I would question whether infants are not capable of apprehending Christ; John the Baptist in the womb comes to mind.
I would also question whether apprehending Christ is the right standard. It seems that the first lens we look through is not to ask “who has taken Christ for himself,” but rather “whom has Christ taken for Himself?” (Did I mix up my who/whom? Sorry, Im’ a publik skole kid) The answer, for those with the ability to make a profession, is discovered by asking “Have you taken Christ,” since we don’t get to look at the Book of Life. But for those who lack the ability to make a profession, including infants and the severely handicapped, we should simply ask the head of their household. If the household is one of faith, then we should treat all members of the household of faith as being a part of a faithful household, unless they show evidence to the contrary.
I don’t understand why the conditional clause in 1 Corinthians should be applied indiscriminately, when we apply many Biblical commands in a limited way, as per. infants, handicapped, elderly, etc.. Why not wait to baptize so the baby can fulfill the command, “Repent and be baptized?”
Is the effect of your statement to say that those who cannot furnish a credible profession cannot belong to Christ?
Xon said,
March 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm
But it also needs to be pointed out that, if you adopt David G’s position (that infants by definition cannot have faith), then every infant who goes to Heaven represents an exception to sola fide. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone, except when we’re not.
Now, at this point David G. says, if I understand him, that this is not an exception to sola fide, because s.f. is only meant to apply to people who are capable of having faith. So, obviously people who are incapable of faith cannot be saved through faith.
Three points in response:
1. This really sells sola fide short, if you ask me. Again, it sets up a system in which different people are meant to relate to God in different ways, rather than salvation always being by grace through faith. That strikes me as problematic on its face, but I suppose some will disagree. This view removes faith as a fundamental element of how people born in sin are to relate to God: it is possible to relate (positively) to God in some other way than by wholeheartedly trusting in Him?
2.Why wouldn’t this view justify paedocommunion? Since infants are not capable of faith, and since obviously commands to have faith don’t apply to people who are incapable of having it, then the command to “examine ourselves” doesn’t apply to infants. So they can partake.
3. This view threatens the structural integrity of covenant theology. If you can be saved without faith, then why doesn’t this apply to outright pagans and those who never hear the Gospel? The basic (good) answer is that Paul explicitly rules this out in Romans 10: how will they believe if they haven’t heard? How will the hear unless someone preaches the Gospel to them? Etc. But, again, this requirement should only apply to those who are capable of hearing the Gospel with understanding. So it would seem that infants everywhere should be exempt from the requirement to have faith in order to be saved. And thus the covenant is undone, for it makes no difference in terms of eternal salvation (i.e., full membership in God’s people for all eternity) whether an infant is born in the covenant or not. If the infant dies, then he’s in.
David Gadbois said,
March 20, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Xon, without responding in detail (for now), I would urge you, as I did over at Blog and Mablog, to read Boettner on Infant Salvation in his Predestination (which is available online). Many Reformed, such as Boettner, believed that *all* infants, of both believers and unbelievers, are saved. Many others more believed in the possibility, that they *can* be saved. I don’t believe this myself, although there is legitimate diversity on the issue. The point being that I am hardly the first to believe that sola fide is not an absolutely universal principle while still believing in covenant theology.
The alternative is certainly no better than conceding this from a logical standpoint. Instead you posit an exception to Romans 10, and somehow infants can have faith without hearing the preached Word.
David Gadbois said,
March 20, 2008 at 1:31 pm
As I reflect on it, I suppose the issue is decided upon what you think is more plausible. I think it is more plausible that God, in his electing grace, would confer salvation to infants without the requirement of faith in a “special dispensation” of grace (as Sproul worded it), than I would believe the idea that infants can have faith in Christ (faith being defined as knowledge, assent, and trust) before they even have language comprehension. Knowledge of Christ requires mental faculties that infants simply do not have. While infants can know their mothers by acquaintance, they cannot know Christ in such a manner - so we *all* must come to know Christ through propositional content until the time that He returns bodily.
Jeff Cagle said,
March 20, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Xon and LemonW, I’ll take friendly exception to your position.
LW (#10):
I would question whether infants are not capable of apprehending Christ; John the Baptist in the womb comes to mind.
I agree.
I would also question whether apprehending Christ is the right standard. It seems that the first lens we look through is not to ask “who has taken Christ for himself,” but rather “whom has Christ taken for Himself?”
Almost, but not quite. YES, in terms of the salvation of infants who, say, die in infancy, then the question is whether or not Christ has taken that one for Himself. And on the grounds that God cares for the children of believers for the sake of those believers, we say that there is a high likelihood that the answer is Yes, even though we could not verify this through a profession of faith.
Note that our ground is different from federal headship; the children of a believing *mother* have just as much claim to God’s grace as the children of a believing *father*, acc. 1 Cor 7.14.
But wrt partaking of Communion, the entrance requirement for admission is the ability to self-examine. I’m with David G on this. Self-examination can be performed at an appropriate level by all manner of people. But it needs to be performed; hence, not by infants.
So the question of whether or not infants can be saved is not directly pertinent here.
Now, you might object that all who are saved should partake. But Paul does not argue this way in 1 Cor. Instead, he argues that those who are saved but cannot partake in a worthy manner should eat at home.
Xon, I agree that children dying in infancy are saved by some kind of infant-like faith. It’s just that that fact alone is not enough to admit to the table.
#2 doesn’t seem sound to me.
#3 is John MacArthur’s view: “instant heaven” for all children dying in infancy. Hello, age-of-accountability.
Jeff Cagle
Jeff Cagle said,
March 20, 2008 at 1:51 pm
David G. (#13):
Or a third possibility: that God reveals himself in a special dispensation of grace to infants and mentally handicapped that He chooses to elect, and that they believe what is revealed to them. So unlike the first, God is not changing the sola fide as the means of justification; unlike the second, the faith does not come through hearing the Word, but in some other way.
I think something like this is happening with JtB.
Jeff Cagle
Jesse P. said,
March 20, 2008 at 2:08 pm
David,
I am curious as to how you have discovered what mental facilities infants do and don’t have?
Jesse P. said,
March 20, 2008 at 2:10 pm
sorry typo
“Mental faculties”
Mike said,
March 20, 2008 at 4:55 pm
This is a good discussion…hummm…let’s see a continuation of another most recent discussion…me thinks.
But for me I am glad that you broke it out and the group has begun to speak on the particulars. It seems sometimes “bloggers” have a tendency to get off on too many rabbit trails…when this current discussion seems to be the meat of the last discussion.
Also, I am expressly happy to see that someone in this universe actually purchased and read Dr. Bierma’s book. He was my favorite professor during my years at Reformed Bible College…now Kuiper College (Last I heard he was at Calvin Seminary…too bad about that move…but then I was not asked).
But back to this interesting discussion… the issue often gets bogged down in what is an “infant”. I have found that when most people speak of “infant” they are talking about anyone below the age of 12 or 13 when it comes to ones ability to comprehend the doctrines of God. If that is the case, as I often posit, then most of the people in our pews are infants. Why do I say that? Well, it seems that God looks at us that way. He repeats Himself often…and I do mean often…just like I have to do with my younger children. Then He commands alot…very few suggestions…this, of course, is how a parent often has to get little children’s attention. He reminds us not to fear and that we are not alone… little children need to know this a lot…along with all the comforting He does because, well… we need it..oh excuse me… little children need it. Then there are the phrases that speak to us about having the faith of a “child” in order to see the kingdom of heaven. Is He speaking of age? If so, then the Bible would have been written to children. Oh wait, it is…us!
Don’t get me wrong. The theological arguements that have been made and will be made are helpful and necessary so that we don’t lose sight of God’s Word but at the same time we also need to know that very often children are better proclaimers of God’s Word than many adults both in word and action. So the work of the elder is not a difficult one. If the parents tell the elder that they believe the child is ready since they have been asking why they can’t particiapte and the elders have correctly been elders that is knowing two things well… the Roll book and God’s Book …then admitting young children to the table is a no brainer.
For me this issue of who should be allowed breaks down to the work of the elder when it comes to permitting little children and that work is…shepherding well…and these question simply go a way.
Thanks for a wonderful discussion on this issue. It continues to help me sharpen the blade God has given to me as a pastor of His flock.
RBerman said,
March 20, 2008 at 5:35 pm
ISTM that this discussion could use nuance in the term “faith.” Infants are not capable of understanding propositions like “Christ bore God’s wrath over the sins of his children, ensuring them eternal life.” Infants can’t have faith in that statement. But infants have faith. Many nine month olds will be quite happy in their mothers’ arms, but when handed to a stranger begin to bawl nonstop. Why? Because they trust their mothers, and they don’t trust the stranger. As soon as a child is old enough to cognitively distinguish “mom” from “not mom,” evidences of faith (or lack thereof) begin to pop up.
WCF XIV “On Saving Faith” seems to distinguish between “faith” and “acts of faith.” The former is the disposition toward the latter, which I would claim is limited by cognition. In these terms, an infant might have faith as a spiritual disposition of trust toward God in the absence of understanding about specific truth claims like the one I mentioned above.
This seems to jibe with XIV.2, which starts, “By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word…” We have faith. And because we have faith, we believe particular truth-claims.
Xon said,
March 20, 2008 at 6:03 pm
David G. I thank you for the reading suggestion (seriously), but I already own and have read Boettner’s Predestination. I remain unconvinced.
I myself sympathize with the view that covenantal infants are all elect, and that those outside the covenant are simply a mystery. There is no grounds to presume one way or the other.
As for Romans 10, I don’t make an exception there at all. Infants within the covenant do hear the Word. (Also, Jeff Cagle highlights the possibility here: God might reveal Himself–His Word–to some people in a different way outside the ordinary ministry of the Church. These folks are able (by the Spirit) to respond to that extraordinary revelation.) You can be saved outside the church, but not outside of Christ. But Christ is found through faith.
I believe that infants have faith, in the form that they are able to have it. I don’t insist on an intellectualized notion of notitia as a sine qua non of saving faith. Notitia, certainly, presupposes the ability to apprehend with the intellect. I just don’t think that notitia is a necessary requirement of saving faith. I don’t think faith is necessarily intellectual in nature. It is necessarily intellectual when the person matures to the point that their intellect is “activated”. Once a person attains intellectual ability, it is impossible to “trust” without intellectual apprehension. But the proper meaning of “faith” (trust) allows for those who have not yet attained (or who have lost through age or injury) intellectual apprehension to have faith). In other words, I don’t make an exception to sola fide, I make an exception to the historical Reformed definition of “faith”: it need no include notitia. But that’s just a historical theological definition, and of course the vast majority of people are capable of notitia so it’s a perfectly good definition in those situations. That’s my view, fwiw.
Sure, your position has a Reformed pedigree. I was questioning its truth. Your position seems to involve us in several unnecessary difficulties (with other more central doctrines of Reformed theology, like sola fide). I could be wrong about that, but my claim is not that your position is novel.
That said, the biggest logical difficulty I am having with your position, and the one that strikes directly at the issue of paedocommunion, is that by laying down a principle that requirements of faith only apply to those who are capalbe of having it, you seem to open the door to paedocommunion. Or, at least, you close the door to ruling paedocom out on the basis of I Cor 11. Since infants are not capable of “examining themselves,” then clearly that requirement is not intended for them. Thus, they can partake.
Jeff Cagle said,
March 20, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Since infants are not capable of “examining themselves,” then clearly that requirement is not intended for them. Thus, they can partake.
I think this relies on Kant’s error that “ought implies can.” You wouldn’t accept an argument in the form
(1) All are required to have faith in order to be saved,
(2) Those who have never heard the gospel can’t possibly believe, so
(3) They can be saved without having the word preached.
OR
(2) All who are dead in their sins can’t possibly believe, so
(3) The requirement of faith isn’t intended for them.
Right?
Jeff
Xon said,
March 20, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Jeff C. this is where your position comes in, it seems to me. Your opposition to paedocom is grounded differently than David G’s, therefore you are more than welcome to take exception to my argument that was directed at his version of the argument.
Thus, the #2 that you don’t find sound is directed against David G’s claim that, if you are incapable of fulfilling a condition (like faith), then you may attain the end (salvation) without the condition. Even though the condition is presented in Scripture as necessary, its necessity is meant to be restricted to those who are capable of fuliflling it. On this basis, I don’t see how infants are not simply “excused” from needing to self-examine before they partake.
But it is David G who argues this way, and who I am responding to in that way. Your argument is just the opposite of David G: you are saying that “self examination” is required even of those who cannot do it, and so those who canont do it cannot partake of communion. You clearly say that self examinatiion operates on a different principle than faith. It is possible for an infant to have faith, you say (and I agree, but David G disagrees), but not to self-examine (and we all agree on that).
My response to your position, Jeff, is just on the exegesis of 1 Cor. 11. I’ve seen you run knowledgably through this discussion elsewhere, so our conversation would take time from both of us. I think the examiniation is to see that you discern the unity of the body of Christ, thus the failure is a failure to discern that unity. Infants do not fail to discern that unity: they act with unity as is appropriate for their age. You would say, as I recall, that the self-examination is two fold: it requires discerning the unity of the body of Christ (which infants can do…or better put, which infants cannot be shown to fail to do), AND it requires discerning that you yourself are among that body (which infants cannot do). Thus, you support barring infants from communion. I have this more or less correct?
My response here is threefold:
1. I simply disagree that a requirement to know that you are “in” the body of Christ is required in any way that an infant doesn’t already “know”.
2. I think Paul’s principle is intending to call out those who actively violate a principle, rather than those who simply cannot be known to fulfill it.
3. Even if Paul were saying what you say he is saying, he actually never says that you shouldn’t partake if you don’t self-examine. What he says is “Let each person examine himself,” and he warns against what happens if you ignore this requirement (by taking “unworthily”). But those two things do not logically require that IF you have not self-examined, you ought not to partake.
(Christopher Meredith has the argument on this. I’m just plagiarizing him. See http://www.monopedilos.com/mediagallery/media.php?f=0&sort=0&s=2008012806135250)
In short: let anyone who goes to work in the field wear sunscreen. Indeed, many of you have not been wearing sunscreen, which is why you’ve been getting burned.
“Sir, I forgot to put on sunscreen this morning.”
“Bummer.”
“So I don’t have to work today, right?”
“Why would you think that?”
“B/c you said that anyone who doesn’t wear sunscreen can’t work in the field.”
“Actually, I said no such thing.”
Perhaps it is wrong to refuse to commune with the brethren. And, it is also wrong to commune while failing to discern the unity we have in Christ. So, the answer is not to not partake if you aren’t properly discerning. The answer is to make sure you get your act together before you partake. You shouldn’t skip partaking; you should make sure you partake worthily.
And so there is no basis here to withhold communion from anyone.
Jeff Cagle said,
March 20, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Xon (#22):
You would say, as I recall, that the self-examination is two fold: it requires discerning the unity of the body of Christ (which infants can do…or better put, which infants cannot be shown to fail to do), AND it requires discerning that you yourself are among that body (which infants cannot do). Thus, you support barring infants from communion. I have this more or less correct?
Yes, you do. Let’s add a couple of features to make the picture complete:
(1) I presume that infants cannot partake by faith. I strongly suspect that infants, and even up to about 3- or 4-year olds would be entirely unable to understand anything but the element itself (”Bread! Yummy!”). Since I see the sacraments as an extension of the preaching of the Word (per Calvin), I see *understanding* the sacrament as an important element in receiving grace from it.
Thus, whether we read 1 Cor 11 as “discerning the unity of the body” or “seeing the sacrifice of Christ in the elements”, infants can do neither, IMO.
Again, I see room for wide latitude here; clearly, one does not need to understand the full doctrine of communion to receive its benefits. But some understanding is required, it seems.
So if I believe that infants can have infantile saving faith, then why not infantile sacramental faith also? Because in the first case, we have Scriptural precedent for believing that infants can be saved; in the second case, we have no Scriptural warrant for believing that infants are imbibing the worship service and supernaturally receiving understanding of it.
So partial basis: likely, no benefit received.
(2) I don’t see any harm done by excluding infants from communion. Unlike, say, a ten-year-old who has experienced ten years of being excluded and who might conclude naturally that he is an outsider to the fellowship of the church, an infant will perceive zero sense of not belonging to the body.
(In the case of our church, it’s a moot point for infants — children up to age 6 are in children’s church for the second half of the service, including communion.)
(3) In the absence of definite guidance from the Scriptures, I see the polity of communion as a legitimate gray area. As long as our polity remains with the bounds of requiring worthy partaking and appropriate self-examination, then we have IMO a certain freedom to pursue the path of wisdom. The BCO allows this, BTW:
My responses to your response:
1. My contention is that communion has to be received by faith in order to be worthily received.
2. I agree that Paul is criticizing those who are actually transgressing; however, I see him as setting up a necessary condition, a procedure if you will, so that those who partake might first check that they are partaking correctly.
3. Your analogy works only if the consequence of forgetting (sunburn) is less severe than the consequence of not participating (working). I guarantee that if the worker showed up to load liquid nitrogen without his gloves, he would be sent home to fetch them.
So now the argument would be whether eating communion without self-examination falls in the first category of sunburn or the second of losing digits to frostbite.
And I would argue that in the case of infants, little harm is done by treating it as the second.
Fair?
Jeff
Xon said,
March 21, 2008 at 3:39 am
Only a snarky response for now, Jeff C.: (can’t resist)
Ugh. Methinks this is less “moot” than you realize. Taking kids for the first 6 years and shuffling them all away from the rest of the covenant community worshipping God so they can go have cookies and juice and look at a flannel Jesus on a velcro board? (Sorry…my own youth church experience is coming out.
) I agree; not being given communion is the least of their problems.
Ideally, the chilluns will be encouraged to be a part of worship with the older folks, including communion. Sending them away for a large portion of the service doesn’t make non paedo-com “better,” but ‘worse.” Just my oh so humble and gentle opinion, though.
Jeff Cagle said,
March 21, 2008 at 8:59 am
Ours is more deliberate. They join us for the first half of the service and then depart right before the sermon. All in all, it’s aimed at developmentally appropriate teaching.
JRC
Two-Tiered Membership « Green Baggins said,
March 21, 2008 at 10:23 am
[...] 21, 2008 at 10:23 am (Federal Vision) Wilson has responded to my post. I don’t feel the need for an extended discussion at this point. I only wish to point out a [...]
Xon said,
March 21, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I understand the rationale folks having for generational segregation, Jeff, and I’m not saying it’s some high-handed sin. But I still think it is a mistake, and (to someone whose mind already grooves in the way that mine does) appealling to such segregation as a mitigating factor for paedo-communion–i.e., it’s no big deal anyway b/c the kiddies aren’t there–is not a comforting response. That’s all. Not the sort of magnifcently incisive comment to which you have become accustomed from me, I realize.
Just snarky, like I said.
greenbaggins said,
March 21, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Jeff, good post (23).
Xon said,
March 21, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Jeff, some more interaction…
If infants have faith, and if their faith is anything like adult faith, then it must be something through which they act. True faith is living, not dead, as we all agree. So infants must live “by faith,” if they have faith. But what do infants do? Well, they do things like suckle at their mother’s breast, cry for help when they are scared, lonely, or in pain, and–of course–they go where their family goes. Thus, they do all of these things “by faith,” if they have faith. Don’t they? Or is their faith simply a dormant principle within them, in which case how is it faith at all?
Infant faith, therefore, means that infants trust in God in the only way they can, by responding in faith to His presence in their lives. This is no different from adult faith, really (and, in fact, adult faith should be modeled on child faith, not the other way around…though there is room to distinguish “child” from “infant”, certainly). For an adult to have faith is for them to trust in the love and protection of God, who is personally present for them. But how is God present to His people, adult or child? He is present, almost always, through means. God promises to be there when two or more gather together in His name. He has promised to be present in the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, etc. This is just as true for adults as it is for children: we only “see” God (by faith) through the means He has provided. For infants and little children, these means include the loving parents God has given them, who protect and nurture them in a way analogous to the care we receive from God. They also include the Church to which a child is brought by his parents from his earliest days, and the corporate worship of God’s people through Word and sacrament. The infant participates in all of these things, as an infant. If you grant that infants have faith of some kind, then it seems to me that you have to grant this. You cannot siphon off their “faith” into a separate category from participation in the life of the Church. But if they participate, they do so by faith. And so infants do discern the unity of the body, in just the way that infants are capable of doing that. After all, the infant particpates in the life of the church, and does not seek to divide the church along arbitrary criteria, which is the sin of failing to discern the unity of the body that Paul is so hacked off about in 1 Corinthians. If this sounds absurd, me giving infants “credit” for not dividing the church, I don’t see how it is any less odd than demanding that they demonstrate some positive propositional awareness of that unity. Either they should be removed from consideration altogether as far as this command is concerned (i.e., it doesn’t apply to them b/c they are not developmentally the kind of people the command is referring to), or they should be presumed to have that which is sufficient unless they somehow “prove” otherwise. This is just good Christian charity. We would never bar an adult believer simply out of some “suspicion” that he doesn’t really discern the body. We trust folks to consider it for themselves, and if they think they are partaking worthily, then we don’t second-guess that. But all of a sudden with infants a lack of proof is proof of a lack.
What kind of understanding, though? You said yourself that infants have faith. So infants are capable upon giving themselves over to God’s plan, in whatever way it is that infants do that. All of a sudden it looks like you’ve shifted faith back into something that only adults can have, because it requires “understanding” (and you seem to be reading understanding as propositional apprehension).
Well, first I would disagree wiht your claim that there is no Scriptural warrant for believing that infants are imbibing the worship service. Again, do they have faith or not? What does faith ‘do” when it is in the presence of God? Why are young children to be included in biblical worship (Old and New Testament) at all? Scripture makes it plain that they are included in the covenant life of the community, including worship and the sacramental practices, so how do we ask for more? There seems to be a principle governing the way we are reading the Scriptures here; it isn’t a simple matter of “show me the Scriptures that justify paedo-communion, please.” To me, it seems that the Scriptures cry out for it every time they include children in the community.
Perhaps worrying about “understanding” is what is mucking this up: but that all depends on your definition of “understanding.” If “understanding” means notitia, propositional apprehension, then certainly infants have no understanding. But, infants do have faith, and so notitia must not be an absolute sine qua non of faith. Thus, infants have faith sufficient for salvation, and we are back again to asking why they need to have something MORE in order to receive the sacrament that symbolized the unity of all saved people? The unity of all saved people, yet if you don’t have propositional knowledge of that unity then you don’t get to be involved in the unified activity? It don’t compute, man!
Where does this distinction between “sacramental” and “saving” faith come from? Saving faith means trusting upon God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. That includes trusting Him when He says “Here is a way in which I am specially present for you.” How can you have “saving” faith without having “sacramental” faith? Sacramental faith is just saving faith placed in a sacrament.
Or are you distinguishing differently? Perhaps (this seems more likely, now that I think about it) you just mean “faith sufficient for salvation” and “faith sufficient for partaking in the sacrament.” But again, where does the notion arise that these are different? If you have faith sufficient for salvation, and if the sacrament is a means of God’s favor that is given to symbolize the unity all people who have saving faith have in one another, then I just don’t see how it can even occur to us to think that you can have faith sufficient for the former (salvation) but not sufficient for the latter (the sacrament of unity between the saved)
Sure. But some of us are in Reformed denominations where paedo-communion is allowed. I appreciate your more open-minded allowance for ‘low bar’ credo-communion within the PCA, though. That’s better than nothing.
And you say that infants have faith. Yet somehow if they take communion they will not be doint that particular act by faith. This is what I don’t understand. What are they doing it by, if not by faith? Is it a “work of their flesh”? How do you know that? Saying infants are capable of turning communion into a work is just as odd as saying that they apprehend the full meaning of the rite as a symbol of unity. So, again, there is no reason to presume that they are not acting in faith when they partake.
Yours is the most reasonable credo-communion position (in my opinion) that I’ve encountered, but I still don’t think it is “fair” to presume of infants that for them (even though they have saving faith!) to partake of the sacrament that symbolizes the unity of the saved would be like handling liquid nitrogen without gloves. What? God zaps little ones who trust in Him because they dare to participate in the united life of His covenant community? It doesn’t make sense, on its face. How is an effort to pariticpate in the life of the unity a “failure to discern” that unity? It is those who try to divide the Church up that are failing to properly paritcipate in the unity of the Church, isn’t it? Infants do not divide the Church in this way, and so there is nothing to be skeptical about in their participation in the Church’s unity.
Xon said,
March 21, 2008 at 1:43 pm
There’s a bad sentence up there: “Sacramental faith is just saving faith placed in a sacrament.”
That should be something more like this: “Sacramental faith is just saving faith exercised when God is present through the sacrament.”
Jeff Cagle said,
March 21, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Well, you’ve certainly given me some things to chew on. I’ll clarify a couple of points and then sign off. You’ve got a thesis; I’ve got an 8′x17′ plot to level for a playset.
(1) Or are you distinguishing differently? Perhaps (this seems more likely, now that I think about it) you just mean “faith sufficient for salvation” and “faith sufficient for partaking in the sacrament.” But again, where does the notion arise that these are different?
Yes, exactly. In my view, faith sufficient for salvation to an infant would be granted as a kind of extraordinary revelation to that infant (cf. JtB in the womb) that would come immediately without the need for the preached word.
By contrast, the sacraments function mediately, as a physical sermon. If one cannot understand the meaning of the sermon, then it is of no value.
By analogy, one might consider the necessity of tongues in the early church so that the sermons could be understood.
Thus, notitia is required to receive benefit from communion — unless, of course, God grants extraordinary revelation to the infant every time he or she partakes. Could be. But I would want to see an argument stronger than “God can do it.”
And you say that infants have faith. Yet somehow if they take communion they will not be doint that particular act by faith. This is what I don’t understand. What are they doing it by, if not by faith? Is it a “work of their flesh”?
and
…but I still don’t think it is “fair” to presume of infants that for them (even though they have saving faith!) to partake of the sacrament that symbolizes the unity of the saved would be like handling liquid nitrogen without gloves. What? God zaps little ones who trust in Him because they dare to participate in the united life of His covenant community?
I’m not sure that it would be either an act of faith or a work of the flesh. Or perhaps, it could be one for some and the other for the rest. We seem to have a slightly different take on how many infants have saving faith. I would say “some, and I don’t know how many”; you appear to say “all.”
So the concern would not be for the saved infants, but for the yet-to-be-saved infants.
But I agree that we don’t see a lot of evidence of God judging infants. I would rank my point #2 above (possibility of judgment) as a lesser point than #1 (likely no benefit).
(3) I know it was just a snark. But I’ll take a moment to say that my view on children’s church has changed. When the discussion started in our church, I was in the “I went to church from day 1 and it was good for me” camp.
But the program we have turns out to be a win-win-win-win:
* The children participate in every aspect of the adult service up to the sermon, but then are able to receive a message they can understand (an extension of the “translation of tongues” principle, I suppose).
* The parents of the children are given a respite in which to hear the sermon. My two are chief offenders in the “distracting the parents” category.
* The junior high and high school students rotate in as helpers and thereby are able to serve the body AND get a small sense of the work of ministry.
* A 3-year-old really has an attention span of about 10 minutes or so. A change of venue after half-an-hour is a kindness to them.
It’s not perfect, but I just wanted to make a case that there is more than one right way to fully include children in the life of the church.
Grace and peace,
Jeff
lemonwaffle said,
March 22, 2008 at 12:41 pm
By the time I get around to reading, thinking, and responding, the conversation has already moved on. We should all blog by postal mail.
>sigh<
Jeff Cagle said,
March 22, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Feel free to go back to an earlier point if you like!
Regards,
Jeff Cagle