Green Baggins

All of our previous posts can in one sense be said to be a preface to this post. It should be fairly obvious that the ultimate question cannot be settled without a detailed examination of 1 Corinthians 11. There can be no serious doubt that it is the single most important text in the debate. Venema devotes an entire chapter to this passage, and I would highly recommend his careful treatment not only of the passage, but also of the various views that have striven for supremacy in the interpretation of it. I would sincerely hope that all PC advocates would find their position fairly treated. Venema’s treatment of the PC exegeses of the passage certainly jibes with my own reading of PC positions on the passage.

We will start with some more contextual concerns. We can start with this question: what is the situation which Paul is addressing? PC readings have concluded that the situation is one of factionalism, ungodly pride, and humiliation of the poorer members of the congregation by those who are richer. Thus the Supper was becoming a means of denying the unity of the body, which is inherently opposed to the nature of the Sacrament itself. So, if the Supper is supposed to show unity, that happens when everyone participates, with no one excluded. Thus, if children are excluded, that would defeat the very purpose of the Sacrament, which is to show unity in the body. PC advocates point to 1 Cor. 10:16-17 in particular to show that this is the case. Now, certainly we can say that the unity of the body of Christ is of paramount importance all throughout the letter of 1 Corinthians. Paul says it in very many different ways, ranging from the outright condemnation of factions (chapters 1,3), the condemnation of sin in the body for the good of the church (chapter 5), the avoidance of legal disputes (chapter 6), an encouragement to view Paul’s ministry as true apostleship (chapter 9), and the example of OT Israel (chapter 10), the Lord’s Supper (11), spiritual gifts as exemplifying unity in diversity, and especially the metaphor of the body (11), and the discussion of love (13). One can say that the unity of the body is perhaps the main thread that holds all of 1 Corinthians together. However, that fact does not preclude the discussion of who may participate in the Lord’s Supper, nor does unity in the church body as a whole exert some kind of particular pull one way or the other on the participation of the Lord’s Supper. And that is true for this one simple reason: credo-communion advocates do not agree that exclusion of infants from the Supper shows disunity in the body of Christ. This is especially true if the entire church agrees that this is how they should participate in the Lord’s Supper. Unity is more than possible even if not everyone participates in the Lord’s Supper.

The second contextual issue is the beginning of chapter 10, which Venema does not treat. If all participated in baptism into Moses, and all ate of the Spiritual Rock that followed them, which was Christ (no matter what their age), then does this not give prima facie evidence that fundamental continuity should exist between the wilderness wanderings of the people of Israel and the Lord’s Supper? This passage, by the way, is a very difficult passage for credobaptists, since it is a clear instance of “baptizo” being used in the New Testament of infants. Is it true then, that credo-communionists are being inconsistent in their reading of this passage? I would argue that it is not the case. For one thing, as Venema says of another passage, but it could also apply to the first part of 1 Cor 10, “I object to the use of the context to override the clear particulars of the passage.” With regard to baptism, there is no 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 in the New Testament. So, the participation in baptism has continuity with regard to infants in 1 Corinthians 10. And with regard to adult participation of the Lord’s Supper, there is also continuity between 1 Corinthians 10 and 1 Corinthians 11. However, the way in which participation is required in 1 Corinthians 11 means that 1 Corinthians 10 does not tell us that infants have to partake. This will need to be argued more fully below.

And now, to the passage itself. Let us ask a series of exegetical questions which will focus our discussion. First of all, what is the nature of the remembrance in verses 24-25? Should it be translated as an objective memorial, as some PC advocates suggest? Or should it refer to subjective remembering? Advocates of the former reading point to Noah and the rainbow, where God is said to be the one doing the remembering. However, the background connection between Noah and the Lord’s Supper seems to me to be questionable at best. There is a much nearer antecedent of the word “remembering” for our purposes, and one much more likely to be in the background here. It is not the same root, although it is related. But in Exodus 12:24, the memorial nature of the Passover fairly clearly points to human remembering of God, not God remembering of His own acts. The emphasis is on how the people will observe this day, how they will be reminded of God’s activity. The word ἀνάμνησιν can mean either a human remembering, or God remembering, but in the context of Exodus 12, it would seem to me much more likely that humans are doing the remembering. This does not solve the question of who should participate. That much is evident, because in Exodus, the context is that of the first Passover, in which all Israel participated, or at the least, a good case can be made for it. However, the appeal to Noah seems to me quite far-fetched. It certainly does NOT prove that all instance of the word mean a memorial to make God remember, a position some PC advocates seem to put forward. Since the instances listed in BDAG include both meanings, it would seem to me that context must decide. For me, the decisive factor in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 is verse 26, which fairly clearly indicates that the activity in view of proclamation is done by the participants. The “for” at the beginning of verse 26 indicates that verse 26 is an explanation of the remembering in verses 24-25.

The next question is really the most crucial question, and perhaps the best insight in the entirety of Venema’s book: the switch to a generalizing “whoever,” “a man,” and “he” in verses 27-29, which indicate that Paul is now talking about how anyone can participate worthily in the Lord’s Supper. In other words, the focus has shifted from the particular abuses which gave rise to the discussion about the Lord’s Supper. No longer is that paramount in the passage. Instead, Paul moves from that concern to a discussion about how anyone participates correctly in the Lord’s Supper. See Venema, pg. 117. He puts it this way: “Though the apostle began his treatment of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 with a description of the inappropriate behavior of some members of the Corinthian church, he now moves to a series of general instructions that apply to all members of the covenant community.” In my mind, this is the most devastating argument against the PC position. The exegetical evidence which Venema adduces seems to me conclusive on this point. I have not seen any PC advocate deal with this argument. Instead, they run roughshod over the passage, arguing from the context and ignoring the particulars of this shift that happens at the beginning of verse 27.

Doug and I are showing some signs that there is some ground at least, on which we can meet. I had to laugh at his dragging in Sarah Palin to the discussion (see, I can do it, too!). His waiting for me reminds me of the definition of infinity I came across a while back: two Midwesterners, one going north, and one going east, meeting at an intersection.

We agree that the Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of various feasts and rituals, not just Passover. Venema agrees with that as well. What conclusions we draw from that may go out like two different tangents from a circle, but we do agree there.

We also agree that we should not presume a child to be unregenerated. I never presume that. However, I do not presume the other way, either. How many in the church have shown themselves to be unregenerated? Maybe even more than half, if you include all denominations of the visible church. The question is this: how should we treat children? Do borrow Doug’s own language in the Strawbridge book on infant baptism, we do not regard our new infant as the newly arrived Amalekite sitting at the table (a phrase I have always liked). Nevertheless, we still have to stress repentance and faith for each person. What is required for being present at the Lord’s Table?

Is representation part of the Lord’s Supper? Could we go that route? I am of two minds. I have never considered this particular question before. On the one hand, it feels right. Federal headship is absolutely the way to go on quite a few things, and this would fit right in with that. On the other hand, the requirements for participation in 1 Corinthians 11 seem to me to be addressed to all who would participate. We can say that small children can participate by watching and learning. But of course, that isn’t the same as actually eating and drinking. Is it true, then, that the only way of considering non-participating children as not excommunicated is by seeing them as represented by federal participation? I am not so sure about this. The federal principle is very strong indeed when it comes to baptism. Indeed, covenantal continuation and federal headship are the linchpins of the argument for baptizing children, and in so doing, we reckon them as part of the visible church. Is this not sufficient all by itself for saying that children are not excommunicated? Why would participation in the Lord’s Supper, whether actual or representative, be needed over and above baptism to say that they are part of the visible church? Besides, I thought excommunication was related only to sins that force the church to expel said member. This could not happen (or at least, it is extremely rare if not non-existent) or be said to happen about children. I think I understand the concern here: the concern is to make children feel included in church. This is entirely laudable. We don’t want them to feel excluded. But we can still say something like this: “Here is something special to which you can look forward,” just as we might say that about driver’s licenses, or voting, or drinking.

As to unbelievers partaking, the confessional position has always been that unbeliever do not partake of the thing signified in the Supper, since faith is necessary for proper partaking of the Supper. Is this Doug’s position? There are certain signs that say no, but it would be nice to clarify.

Just to know where we are currently, this post and this post have not yet received a response from Doug.

What we are going to do in this post is a bit of intertextuality. This practice, by the way, can be defined as seeing what echoes of the Old Testament are in a particular New Testament passage, although it is not limited to this. For there are echoes of the OT in other OT passages as well, and the same for the NT. But the main issue in scholarship these days concerning this facet is the New Testament’s use of the Old. The passage we want to examine is Matthew 26:28.

τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

In translation (as literal as possible): For this is my blood of the testament (or covenant), which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Quite simply put, the question is this: what is the Old Testament background for this statement? Is it the Passover, or something else? I would argue, with Venema that it is something else (see Venema, page 87). The particular echo is that of Exodus 24:8, which reads this way in Hebrew:

וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת־הַדָּם וַיִּזְרֹק עַל־הָעָם וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה דַם־הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר

כָּרַת יְהוָה עִמָּכֶם עַל כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה׃

This way in Greek: λαβὼν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸ αἷμα κατεσκέδασε τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ εἶπεν· ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς διέθετο Κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων τῶν λόγων τούτων.

Translation (of the Hebrew): And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, “Look, the blood of the covenant which the Lord cut with you, according to all these words.”

A couple of points to notice here: 1. the phrase “the blood of the covenant” is the important linking phrase. 2. The phrase is fairly rare, occurring in the Old Testament in only one other place, which is Zechariah 9:11. Interestingly, in Zechariah 9, the phrase comes just after the prophecy concerning the king coming to Zion lowly and riding on a donkey. We can say, therefore, that the phrase definitely points us to Christ. 3. In the New Testament, the majority of occurrences are in the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24, Lk 22:20, 1 Co 11:25). However, there are a few occurrences of the phrase in Hebrews (9:20, 10:29, and of course in 13:20). They are certainly all connected to Jesus’ sacrifice. That is the way it is used in all Scripture, which gives us additional confidence that Exodus 24 points us the same way. Notice the one key difference, however, in our passage in Matthew. Jesus inserts a key word: “my.” It is HIS blood that is now the blood of the covenant. That is because He is the perfect lamb sacrificed.

So, from this evidence, we can say that Jesus is the new Moses, offering the new blood of the new covenant, which sprinkles those in the new covenant unto salvation. Now, the point of this is not that only the leaders of the church should participate. Remember, a direct appeal to the Old Testament should not be definitive for New Testament practice (see Venema, p. 60). Rather, we see here that this evidence makes the appeal ambiguous. No one denies that the Passover is one of the precedents for the Lord’s Supper. However, Exodus 24 seems to me to be just as clear a precedent, especially given the extremely similar wording. Those who participated in this covenant renewal ceremony were representatives of the community. We can therefore phrase the question this way: in terms of Old Testament precedent for who belongs in the participation of the Lord’s Supper, which has greater weight, the Passover (which evidence is already ambiguous, see previous posts), or the covenant renewal ceremony? We are NOT arguing that the Lord’s Supper should be limited to the leadership of the church. Rather, all we seek to demonstrate is that the supposedly direct line from Passover to Lord’s Supper is not a direct line, and has other parallel lines intersecting with it, and muddying up the footprints, as it were. All that is needed with regard to the Old Testament evidence is to point out that it is ambiguous, and does not prove what PC advocates claim it does. Of course, the real debate begins and ends with 1 Corinthians, to which we shall turn in the next few posts.

The 3FU are not as specific about the requirements for entrance to the Lord’s Table, and so there will not be quite as many places at which the PC advocate would have to take exception. However, there are still quite a few places.

HC Q. 75: the Lord’s Supper reminds and assures us of something. It is difficult to see of what it would remind and assure an infant. The theology of the question quite closely connects the physical eating and drinking with spiritual eating and drinking, but faith is necessary (“me and all believers”). The consistory has the responsibility to fence the table from unbelievers. The only way they can do that is by profession of faith.

HC Q. 76: again, faith is the focus here: “accept with a believing heart…by believing…united more and more.” Even more directly, this question focuses on the active participation of acceptance.

HC Q. 79: the words “visible sign and pledge” imply that the recipient knows what the visible sign and pledge mean and also that to which they point. The words “in his remembrance” are not crystal clear as to whether the remembrance is active or passive. However, when one looks briefly as Ursinus’s commentary on the question, there is no ambiguity. In fact, he spells out the active requirements of the Lord’s Supper in response to this question.

HC Q. 81: There is no way that a consistory can know whether anyone fulfills these requirements (three verbs here of being displeased, trusting, and desiring) in infancy. The nature of the sacrament is not that it gives benefit whether a person knows it or not (this would be a Romanist position). The benefit is in the active participation. Of course, infants are not in the same category as the unrepentant.

BC article 35: there are several things in this article that point to requirements beyond what an infant can perform. In the first paragraph, we have the words “nourish and sustain.” In the context of an article that continually harps on the mouth of faith, no nourishment happens without cognitive understanding. The article explicitly ties the Lord’s Supper to the second birth, not just the first birth. Even more important is the actual language of reception: “received spiritually by faith.” It is received in no other way. When one remembers that faith includes notitia, then it becomes impossible for an infant to have the maturity necessary to understand what is happening and thus receive the benefit. The article goes on to say that faith is the hand and mouth of our souls. To tie it even more closely to the matter at hand, it goes on to say that “the manner in which we eat it is not by the mouth but by the Spirit, through faith.” Infants, while capable of a seed faith, are not capable of understanding enough to discern the difference between eating by the mouth and eating by faith. To them it is just another piece of bread, and just another drink of wine or grape juice. Furthermore, the article says that the Lord’s Supper “nourishes, strengthens, and comforts” our souls. It is difficult to see how that would apply to an infant. The two paragraphs beginning with “moreover” and “finally” (I am using the CRC translation, by the way) detail the fact that not all receive the Sacrament and the thing signified. The wicked person does not receive the thing signified. The infant is not in the same category as to the reason why he does not receive the thing signified, but it is obvious that not all receive the thing signified. The paragraph beginning with “Finally” details quite a number of things that are supposed to happen when we receive the Sacrament. They are: 1. humility and reverence; 2. thanksgiving; 3. holy remembrance; 4. confess our faith; 5. examining oneself; 6. moved to a fervent love of God and neighbor. All of these things are necessary for the right administration of the Sacrament. Therefore infants are not to participate.

Some friends have asked me what places in the Westminster Standards I feel are necessary for PC advocates to take an exception to. It is quite a long list, actually, because it is not merely the age of the participant that is important, but also how the people have to partake of the Lord’s Supper. So, here are the places I feel it is necessary for a PC advocate to take an exception (although almost none of them take an exception to these places).

WCF 27.3 tells us that the grace is not conferred by any power in the sacrament itself (even rightly used!). Rather, it depends on the work of the Spirit that brings with it the promise of benefit to worthy receivers. The definition of worthy receivers is plain elsewhere in the standards.

WCF 29.7 also says “worthy receivers.” Worthy receivers cannot be ignorant or in flagrant sin, according to other parts of the WS. In the same section, it also says “(Christ as) really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance.” This implies that He is not present to those who have no faith. Now, I think it is possible for an infant to have a seed faith and be regenerated from the womb. But I do not think we can assume that. The PC position argues that Christ is present even to the ignorant.

WCF 29.8 says that ignorant and wicked men do NOT receive the thing signified. Paedo-communion requires the exact opposite with regard to the ignorant, because infants are presumably ignorant of what the Sacrament means. In the same section, it also says that all ignorant persons are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, and they are not to be admitted to the Table.

WLC 168: basically, this entire question and almost every part of it is set against the PC position. 1. Again, the language of “worthily communicate” rules out infants here. 2. “have their union and communion with him confirmed” means that their union and communion have to have at least some visible signs exhibited previously to their participation, or else the elders cannot fence the table. 3. “testify and renew their thankfulness” implies an active thanksgiving, impossible for an infant. 4. “mutual love and fellowship” also has to do with an active (in the context everything is active, not passive) expression, not an ignorant expression of love.

WLC 169: the confession obviously interprets 1 Corinthians 11:24 in an active remembering sense when it says “in thankful remembrance.” This cuts quite against the normal PC interpretation of the passage which says that the Supper itself is a memorial, and there is no need of active remembrance for infants. Given the context of the fact that it is given “to the communicants” (therefore to all of them), it seems to me more than reasonable that this is what it means for all the congregation who participate, and this is how all are to participate.

WLC 170: This question states that the body and blood of Christ are “spiritually present to the faith of the receiver.” Given also the key phrase “worthily participate” again in this question and answer, it is apparent that the body and blood of Christ are not present to those with no faith. Again, I do not deny the possibility of some kind of seed faith (although I certainly do not presume regeneration), a more mature faith is definitely in view here. Also in this question it says “while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.” Can one really receive all these benefits without knowing that they are receiving them?

WLC 171: This entire question has to be ditched by the PC advocate, since absolutely none of this kind of preparation is possible for an infant. There are about 13 distinct acts required in this question, none of which an infant has the ability to perform. The question itself is worded in such a way “they that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper” to exclude the interpretation that says that only adults have to do this. No, it is all who receive the Lord’s Supper that have to do these actions.

WLC 173: Again, this passage tells us that the ignorant are to be kept from the sacrament. It is important to note that ignorance is quite a separate category from “scandalous.” I say this because many PC advocates argue that it is a hendiadys: “ignorant scandalousness.” But a hendiadys is usually connected by the word “and,” not the word “or.” Therefore, it is unlikely that that is the case here.

WLC 174: This entire question has to be ditched by the advocates of PC as well. I count 15 distinct actions (again required of ALL those who participate), none of which an infant is able to perform.

WLC 175: Same as 174, with 12 distinct actions required of the participant afterwards, none of which can be performed by an infant.

WLC 177: Now at last we finally get the one place where most PC advocates actually do take an exception, and this is certainly the most obvious place they have to take an exception. “only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves” certainly rules out the PC position.

WSC 91: this plainly says that the sacraments are only of benefit to those who by faith receive them. Otherwise, they are judgment. This is true both of baptism and of the Lord’s Supper.

WSC 96-97: again we have the “worthy participation” language. See the WLC questions above for more detailed argumentation. I believe that all these places are against paedo-communion, because it details exactly how ALL participants are to behave and what they are to do so that they will be participating worthily. In short, it is not just the age of the participants to the Lord’s Supper that is at issue. It is also how the Supper is to be taken. In fact, this issue is almost more fundamental, because it actually gets at the very substance of the sacrament itself.

I only want to add one more comment here about ordination of PC advocates, and trust me when I say that I mean no offense to my Baptist brethren here. In the PCA, since we have a different administration of baptism than the Baptists do, it is right and fitting that a Baptist minister should not be ordained in the PCA (or OPC, or any other denomination that practices paedobaptism). This is also true vice versa. Paedobaptists should not be ordained in a Baptist denomination. This is because our honest differences about the Sacrament of baptism are mutually exclusive and would lead to much friction if in the same denomination. We both believe that the other denomination is wrongly administering the Sacraments (although it is primarily an issue of degree, not of the mode itself). This does not mean that we should “unchurch” the other opinion. It does mean, however, that we must (normally) worship apart for the very sake of unity.

My point is this: if advocates of the WCF will not ordain a Baptist minister in their denomination, then why should we ordain PC advocates in our denomination? PC, according to advocates of the WCF, is an equal and opposite error (sort of a mirror-image error, actually, if you think about it) to credo-baptism. If we would not ordain credo-baptists in the PCA, then why should we ordain PC advocates? Both positions are equally against the Westminster Standards. Why, therefore, does the PCA and OPC somehow view PC as somehow more confessional, or at least less anti-confessional than credo-baptism is? It cannot be covenantalism, since there are plenty of non-dispensational Baptists out there who love covenant theology (even if we believe they do not apply it consistently). This is why I will never vote to ordain a PC advocate in my Presbytery.

I want to draw attention to what I think is one of Venema’s most important points on the Old Testament evidence for paedo-communion (PC). He says this:

Any consideration of the precedent of the Old Testament Passover must take into account the important distinction between the first and subsequent celebrations of the Passover (pp. 67-68).

Now, it is important also to note that Venema regards the evidence as ambiguous. The provisions did not expressly prohibit the women and younger children from participation, but neither do the provisions require their participation. What is the exegetical evidence for this distinction between the original Passover and the yearly celebration of it? The initial Passover is described in Exodus 12-13 (including also the Feast of Unleavened Bread), whereas the yearly celebration is detailed for us in Deuteronomy 16.

I think Venema would grant the point (and I probably would, too) that young children participated in the initial Passover described in Exodus 12-13, for the simple reason that there would have been no other food for them to eat, as they ate it in haste.

In Deuteronomy 16, we find the following: Verse 16 specifically describes the males as appearing before the Lord God in the place which He chooses (בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר יְהוָה). This last phrase is precisely the same phrase as is used in verse 7 in the particular instructions for the yearly Passover celebration. Since this phrase links the two passages together, it is more than reasonable to conclude that the Passover celebration described in the first part of Deuteronomy 16 is part of those three-times-a-year appearances of the males before the Lord. There is a two-tiered structure, therefore, to the celebration of the various feasts. There is the home celebration, in which everyone partook (see Deut. 16:14), and there is the solemn assembly, in which only the males partook. The point here is NOT that the evidence points to only the males participating in anything having to do with the Passover. The point is that the evidence is ambiguous with regard to participation. After all, is the Lord’s Supper in line more with the initial Passover commands, or is it more in line with the yearly Passover celebration? The question would be difficult to answer, I think, and that makes the evidence from the Passover shaky at best when used to support PC.

Drastically reducing Venema’s arguments to a manageable blog size (hopefully without distorting anything), we come up with the following dictums.

1. The Old Testament evidence suggests that infants perhaps participated in Passover (this is another great example of Venema’s gracious interaction with PC advocates: he grants points that would favor the PC position, and does not shove any evidence under the rug. Venema only comes to the point of critique when it comes to the whole picture. This is why Venema’s book is the most valuable contribution to this debate from the critical side). This evidence is not unambiguous, however, and hardly supports the weight of the claims based upon it by PC advocates.

2. Ultimately, the New Testament evidence is the most decisive point. Here we must note that the New Testament evidence is not always allowed by PC advocates to have its full weight. The reason that non-PC advocates believe this is because the evidence is more explicit. As it will appear when coming to 1 Corinthians 11, the PC position cannot adequately exegete the passage. This is not dispensational argumentation. Rather, it is redemptive-historical, noting the development of doctrine from OT to NT.

3. The people of God in the New Testament must worship God in spirit and in truth.

4. PC arguments prove too much. With regard to the manna, even non-believers were allowed to participate. Presumably, not even PC advocates would allow professed non-believers to the Table.

5. There is a difference between the annual celebration of the Passover and the one-time original Passover. The annual Passover was only for adult males, while the original Passover included the entire household. To my knowledge, this point has never been addressed by PC advocates. The relevant passages are Deuteronomy 16:16, Exodus 23:17, and Exodus 34:23 (these also address the other pilgrim feasts such as the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Booths).

6. Perhaps the most important precedent for the Lord’s Supper is in fact Exodus 24. This was a meal that was only for Moses and the leaders of Israel. We are not suggesting that the Lord’s Supper is today only for the leaders. However, it does demonstrate the complexity of appealing to OT evidence in support of NT practices.

7. Piggy-backing on number 5, the fact that women and children did not participate in the annual Passover does not suggest that women and children should feel excommunicated or excluded from the community by the practice. In my opinion, this argument (that exclusion of infants from the Lord’s Table in effect excommunicates them) is the very weakest argument from the PC side. It really needs to be shelved.

More detailed exegesis of the relevant passages will follow in a series of posts directly addressing the OT evidence regarding the practice of paedocommunion. This post is intended as a summary post.

Doug’s response to me is here. It seems to me that the main point of Doug’s argument is that my statement regarding the nature of the Sacraments actually works better in the PC camp than in the non-PC camp. In other words, if the point of the Sacrament is that it accompanies the Word (and we both seem to agree that it does), then we should be giving children the Sacrament, thus allowing them to grow into the proper understanding, rather than waiting until they can demonstrate such an understanding. More of an answer below.

We are bringing the logic of courtroom verification into the rearing of children. Nothing against courtroom verification in its place, but that’s not what we should be doing here. Christian nurture is more like breastfeeding than it is like grilling a hostile witness.

I’m not entirely sure where this comes from, however. The language of grilling a hostile witness is certainly not commensurate with any examination of prospective membership that I have ever seen. We certainly do not take the stance “non-Christian until proven otherwise.” This language would assume that which needs to be proven: it assumes that refusing the ignorant from the table is the same (practically speaking) as excommunication. As I argued from my own experience (which Doug did not seem to contest), I felt absolutely zero sense of excommunication. I wonder if this argument about excommunication comes from Doug’s Baptist background, which. Baptists tend to talk about their children as if they were pagans before profession of faith. This view of children is not prominent in covenantal Presbyterian churches. As I grew up, I learned that the Supper was a special thing, something to be taking very seriously, that solemn kind of gladness that C.S. Lewis talks about in the Chronicles of Narnia. But there is a fence around the table that children need to climb. And the church elders need to see them able to do that. I think where Doug and I differ is how high that fence is, what the nature of that fence is, and how athletic the children have to be in order to do that.

There is an important difference between the Word and the Sacrament that comes into play at precisely this point. That difference is that the immediate consequence of not understanding the Word is less serious than a non-understanding participation in the Sacrament. The warnings for not heeding the Scripture are just as dire, but more long-term. There is a sense in which the Word has the leisure to work long-term on people. It can take years before the Word really starts to penetrate people. And the Bible seems to allow for that. The Word can have a “wearing down” effect. It gradually wears down our defenses, and gradually penetrates bit by bit over time. However, the effect of the Sacrament is slightly different. Faith is necessary for the Sacrament to have its effect. If faith is not present, the negative effect is more immediate than with the Word. To a certain extent, these questions cannot be resolved until the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 takes place. For it is there that we find the consequences of incorrect participation in the Sacrament. The question becomes this: does ignorance of the Sacrament constitute illegitimate participation, and what exactly constitutes ignorant participation? These two questions are at the heart of the debate, I believe. In differing answers to these questions, we find the various positions ranged across the spectrum.