Paedobaptists and Children at Lord's Supper

[darinhouston]

It seems a bit inconsistent for those who use Matthew 19:14 to support infant baptism to not likewise extend the Lord's Supper or other sacraments to children not yet of the age of accountability. Especially those who believe in con- or trans- substantiation who see it as actually the same thing as coming to him personally in some metaphysical or physical way should not turn away the children if they support baptism through this passage.

Even for those (like me) who believe only in the believer's baptism, it would seem that if the Lord's Supper is in any way to represent one "coming to the Lord," then why not let the children come to Him in that way as any other? Sure, if they reach an age of having accountability for their spiritual decisions, then preclude them if they do not yet follow Christ as their Lord.

I'd be interested in any arguments (particularly from Paedobaptists) as to the justification for denying the eucharist to children (especially from Roman Catholics).

[look2jesus]

Hello Darin,

Though it doesn't actually address your post, I was reminded of a policy in a reformed church that I once attended for a few years that seemed inconsistent as well, concerning participation in the Lord's Table. Keep in mind that this particular church practised and taught Believer's Baptism but they would not permit someone who had never been baptised to participate in the communion service. However, if someone had been baptised as an infant, the church would allow that person to participate in the Lord's Table, even though they taught that Believer's Baptism was the only legitimate mode of baptism. I always saw it as throwing their paedobaptist reformed brethren a bone.

[Kerri]

I go to a paedobaptist church that also serves the Lord's Supper to the children. Our thinking is that we baptize our infants based on faith in God's promises to save our children. Therefore they are brought into the community of the church covenant and are also eligible for the Lord's Supper. If a child is shown to be in rebellion to the Lord, they are brought before the elders and are subject to church discipline, just as any other member would be (that is older children. For major offences, like moving in with a girlfriend or something like that. Not that they haven't cleaned their room or something. It's happened a few times in the last ten years I've been there.) This is very controversial in the Reformed circles and we are considered heretics by some. I know of one Reformed church that won't allow the kids to take communion until they memorize the Heidelberg Catechism. But an adult could take communion anytime. That just seemed so wrong to me!

They say they are fulfilling the commandment to "examine oneself", and children can't do so adequately. But I wonder who of us can? We should all obey that to the best of our ability.

Anyway, I agree with you that it's inconsistent. I would rather be a craedobaptist than to baptize and then withhold communion.

[Paidion]

I'm not a pædobaptist, but I think I understand why some pædobaptists baptize young children but deny them communion. These pædobaptists believe that baptism simply means that the baptized child become a "covenant child of God", that is, his parents make a covenant to raise him up in the ways of the Lord. However, through baptism, he is not considered to have become an actual child of God. Until that happens, he is not qualified to take communion.

[darinhouston]

I'm not a pædobaptist, but I think I understand why some pædobaptists baptize young children but deny them communion. These pædobaptists believe that baptism simply means that the baptized child become a "covenant child of God", that is, his parents make a covenant to raise him up in the ways of the Lord. However, through baptism, he is not considered to have become an actual child of God. Until that happens, he is not qualified to take communion.

That sounds more like christening than baptizing to me. I was christened as a baby in the Methodist church back when they did that sort of thing. They have changed their position after merging two groups together who had differing views and now it's the only baptism they get -- they, not unlike Lutherans, believe you shouldn't hinder the children from Christ (sic) and that you are believing "on their behalf" until such time as they can believe for themselves and the baptism is applied in retrospect. (or something like that) -- they actually consider it an issue of church discipline if the parents don't do it though my fellowship doesn't follow that and is tolerant of our waiting for their own belief/profession. They also consider it a disciplinary issue to re-baptise.

[wwalkeriv]

That sounds more like christening than baptizing to me. I was christened as a baby in the Methodist church back when they did that sort of thing. They have changed their position after merging two groups together who had differing views and now it's the only baptism they get -- they, not unlike Lutherans, believe you shouldn't hinder the children from Christ (sic) and that you are believing "on their behalf" until such time as they can believe for themselves and the baptism is applied in retrospect. (or something like that) -- they actually consider it an issue of church discipline if the parents don't do it though my fellowship doesn't follow that and is tolerant of our waiting for their own belief/profession. They also consider it a disciplinary issue to re-baptise.

I attend a Methodist church and they do not consider infant baptism to be a christening nor do they consider it a dedication. They consider it baptism. My understanding is that they consider baptism to be a sign of God's prevenient grace offered to all. Right or wrong, that is my understanding of the Methodist stance on the issue.

For what it's worth, I believe this stance is consistent with John Wesley's teachings and those of Jacobus Arminius. Although Arminius may have placed more emphasis on circumcision being a "type" of baptism.

As for children being allowed to take communion, the Methodist do not withhold communion from children. Therefore, there is no contradiction on this issue.

[Kerri]

I don't know anything about Methodists, so none of my comments are referring to them.

I do not believe that I am believing "for my children." I remind them they have to know God for themselves. God is a person to be interacted with, listened to, KNOWN, obeyed. I can no more know Him for another than I can know a person's mother for them. You either know someone or you don't.

I believe God sovereignty places children in families. I also believe that over history, God's usual will is that the children of His people will also be saved. Therefore it is by faith that I baptize, and the child is brought into the community of God's people and if the child rebels, then he shows himself apostate, and if that path is perused, he/she is treated the same as an adult who was baptized but then turn to a rebellious life.