The Necessity and Recipients of The Two Evangelical Sacraments.
Part Five of: A Dialogue With A Seventh-Day Adventist, On Holy Baptism and Holy Communion
PART ONE: The Necessity and Recipients of Holy Baptism.
I. On The General Necessity of Holy Baptism.
Ms. Laura Peale Writes:
“I see that scriptures teach our merciful God knows the heart and future of each person. Jesus told Nicodemus, "no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (John 3:5), and Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16; However, we also know that the water baptism isn't what saves us, it is God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8-9). Right?”
Our reply:
Well, I don’t see why the two notions are contradictory in your mind. After all, St. Peter says that this baptism now saves (1 Peter 3:21), so when coupled with the words to Nicodemus, it is obvious that baptism is generally, even if not absolutely, necessary to enter the Kingdom.
To be baptized into Christ is to be buried into His Death and raised with Him to newness of life, this is taught in Romans 6:1-14, Colossians 2:11-12, and Galatians 3:26-29.
“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (Romans 6:1-14)
This text is remarkable and is almost never properly discussed by Christians of a lower church persuasion.
Take it line by line (look specifically where I underlined the text): where is St. Paul identifying our “death to sin” at?
.jpg)
Baptism.
At baptism, we died to sin, because we were buried with Christ at that baptism. We are not to sin because at our baptism is where we died to sin and just as He was raised to newness to life, so to we are raised to newness of life as we are raised from those waters, a new creature.
Does this sound like a simple ordinance or basic command, or does it sound like something more is going on here? Do you hear your pastor, or a Baptist or Pentecostal pastor talk this way? That you were united to Christ in your baptism and that you died to sin at your baptism and for that reason you are not to continue to sin, because of the holiness of that very baptism?
I was raised Baptist and around Pentecostals and free-evangelicals, I never heard them talk this way. I heard Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Presbyterians talk this way, but they recognize the sacramental significance of baptism as Holy and one in which Grace is actually received.
Note also in the Colossians text that baptism is compared to circumcision, indeed, I would argue it replaces circumcision 1 for 1.
“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses” (Colossians 2:11-13)
Like in Romans 6, we see that we were “dead” in our sins, but then we were buried with Christ “at baptism” and raised to “newness of life” and “made alive,” but we also see the connection to the old covenant sacrament.
In the Old Testament, circumcision was the sign of the covenant and the promise of salvation as seen in Genesis 17:9-14 and since we are heirs of the promise of Abraham and his true seed in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3), the mark of our salvation is the circumcision of the new covenant, which is baptism.
Thus, one must ask, was circumcision necessary for salvation in the Old Covenant?
The answer is: Yes and No.
Yes, in the sense that those who were not circumcised of Abraham’s household were accursed (Genesis 17:14), and No, because St. Paul clearly teaches that Abraham had received grace and faith prior to, and apart from, circumcision (Romans 4:9-11). Thus, we can recognize that though God does save people apart from ever being baptized (in that He is not bound by it), He nonetheless chooses baptism as the “ordinary means” by which we are joined into the Kingdom of God.
.jpg)
II. The Case for Infant Baptism.
Ms. Laura Peale:
Salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ, not by works (Eph 2:3-9, John 3:16, Rom 10:9-10)...but when one believes and wants to follow Jesus then baptism is a demonstration of our faith and acceptance of God's grace. The main thing that convinces me that God doesn't require baptism, especially of infants who aren't capable of reasoning or even knowing they have sinful nature, is what Jesus promised the Thief on the cross. Luke 23:42 says, "I tell you the truth today, you WILL be with me in paradise." He wasn't baptized.
Our reply:
Well, if Baptism is the means by which grace is ordinarily received, then it is not a work you do at all, you never baptize yourself, you are always baptized by someone else, and you are passive in the act, so it is not a work. This is especially true of infants; they are passive and do nothing to earn the grace received by being united to Christ by baptism. Now if you say that “well the minister is doing the work” then I would ask you in reply: “what about preaching?” If you are saved because you heard a Pastor preach the Word, does that mean you were saved by works (namely his)? Of course not! For in both cases the minister is providing the means of grace by which people are saved through their receiving of them, and not by anything they do to merit them.
The thief on the cross, like Father Abraham, was saved apart from either baptism or circumcision (though he was very likely circumcised); however, this does not negate the general necessity of either. For we can believe on one hand that a person who converts on their death bed, or who gets hit by a car on his way to being baptized in the river, both still go to heaven, and we can acknowledge this while also still acknowledging that the person who rejects and refuses baptism is accursed as the covenant requires us to say.
As far as infants specifically, the Scriptures clearly teach infant baptism, or better yet, household baptism and that it should be the norm.
First of all, except someone is born of water and spirit, they cannot enter the kingdom of God (as you said so yourself):
“Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”(John 3:3-3:8)
You must understand that there is some pretty damning logic that you must wrestle with if you take the position against infant baptism via the argument that God saves those who profess faith and are capable of reasoning and that only such should be baptized, I will now present that logic:
THE CONSEQUENCES OF BAPTISTIC LOGIC REGARDING INFANT DAMNATION.
(Premise 1) To not be in the Kingdom of God is to be condemned to hell.
(Premise 2) Unless you are born of Water (Baptism) and Spirit (Regeneration), you cannot enter the Kingdom of God.
(Premise 3) Regeneration comes after professing faith, and baptism comes after that profession.
(Corollary to Premise 3) Children cannot understand, profess faith, or repent and therefore cannot be regenerate or baptized.
(Conclusion 1) Children cannot be in the Kingdom of God [premise 2 + premise 3].
(Main Conclusion) Children (who die as children) are condemned to hell [Premise 1 + Premise 2 + Premise 3].
Hence, from using Scripture and plain reason, if the Baptist position is correct, then all young children and infants are necessarily condemned to hell. Thus, no infant child of a Christian can possibly be saved if that position is true.
THE ANABAPTIST ALTERNATIVE
Now, there are some who believe that children are born sinless. Indeed, this view is extremely common and treats human children as innocent and angelic in some way until sometime in the teenage years when they become aware of “corrupt adult matters” such as sexuality. In fact, it is quite common, among the laypeople in nearly any denomination, to find people who believe such a thing, that prepubescent children are without sin and that this is somewhat related to an ignorance of human sexuality and a lack of natural interest in it. Besides having erroneous views about children and sexuality, such a position seems to have a hard time explaining things such as the prelapsarian dominion mandate and the need of child discipline. Worst of all, this view is inherently Pelagian (heresy) in its outlook because it assumes that mankind post-fall is (at some point) in a state of innocence like Adam and Eve were prior to the fall (which is the error of Pelagius condemned at the council of Ephesus); a view rightfully condemned for its gross underestimation of the seriousness and pervasiveness of original sin.
That being said, this view has been popularized largely from the Anabaptists and they proposed such a position in order to deal with the arguments of those that held to infant baptism in their own time. Indeed, the family-focused Anabaptists were eager to rebuff the charge that they condemned infants (as other Baptists are logically required to do) to hell, and so they invented the doctrine of "childhood innocence." This view argues that the children of believers are conceived pure and holy and remain so until they reach the age of accountability (what age this is cannot be properly discerned from Scripture either, but that is a separate matter). This view is, of course, entirely false according to Scripture (besides the fact that I can't possibly understand why any parent could actually believe it, just from experience).
Why?
Because it is a matter of biblical fact that children are NOT born innocent or pure; they are sinners from their very conception. Take just these two passages alone for an example:
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. ” (Psalm 51:5).
“What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;” for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:9-10, 3:23).
What these texts show, is that we are conceived in sin and from the moment we came into being in our mother’s wombs, we were already condemned. We were NEVER pure, in fact, no one is pure, for all have sinned and fallen short, down to smallest infant.
So to summarize, the Anabaptist position is clearly false (children are not in fact born holy) and it is also obvious that if the credo-Baptist position is true, then all infants and children of Christians are condemned and are without hope until they reach some biblically-undefined (and unmentioned) age of accountability.
Under such a view, the new covenant is NOT a better covenant founded on better promises (Hebrews 8:6), for the Old Testament saints at least had their children included in God’s plan of covenant salvation!
But this all begs the question doesn’t it? The real question is this: How does Christ and His Holy Apostles ACTUALLY speak of children in the new covenant? In exploring this, we will set the necessary burden of proof in the form of three criteria:
THE THREE CRITERIA NECESSARY FOR ESTABLISHING BOTH INFANT BAPTISM AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INFANT SALVATION.
(1) Does the New Testament speak of the infants and children of Christians as if they were members of the kingdom of God (which is salvation) which would likewise require that they be born again of Water (Baptism) and Spirit (Regeneration) as stipulated in John 3?
(2) Does the New Testament speak of the infants and children of Christians as if they were members of the covenant and its promises (which requires a covenant sign just like the Old covenant did in Genesis 17)?
(3) Is there any other New Testament scriptures which would indicate that they, the young children and infants of Christians, are somehow different from that of unbelievers (which would indicate inclusion in God’s grace in lieu of their status as Christian children) or that they might have been baptized after the fashion of households being circumcised in the Old Testament?
If these questions are answered in the affirmative, then the criteria would be met and we would be obligated, both biblically and rationally, to affirm that Christian children are to be regarded with us as Christians and to receive the sign of the covenant (baptism). If these criteria are not met, then we must be forced to believe that our children are damned after the fashion of the more honest (and therefore consistent) Baptists.
SO……is the FIRST criteria met by the New Testament Scripture?
Yes,
“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” (Luke 18:15-17)
That this text fulfills our first criteria is proven in this way:
(Premise 1) Christ says only those born of Water and of Spirit can enter the Kingdom of God (John 3).
(Premise 2) Christ says here that even the infant children of the faithful (v15) belong to the Kingdom of God (v16-17).
(Conclusion) The Infant of children of the faithful must be born of Water (Baptism) and Spirit (Regeneration).
This is a firm conclusion, infant Christian children have the kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God is for those born of Water and of Spirit. Thus, infant children are to be baptized and we are to presume that God has regenerated them by Grace. Just as John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb for joy at the presence of Christ, so to we should believe of our children that even before they can walk or speak, that their souls are filled with the mysterious and profound love of Christ.
So the first criteria has been established, they are of the Kingdom of God and are born again by Baptism and the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit.
Now, is the second criteria established from the New Testament scriptures?
Yes,
“And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:38-41).
This text, is a mirror of the text in Genesis 17:4, and so St. Peter’s language would have been instantly recognizable to the Jews listening to his Pentecost sermon here:
“And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your children after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.”(Genesis 17:4)
Which is exactly how St. Paul describes the covenant in Galatians 3:26-29. For "the covenant made to Abraham" and “the promise of salvation” are used as synonyms in the New Testament.
“for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)
Here we have something quite important. Namely that, if the kingdom of God in Christ belongs to even our infants, then our infants are Christ’s and thus are heirs of the promise made to Abraham. This is also confirmed by St. Peter’s direct words where he says the promise is not only given to us, but to our children after us also (Acts 2), just as God spoke to our father Abraham (Gen 17). Note, that all those who are Christ’s have been baptized into Him. Thus, If children belong to Christ, then they must be baptized into Him lest they break the covenant.
So the second criteria has been met, what about the third criteria?
Is the third criteria met by the New Testament Scriptures?
Yes.
“If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” (1 Corinthians 7:13-14)
How could children, before professing faith, be holy? In the same way that even the slaves and children of Abraham’s household could be made holy by inclusion into the covenant via circumcision. For it is not based on works, including our ability to profess, but on the unmerited grace of God to his people, not just individuals.
Have you ever wondered why St. Paul says that the women shall be saved in childbearing (1 Timothy 2:15)? Because God Himself says through His prophet Malachi that He actually put a portion of His Holy Spirit in the union of marriage to produce little Christians:
“Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.” (Malachi 2:15)
For our children are made Godly by the pure fact that their parents are members of God’s covenant, and God being a God of love, offers real Grace and salvation to them even as they are in the womb and does so by the work of His Holy Spirit to make them Holy.
God does not merely save individuals based on profession of faith, but whole households and families, which is why Joshua declares “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15) and in doing so he follows the pattern of salvation coming to the whole household of Abraham. Indeed, that the Grace of God in baptism is extended to whole households in the New Testament is even mentioned explicitly:
“One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.”(Acts 16:14-15).
“And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” (Acts 16:31-33).
“Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.” (Acts 18:8).
“I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.” (1 Corinthians 1:16).
In the context of all that has been said already, we see a pattern that should be expected. (1) The children of believers are called holy, (2) Christ says that the Kingdom belongs to children, (3) the promise is given to us and our children after us (just like it had been presented to Abraham whose whole household was circumcised),(4) baptism is called the circumcision made without hands, and not surprisingly, (5) most of the specific examples of baptisms in the New Testament explicitly mention that whole households were baptized.
Why were households baptized? For the same reason the house of Abraham was circumcised, for the promise is given not just to an individual, but his whole family. This is how God works, and God never changes right?
So, we can see that the third criterion has also been clearly met.
Since all three criteria have been met, the case is solid, the infant children of Christians MUST be baptized and regarded as saved by Grace alone in Christ.
Our position, which is bound to the Word of God, is that the children of Christians are Christians also, from the moment of conception, and are to be baptized into Christ as to receive the promises of God given in the covenant to Abraham. Keep in mind that I do not think that those who disagree with me should be broken in fellowship. If God gives me the opportunity to Pastor again, I would respect the wishes of Christian parents who desire to NOT baptize their children until they are older, even if I think they are wrong and misguided. I cannot stress this enough. You wanted to know my views, and I have given you them with a defense, but I seek unity above and beyond my own personal convictions.
PART TWO: The Necessity and Recipients of Holy Communion.
Ms. Laura Peale Writes:
“Because our salvation comes by grace through faith, I don’t see why anyone who has read Scripture would think that we need to take communion every week in order to go to heaven. It seems that communion, which is just done by professing believers to remember what Christ did for them, was turned by the Catholics into another work to earn their salvation and they did so by saying that the actual body and blood of Jesus is in the bread and wine. That seems almost like witchcraft to me and just doesn’t sit well, almost sounds like cannibalism.”
Our Reply:
Like with baptism, I don’t think the idea that we are saved by grace through faith alone is in contradiction with the historic belief that Holy Communion is GENERALLY necessary for salvation as a means of receiving that Grace (which alone saves) which is of course needed to even have justifying faith in the first place.
Just like the grace of God in the work of regeneration is associated with Holy Baptism, the grace of God in sanctification is associated with Holy Communion.
In this, we deny that Holy Communion is a work, but rather that it is a means of grace and that what the nature of that “ceremony” entails is to be understood based on what the Bible teaches, not on what we are “comfortable” with.
If the Bible says that “This is my Body” or “This is my Blood” then I believe it. I don’t need to understand the metaphysics of it; I just need to receive the scriptural teaching by faith just as we are to do in a whole myriad of doctrines including the mystery of the Holy Trinity, predestination, matrimony, baptism etc. If we view a biblical doctrine as witchcraft or cannibalism because of our own preconceived notions, it is those notions that must change, for the Scriptures never change.
Likewise, if we really believe that Christ is fully God and fully man and is undivided in His nature, then we must be willing to recognize that if there is any partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ at all in Holy Communion, it is a partaking of the whole Christ as the incarnate God-man. It is not cannibalism to believe this because it is not mere human flesh we eat, but the flesh of God. This doctrine is not a “Roman Catholic thing”, but a historic “Christian thing,” for not only have all Christians professed this view prior to the Reformation (both East and West), but even the majority of Reformation churches (Anglicans, Lutherans, and At least Half of All Calvinists) have held some form of this view that the Lord’s Supper is generally necessary as a real partaking of Christ Himself.
.jpg)
I. On The General Necessity of Holy Communion.
Christ teaches the necessity of Holy Communion in the book of John:
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. ” ( John 6:48-6:59)
Those who argue that this text is not foreshadowing Holy Communion are delusional, for God would not have made the text so plain, in His infinite wisdom, as a reference to something that would obviously be understood, in the broader context of Scripture, as referring the sacred supper. Indeed, the real feel of a sacramental necessity stings at those who would wish to explain this passage away from such centrality on the Eucharistic meal, for they would regard such a teaching as “too catholic” to be Protestant.
Recognize this, that such a dismissal is actually eisegetical and that the true exegetical understanding of this text in line with Scriptura Scipturae Interpres is that when understood in light of texts such as 1 Corinthians 10:1-22 & 11:17-34 and Luke 22:14-23, that these words cannot but be regarded as a foretaste of the words in those passages and would have been seen as such in hindsight by the Apostles themselves (even if the immediate audience of His speech could not have understood it as such at the time, a phenomena common to many of the Parables He spoke).
Hence, in light of 1 Corinthians 10, 11, and Luke 22 and applying the Rule of Faith (Scripture Interprets Scripture), we can derive several points from John 6 on the necessity of receiving the Lord’s Supper:
(1) The Manna in the wilderness was a type and shadow of the greater reality of Christ as the true bread of life. This eating of a spiritual food and spiritual drink in the wilderness as a foreshadowing of the Lord’s Supper is given in 1 Corinthians 10:1-22 which itself acts as a preamble to St. Paul instructions on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (essentially everything in 1Corinthians chapters 10-14 is about the public worship, FYI).
(2) Christ says that He will raise up those who eat His flesh and drink His blood on the last day, the same sort of language used by St. Paul in Romans 6 in reference to the necessity of Baptism. Indeed, he speaks in Romans 6 of needing to be buried with Him baptism in order to be raised with Him to eternal life. Similarly, by partaking of Holy Communion (Christ) we are uniting ourselves to Him like we did at baptism and therefore have an external and objective hope of being united with Him in His resurrection in like manner.
(3) Those who are cut off from His flesh and blood will have no life in them and will have no hope. Christ even uses the word “Abide” here which is also used in the book of John in 15:1-27 where He speaks of believers "abiding in Him as the vine" and that those who are cutoff and disconnected from Him will wither, die, and then finally be cast into the eternal fire, this truth being the great power behind the solemn punishment of excommunication (1 Corinthians 5, Matthew 18, etc.).
Note: This all sounds pretty necessary to me.
Remember that, just as Christ refers to His Body and Blood distinctly here and that such is salvific, so too Christ refers again to His Body and Blood in salvific terms at the Last Supper.
“ And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:19-20)
St. Paul too does the same in 1 Corinthians 10:1-22 when he contrasts the participation in the cup of demons (i.e. in idolatrous ceremonies) versus the participation in the cup of Christ at Holy Communion (**we will be discussing this text more below when I get the subject of infants partaking**).
Further, the practice and example of the Apostles is telling; namely, that when they came together on the first day, they partook of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). Thus, that it is a real and literal (and yet mysterious) receiving of Christ’s life-giving Body and Blood by all who are to be united to Him, and that it must be done every time believers come together to rest in Christ (on Sunday) shows that it is a real necessity. Indeed, often the most important things in Christian spirituality fall on the two extremes, done once and only once, or done continuously and constantly. Baptism, Marriage, and other rites are extremely significant and happen only once, but prayer, attending to the Scriptures, and Holy Communion are to be done continuously and are no less necessary for the Christian life.
Not only this, but those who partake of the Supper in schism (heresy) or unrepentant sin, are said to receive real judgment upon themselves, much like refusing circumcision (and therefore baptism) as a covenant sign resulted in being cut off and accursed according to the Scriptures (Genesis 17:14). Thus, what we see is that the sacrament is a positive necessity (e.g. we do it to have life in us (John 6:54) and to proclaim Christ’s death until His return (1 Corinthians 11:26)) and also a negative necessity (i.e. if we do not partake rightly, we shall be punished (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).
Lastly, the Lord’s Supper was instituted on the night Christ was betrayed, during the Passover (Luke 22:1-14). The Passover was instituted so that the people of God could commemorate the work of God in delivering them from slavery (Exodus 12, Leviticus 23). This Passover was one of the many “Sabbaths” instituted by God in the Old Testament to commemorate God’s work of salvation as a matter of divine Law and we find its fulfillment in Christ on the day of His resurrection as a commemoration of that salvific work of God, not from slavery to a tyrannical government (as in the first Passover), but from sin, death, and the devil. This is our new Passover meal as part of our new Sabbath rest in Christ which is to be celebrated on the first day of the week (Interestingly enough, the seven days of Passover commanded in the Law contained two days which were to be both days of rest and also of sacred assembly, these days are the first and seventh days of the week (Lev 23).).
Indeed, Christ is even called our Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) and our Sabbath rest (Matthew 12:6-8, Hebrews 4:1-14). The implication of this is plain; namely, that not only is Holy Communion necessary in terms of giving life to us and in commemorating and proclaiming the work of Christ, but it is also necessary as a proper application and fulfillment of the Sabbath law. Hence, to willfully refuse to rest in Christ by partaking of Him in the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Day, is to violate the fourth commandment. Indeed, this is why “willfully neglecting the means of Grace” was regarded as a crime in Christian nations from earliest times whether catholic, puritan, or anything in between.
As it was said before, this is still only a “general necessity” and not an "absolute necessity," for God can save a thief on a cross who was neither baptized nor partook of the Last Supper with the Apostles. God’s grace and salvation by faith are not so limited by external means so as to admit of no exceptions or extraneous cases; however, the ordinary means of salvation includes the believer partaking of Holy Communion regularly and such is no less necessary than having received Holy Baptism in defining a faithful Christian’s spiritual life.
II. The Case for Infant Communion and Nicene (Open) Communion.
Like what was discussed with Holy Baptism, I believe that infants should be brought to the table of Holy Communion as well (just like the Eastern Orthodox, some Anglicans, and a few Presbyterians believe), for St. Paul teaches that all of the congregation of Israel was baptized in the Red Sea and all partook of the water from the Rock and the manna from heaven, and St. Paul says clearly that the ROCK was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-4), just as Christ referred to His own flesh as the manna of Heaven (John 6:31-33 & 6:48-56).
Christ even argued (as we discussed earlier) in that text (John 6) that unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, there is no life in you, for this meal, unlike the manna and water from the rock in Exodus, sustains not merely your physical life, but your very soul by grace. Not surprisingly, St. Paul implicitly includes children in the receiving of this spiritual food and drink in the text of 1 Corinthians 10.
St. Paul reiterates this idea to make this point that all of God’s people (the men, women, children, elderly, babies, and the mentally handicapped, et al.) partook of this holy food and so too all those who are in Christ should partake of Christ’s flesh and blood in Holy Communion. Indeed, the same reason women can partake of communion is the same reason children can, for although the Last Supper was only with His disciples (men), it is clear according to St. Paul that this holy meal was extended to all in Christ just as baptism, unlike circumcision, is given to males and to females.
This biblical theology comes to us straight from 1 Corinthians 10, the very chapter which immediately precedes the main text used by all Christians for the Lord’s Supper:
“I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:15-17)
All those who are members of the Body of Christ by baptism (men, women, elderly, disabled, and children) are to partake of both the Body of Christ (the Bread) and the blood which He had shed for them (The Cup). Thus, the Lord’s Supper is a necessary means of receiving God’s grace no less than Holy Baptism and the preaching of God’s Holy Word, and like with those, such should not be denied to those of weak mind (the elderly/disabled) or to the children (even infant children) of Christians, for they are ALL part of the Body of Christ.
Our teaching therefore is this; that Holy Communion is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (John 6, 1 Corinthians 11) and confers real Grace to the Christians who receive it, and judgment to those who partake of it as unbelievers or as those who are actively involved in unrepentant sin or in divisions with other Christians. All those who are in Christ are to partake of it, and this should be done every time Christians get together on the First day of the week (1 Corinthians 10, 11, and Acts 20:7).
___________________________________________________
Concluding Words
As always Laura, please feel free to ask me questions as necessary on any of these subjects or any other for that matter. I will discuss any doctrinal view or any question pertaining to Biblical interpretation that you please.
Also keep in mind, that I would accommodate the different views on communion as a Pastor, and so if you didn’t want your children to partake of communion, they would not be required to do so by me, even if I felt you were misguided.
Indeed, all those who are baptized into Christ and hold to the Nicene faith should be received, regardless of their denomination, into the partaking of the Lord’s Supper at any other church that offers it. We should not guard the table from those of the faith, for all who are of Christ are to partake of Him. This is our doctrine, nothing more and nothing less, and if you believe your children are of Christ, then we suggest you bring them too. We would love to have them.
I have greatly enjoyed our dialogue.
Godspeed,
Josh Johnson
[This Concludes "A Dialogue with A Seventh-Day Adventist"]