The Reformed Tradition and the Problem of Infant Communion, Part 2

Read Part 1.

The Problem of Theological Consistency

With this background,¹³ focus on Reformed churches’ practice on the prohibition of infant communion takes center stage. The problem is really one of ecclesiology. Reformed churches desire an inclusive ecclesiology for the practice of infant baptism but practice an exclusive one for their refusal to permit infant communion. John Calvin was adamant in this regard: “Do we wish anything plainer than the apostle’s teaching when he exhorts each man to prove and search himself, then to eat of this bread and drink of this cup [1 Cor. 11:28]? A self-examination ought, therefore, to come first, and it is vain to expect this of infants.”¹⁴ After quoting 1 Corinthians 11:29,¹⁵ Calvin continues: “If only those who know how to distinguish rightly the holiness of Christ’s body are able to participate worthily, why should we offer poison instead of life-giving food to our tender children?”¹⁶

The inconsistency is apparent in that the Reformed churches have church members who are not allowed communion. The simple fact is that the New Testament knows of no such division in membership. There is no “lower tier” membership in the Scriptures for those who have only been baptized, and a “higher tier” for those who have later gone to a catechism class or participated in a confirmation ceremony.¹⁷

While I agree that infants should not partake of the Lord’s Supper, it is hard to see how Reformed churches can justify such a two-level church membership structure Biblically. The trouble comes with using both inclusive and exclusive practices in their ecclesiology.

Another issue becomes penetrating clear in reading Calvin. Many of the arguments he used to support the prohibition against infant communion, Baptists (and others) use against infant baptism. Calvin dealt with this issue head-on. He related baptism to an initiation, while communion was for “older persons, who having passed tender infancy, can now take solid food.”¹⁸ Calvin appealed to the necessity of a person’s needing to discern the Lord’s body and blood, of examining one’s own conscience, and proclaiming the Lord’s death, all of which a baby cannot do. He included the Lord’s command to “Do this in remembrance of me,” of which infants are incapable.¹⁹ This whole section in Calvin’s Institutes is well worth serious thought, especially when considering a Biblical understanding of what baptism means (see conclusion). The parallels to the justification of believer baptism are strikingly evident. While Calvin is not the only writer who shaped Reformed theology, his thinking has been influential in regard to Eucharistic theology and practice.

The Problem of Infant Communion and Its Solution

The difficulties infant baptism engenders can be solved by its elimination from church practice. Without infant baptism, churches would have no tension in their ecclesiology between the inclusive and exclusive practices of infant baptism and infant communion respectively. With the former abolished, the need for the latter would cease since only willing believers would become church members, and the practice of infant communion would vanish. All Christians would have the opportunity to examine their own lives before partaking. There would be no need for an unbiblical two-level structure of church membership.

Of course, infant baptism provides much vital theological undergirding for Reformed churches. It is a key link for them between the Old and New Testaments based on the infant baptism/circumcision analogy from an erroneous understanding of Colossians 2:11-12.²⁰ The truth remains there is no direct command for infant baptism and no clear example of infant baptism in the New Testament.²¹ However, because of its importance to their theological system, Reformed churches would have a hard time letting go of this practice.

Conclusion

Back to the original question: Should churches have to choose between the tension of allowing infants to partake of communion and risk the condemnations in 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 in order to have a consistently inclusive church practice? Or should they opt for an inconsistent practice that would allow them to keep their cherished practice of infant
baptism? The answer is neither.

Baptists traditionally advocate for both believer baptism and believer communion (with its requisite examination of a person’s own life and walk with God), thus eliminating the tension described above. This allows Baptists a consistent practice in their ecclesiology: both are exclusive; the ordinances are for believers. Baptists should love, value, and cherish the gospel-centeredness of both ordinances:

1. Baptism is an identification of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6.1-5). It proclaims the willing believer to be desirous of becoming His disciple (Matt. 28.19-20) and being identified as such with the purpose of living in newness of life. Baptism as a commitment matters to believers every day of their lives—not to get us to heaven, but to remind us to live as befitting Christ’s disciples.
2. Communion centers on a believer remembering the purpose of Christ’s death on the cross. His body was broken for us. His blood was shed for our sin. He died to take away the penalty for our sin that we deserved. The exhortation for us to examine ourselves in regard to Christ’s sacrifice should spur us to holy living motivated by gratefulness to Him for what He has already done for us.

Applications

1. Do you appreciate your church’s practice of these events that celebrate the gospel? Can you defend, from the Bible, your church’s view of these ordinances?
2. Are you now living the commitment you pictured and pledged at your baptism? Is holiness a priority for you?
3. Does your life display the respect for Christ’s great sacrifice on your behalf? Does His death remind you to live for Him? Does your understanding of the Lord’s Supper motivate you to proclaim to unbelievers the meaning of Christ’s death until He returns (1 Cor. 11:26)?