[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I don't think either way is right or wrong, put I prefer putting it off to a certain age.

Sometimes I think that too. When I see kids like 5 years old or so taking communion, I think to myself, "Do they really understand what this is all about?" Then, I remind myself that I don't really understand what it's all about, and go back to thinking an age limit is unnecessary.

Hope you enjoyed that bit of anecdotal evidence.

[Lightknight]

Alright, good. We've reached an agreement.

Remember, me saying that something isn't salvific doesn't mean that I don't think it's important. Just that it isn't one of the things that brings salvation.

[Elationist]

Hey Reed, you said:

Sure, I don't think there's anything wrong with waiting. I think it just becomes a problem if Christians start thinking that Communion is unimportant and they don't have to do it at all.

I used to go to a Methodist Church, and we had communion the first Sunday of every month, and there would actually be people who would skip church on those sundays simply because "it's just communion sunday". It's one of the last things Jesus commanded us to do before He died, and some people just shrug it off like it's nothing.

First, how can we be sure as to why someone missed the service as to say because it was communion day...also it might be more safe that one with that kind of outlook toward holy communion not partake anyhow according to 1 Corinthians 11.

Does there not need to be something right in the heart of the believer who partakes? You know, a repentant heart that is right with God? Some people should take it and some should not, but each man shouldn't her or she decide where their own heart's lie on whether to partake it or not?

Does not what the apostle Paul write take priority to the practice any church or churches are practicing? Isn't it vitally dangerous to partake of the holy communion in a state of "unworthiness"--unrepentant and fake believism..?

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (ESV) 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Elationist

This is from the RCA's web site concerning sacraments.

I would like to know concerning that last portion of their statement. What are your respectful and with love thoughts on this?

It's standard among Reformed churches not to allow anyone to take communion until they are old enough to give a cognitive, verbalized confession of faith. In other words, they basically treat communion from a "Baptist" perspective -- communion is not a feast given to us by Christ but is instead a profession on our parts. Plenty of Baptists have pointed out the inconsistency in baptizing infants but not giving them Communion. Roman Catholics (and others) might bridge the gap by means of Confirmation or something like it -- your baptism isn't "really complete" until confirmation -- but this option is not available to those who oppose Confirmation (such as the Reformed churches).

Peter Leithart titled his argument for communion for all baptized persons, "Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated?" and I think the title is apt. Why are they claimed in Christ at baptism and yet denied His feast? The only reason can be the Baptist premise that the "faith" that characterizes God's people is something that, at its base, has to do with rational and cognitive abilities that could not have developed in an infant. But then Jesus picks up an infant and says, "The Kingdom of God belongs to such as these." And if Jesus has invited that child to His Kingdom feast, who are we to contest it?

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Sometimes I think that too. When I see kids like 5 years old or so taking communion, I think to myself, "Do they really understand what this is all about?" Then, I remind myself that I don't really understand what it's all about, and go back to thinking an age limit is unnecessary.

Hope you enjoyed that bit of anecdotal evidence.

(Assuming that you hold that line to at least some extent,) You're arguing from the assumption that communion is about what you can consciously articulate, but the people who wrote this statement should be confessionally committed against that view.

Originally Posted by Elationist

Let's say for argument's sake that we all agree that it is holy and therefore, we must not only treat it as such, but when we discuss it, we analyze the Scripture surrounding the actual practice and not the literal or symbolic arguments. This way, maybe we can avoid another Catholic vs. Protestant tug o war.

Lightknight's comments on the issue are based on his view that Communion is a "mere symbol" -- basically, since it's a mere symbol it really isn't of ultimate importance. Barring the facts that that argument doesn't follow and that symbols are in fact what people live and die for, it should be clear that the issue of whether Communion is God's feast or man's recollection can't be bracketed off if we're going to talk about how this argument pans out.

And I'm sure you already know that I would add that it's not so much Catholic vs. Protestant as it is American evangelicals & Theological liberals vs. Confessional Protestants, Roman Catholics, & Orthodox.

Originally Posted by Elationist

Insightful, and I might add, everyone here is doing a fine job of being civilized so far...thank you!

But what about the exact topic at hand, which may be that I would like to focus on the board of elders given the responsibility to decide who does and who doesn't partake of communion. That's all. Is it to be one's personal accountablity [examine yourself] --what does the Bible say about this according to Scripture or can the church/es come up with their own practices?

The point of 1 Corinthians 11 is that when these people were getting together they were being divisive, rich vs. poor. This doesn't jive with the fact that if we are baptized into one Christ and we are one body of Christ then we cannot be divided against each other; therefore, if we partake of the same body of Christ and eat as one loaf in Communion then we cannot be divided amongst ourselves. (Notice how his argument doesn't follow, or at least not as transparently, if we use pre-cut squares of bread product, even including the wafer, instead of a common loaf.) On that grounds, Paul says, examine yourselves to make sure that you're not totally contradicting your Eucharistic identity when you participate in the Eucharist. In other words, Paul is not talking about the individual determining for himself whether he should participate in Communion, but instead he is talking about not being a total hypocrite.

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Elationist

Are you basically saying, we need to hunt for your thoughts elsewhere on the topic at hand?

Pretty much yeah. No worries now that John is here but I had to stem the tide of Baptist responses.

[comitatus1]

Originally Posted by Elationist

This is from the RCA's web site concerning sacraments.

I would like to know concerning that last portion of their statement. What are your respectful and with love thoughts on this?

Who may participate in communion?
Christ is the host and invites us to his table. All who have been baptized into Christ are welcome to participate in the Lord's Supper, although local boards of elders have been given the responsibility to decide at what age and under what circumstances young children may be served.

This seems to me to be an incredibly self contradictory statement. On the one hand, everyone who is baptized is welcome (and I assume that would be everyone except the newest infants), but on the other hand there is an unwritten set of rules, known only to and interpreted by the local board of elders, that must be met before one can actually take communion.

On the one hand, baptism is sufficient grounds for recieving communion, but on the other hand it is not. This is the kind of reasoning the RCC employs that really drives me crazy.

Chris

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by John Roberson

(Assuming that you hold that line to at least some extent,) You're arguing from the assumption that communion is about what you can consciously articulate, but the people who wrote this statement should be confessionally committed against that view.

Once more in English? What is "this statement?"

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Once more in English? What is "this statement?"

"Do they really understand what this is all about?"

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by John Roberson

"Do they really understand what this is all about?"

... I wrote that statement. What should I be confessionally committed against?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by comitatus1

This seems to me to be an incredibly self contradictory statement. On the one hand, everyone who is baptized is welcome (and I assume that would be everyone except the newest infants), but on the other hand there is an unwritten set of rules, known only to and interpreted by the local board of elders, that must be met before one can actually take communion.

I don't have direct experience in the case of the RCA, but in other cases Reformed churches have explicit standards for this that are set in the manual of church discipline / book of church order. The requirements tend to be strikingly similar to the requirements a Baptist church might have for baptism, though sometimes they're more strict because Presbyterian/Reformed folks have a tendency to be more strict in general. The basic idea is: baptism is just forward-looking and not a present reality, but Communion is a present reality so you have to be formally accepted into the church before you can Commune. In my opinion, this seems like a slightly-less-sophisticated version of Confirmation.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

... I wrote that statement. What should I be confessionally committed against?

Oh I gotcha. The other statement I was talking about is the one we're discussing, from the first post in the thread. =)

[bobthecockroach]

Ahh, ok. So they should be against the idea that people can take communion without fully understanding it? Is that what you were saying?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Ahh, ok. So they should be against the idea that people can take communion without fully understanding it? Is that what you were saying?

Pretty much, yeah.

[Elationist]

Originally Posted by comitatus1

This seems to me to be an incredibly self-contradictory statement. On the one hand, everyone who is baptized is welcome (and I assume that would be everyone except the newest infants), but on the other hand there is an unwritten set of rules, known only to and interpreted by the local board of elders, that must be met before one can actually take communion.

On the one hand, baptism is sufficient grounds for receiving communion, but on the other hand it is not. This is the kind of reasoning the RCC employs that really drives me crazy.

Chris

First, I would like to say, yes, the point you raise in the first section I bolded on your post is what I was thinking too.

Second, I am not too sure about their intentions or practice concerning this which you have stated:

(and I assume that would be everyone except the newest infants)

I am not sure how "newest infants" are or are not baptized into Christ according to the RCA.

I personally draw a distinction between being baptized into Christ [spiritually--done with God's hands] and water ceremonies [done with human hands] though others here do not.

And lastly, concerning the second portion I bolded, did you mean RCA or RCC? Thank you for your responses!