[Elationist]

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 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?

[KFBobInsanesMom]

It doesn't follow to me that one would baptize a child and believe they have been cleansed of their sins and then not allow them to take communion until they reach a certain age. I believe baptism and communion are both meant for those who believe and therefore, when a human reaches an age where they can understand and believe, they are then more than welcome to be baptized and take communion.

[Lightknight]

Right, and if a young kid professes his faith and seems to have an understanding of what communion means then it should not be withheld from the child. Communion is a serious thing that should not be partaken of lightly for the juice and crackers.

[Elationist]

Thank you both for your responses.

So the person at the level of accountability needs [should-ought] to be able to decide for his or herself with guidance from the parents and or the pastoralship?

__________________________

This I just heard,

"If your Bible is falling apart, you probably aren't." ~ Dr. Adrian Rogers

[Iceman-bass14]

Originally Posted by Elationist

This I just heard,

"If your Bible is falling apart, you probably aren't." ~ Dr. Adrian Rogers

I personally believe the person should be saved first before they take communion.Not just baptized.Baptizing does not save any1.

[nate95366]

Originally Posted by RCA Website

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.

Since this is my denomination, I suppose I'll try to answer. I think it means what it says. However, coming from a Baptist perspective, what it says makes no sense. This would be a problem if the RCA were a Baptist bunch, but they're not. I'd try to explain more, but can't tonight.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It doesn't follow to me that one would baptize a child and believe they have been cleansed of their sins and then not allow them to take communion until they reach a certain age. I believe baptism and communion are both meant for those who believe and therefore, when a human reaches an age where they can understand and believe, they are then more than welcome to be baptized and take communion.

It sounds like you are coming from a Baptist perspective. Thus, the RCA position probably doesn't make any sense to you.

Nate

[Elationist]

Is there a way to examine this apart from a sectarianism approach and look at it most biblically as well?

[joshaber]

I believe in paedocommunion. See the recent thread for my defense of it, I totally don't have time to go back through it all again.

[Jay Tea]

Originally Posted by Elationist

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.

I wonder if the statement you bolded is something done due to the history of the RCA, with respect to the statement I bolded. The CRC, which is quite similar to the RCA in many respects, only recently (this summer) opened the table to all baptized members. As a denomination which practices infant baptism, we had traditionally restricted the Lord's Supper to those adults who had made public profession of faith. And, in fact, in the past, there were much stricter restrictions--if you wished to celebrate communion at a CRC church which you were not a member of (i.e., you were a member of the one across town), you'd have to talk to the elders of the church you wished to celebrate at. At least, that was the case in some churches...I don't know about all. Anyway, when our synod decided to allow children to participate, they left decisions on how to "implement" this change to, I believe, individual congregations. I'm speculating, but this could be a parallel statement. Though a bit of searching indicates that the RCA opened the table to children in 1988.

[Elationist]

Originally Posted by joshaber

I believe in paedocommunion. See the recent thread for my defense of it, I totally don't have time to go back through it all again.

Are you basically saying, we need to hunt for your thoughts elsewhere on the topic at hand? And how could this tie into what we are talking about. C' mon, you can share it with us.

[H.M. Murdock]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I believe baptism and communion are both meant for those who believe and therefore, when a human reaches an age where they can understand and believe, they are then more than welcome to be baptized and take communion.

Ah, but what is that age? It seems to me that the RCA is delegating the issue of deciding that in a localized sense, instead of with a blanket statement that starts with "We believe..."
Which makes sense.
I personally wouldn't mind if a church said I couldn't participate in communion because I am not old enough, of if a child of mine were restricted. It's a matter of patience. Is communion important? Sure. But it's the cherry on the sundae, really.
Now, if a church restricted participation in communion based on the method of baptism I had recieved, the circumstances under which my salvation ocurred (for lack of a better word), or said that I was not legitimate because I didn't say it their way or wasn't baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (as opposed to, say, in the name of the Lord Christ Jesus, which also appears in scripture as well as Jesus' mandate to baptize in the trinity)... then I'd get upset.

[Elationist]

Originally Posted by Jay Tea

I wonder if the statement you bolded is something done due to the history of the RCA, with respect to the statement I bolded. The CRC, which is quite similar to the RCA in many respects, only recently (this summer) opened the table to all baptized members. As a denomination which practices infant baptism, we had traditionally restricted the Lord's Supper to those adults who had made public profession of faith. And, in fact, in the past, there were much stricter restrictions--if you wished to celebrate communion at a CRC church which you were not a member of (i.e., you were a member of the one across town), you'd have to talk to the elders of the church you wished to celebrate at. At least, that was the case in some churches...I don't know about all. Anyway, when our synod decided to allow children to participate, they left decisions on how to "implement" this change to, I believe, individual congregations. I'm speculating, but this could be a parallel statement. Though a bit of searching indicates that the RCA opened the table to children in 1988.

You know Jay Tea, I thought about bolding that portion over that one because, they are saying Baptized into Christ, which now must be defined away indirectly from the topic of communion directly. But it is important to dechipher the entire statement though I am personally concerned with the board of elders given the responsibility to decide who does and who doesn't partake of communion.

But if they mean (this particular RCA web), "born again"--in Christ--professing to be true believers, baptized into Christ through rengeneration through the Holy Spirit, then the portion I bolded can be better answered which reads: and a key word is "although"

--although local boards of elders have been given the responsibility to decide at what age and under what circumstances young children may be served.

[Elationist]

Originally Posted by H.M. Murdock

Ah, but what is that age? It seems to me that the RCA is delegating the issue of deciding that in a localized sense, instead of with a blanket statement that starts with "We believe..."
Which makes sense.
I personally wouldn't mind if a church said I couldn't participate in communion because I am not old enough, of if a child of mine were restricted. It's a matter of patience. Is communion important? Sure. But it's the cherry on the sundae, really.
Now, if a church restricted participation in communion based on the method of baptism I had recieved, the circumstances under which my salvation ocurred (for lack of a better word), or said that I was not legitimate because I didn't say it their way or wasn't baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (as opposed to, say, in the name of the Lord Christ Jesus, which also appears in scripture as well as Jesus' mandate to baptize in the trinity)... then I'd get upset.

Of course, many here believe the cherry on the top is most essential in the Church, if not the whole church experience should center around the holy communion...post baptism.

[Lightknight]

Communion is about remembering what Christ has done for us. Plain and simple.

[Reedolo]

I personally don't care one way or the other. I mean, I don't think it would be a sin to give Holy Communion to a baptized child. But I personally like the practice of waiting for a special time to celebrate First Communion, beucase that way the child knows what he/she is receiving, they understand it, and it's often a very exciting time in a child's life. Same thing goes for Confirmation, Confirmation is a very special time in a Christian's life, and it's nice to be able to actually remember it! Same with First Communion, of course.

So I personally like the practice of waiting until a certain age to give someone First Communion, although I don't think it has to be that way, and I'm not gonna say someone else is wrong if they don't do it that way.