Jump to content

Photo

Should children take communion?


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#1 kindofblue1977

kindofblue1977

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
117
Excellent
  • LocationU.S.

Posted 21 July 2011 - 01:58 PM

I have been talking about this extensively with a friend of mine. We both have daughters who are three years old. His daughter has not yet expressed an interest in taking communion. Mine has, and we have decided to allow her to participate.

My friend has a real hang up about this, believing that communion is solely for those who have already made a decision to trust in Christ. My view is that my wife and I have made that decision, and our household is part of the New Covenant under christ. We have committed to raising her in the faith and to direct her hopeful that she wll grow in faith and make her own decision to follow Christ. As my household is full participating members of our church, we decided to allow her to take communion with us when she expressed an interest. She did so about four weeks ago, and we talked about how it is to remind us that Jesus loves us and died for us. When the priest came by, she held out her hand and received a wafer, and he told her that it was a reminder that Jesus loves her and died for her. She dipped the wafer in the wine, and likewise, she was told that it was to reminder her that Jesus loves her and died for her.

The position of my church is that it is up to the parents (if the parents are baptized believers) as to when their children will participate.
I have studied the Scriptures carefully, and there seems to be nothing directly on point. We are to take the bread and wine to remember Jesus. Jesus did it with his disciples. The early believers took communion as a full meal (similar to the passover), and were admonished by Paul in one church that the rich were eating and the poor were going hungry. In the Passover meal, children were active participants. Jesus said "let the children come unto me." As I have thought about all of these things, I reached the conclusion that if I am right with God, and have committed to leading my familiy as followers of Christ, then she should participate. It is a great way to teach her about Christ and his love for us. As she grows in her capacity to understand, my hope is that she will make a decision to follow Christ.

My friend has a very different view. He believes that you must first have a full understanding of what Christ did for us.

As I have thought this through, I have wondered what message it will send if we tell her she cannot participate. Does that send a message to a child that God does not love her and that she is excluded somehow? Does that send a message that it is a special thing for adults to do once they are followers of Christ? How did the early chruch handle this and view this? How did children participate in the Passover meal, and should that participation be carried over into communion, which replaced the Passover meal in the New Covenant?

What is your belief on this topic? I'm just curious as I cannot seem to find specific instruction in Scripture either way, but can see how both views can be extrapolated from Scripture.

#2 Invicta

Invicta

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,333 posts
526
Excellent
  • LocationWhitstable, Kent, England

Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:19 PM

Firstly, there is no office of priest in the christian church.

2ndly, we are told to take bread, not a wafer.

3rdly, We are told to take the cup, not to dunk anything in it.

4tyhly, I agree with your friend. That is not to say that in some cases, a very young child can be born again.

Edited by Invicta, 21 July 2011 - 02:23 PM.


#3 kindofblue1977

kindofblue1977

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
117
Excellent
  • LocationU.S.

Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:32 PM

4tyhly, I agree with your friend. That is not to say that in some cases, a very young child can be born again.


Why? What is the Scriptures supporting that view? Perhaps there are not any, as I have been unable to find any with clear guidance, but I'm curious as to how others back up that view with Scripture.

The one I keep coming back to is: Matthew 19

15(Y) Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they(Z) rebuked them. 16But Jesus called them to him, saying, (AA) "Let the children come to me, and(AB) do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17(AC) Truly, I say to you, whoever does not(AD) receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

No, it is not about communion directly, but Jesus commanded his disciples not to keep children away. That is the lens through which I am reading other Scriptures dealing with Communion, and as well as the fact that children were active participants in the Passover.

Not picking an argument here, just curious as to what Scrptures speak to the issue and how others interpret those scriptues.

#4 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,127 posts
1,801
Excellent

Posted 21 July 2011 - 03:10 PM

Interesting question. As to the wafer, bread thing - just a reminder that the Jews used unleavened bread during the Passover time...so Jesus did also at the institution of the commemoration of His body and blood...and that bread is often cracker or wafer like...

Although scripture does not specify that children of saved parents who are themselves not yet saved cannot partake of the Lord's Supper, we need to remember that Jesus was speaking to His disciples when He instituted the observance: and Paul was speaking to the church - those who are saved.

The key word in these verses is "unworthily." What is unworthy? What is worthy? Can any of us be worthy of partaking if we are not saved? Personally, I believe that unworthily means not saved, or if saved, not right with God and not willing to get right with God.

That said, I can see how your approach might instill in your daughter a desire to know Christ. I don't think not allowing her to participate in communion is keeping her away from Christ. We did not allow our son to participate until he had a cognizance of what the ordinance means. He accepted Christ at 3 years of age, and many might think he should have begun to participate right away. But we believe that the time of observance should be a time of reflection and allowing the Lord to speak to us about sins we need to confess and forsake. Once he understood, we allowed him to participate. Did it drive him away from the Lord? No.

#5 kindofblue1977

kindofblue1977

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
117
Excellent
  • LocationU.S.

Posted 21 July 2011 - 03:27 PM

Interesting question. As to the wafer, bread thing - just a reminder that the Jews used unleavened bread during the Passover time...so Jesus did also at the institution of the commemoration of His body and blood...and that bread is often cracker or wafer like...

Although scripture does not specify that children of saved parents who are themselves not yet saved cannot partake of the Lord's Supper, we need to remember that Jesus was speaking to His disciples when He instituted the observance: and Paul was speaking to the church - those who are saved.

The key word in these verses is "unworthily." What is unworthy? What is worthy? Can any of us be worthy of partaking if we are not saved? Personally, I believe that unworthily means not saved, or if saved, not right with God and not willing to get right with God.

That said, I can see how your approach might instill in your daughter a desire to know Christ. I don't think not allowing her to participate in communion is keeping her away from Christ. We did not allow our son to participate until he had a cognizance of what the ordinance means. He accepted Christ at 3 years of age, and many might think he should have begun to participate right away. But we believe that the time of observance should be a time of reflection and allowing the Lord to speak to us about sins we need to confess and forsake. Once he understood, we allowed him to participate. Did it drive him away from the Lord? No.


Yeah, bread/wafer is the same thing. Unleavened bread is thin/wafer like...broken into pieces = wafer. Techicality I guess.

Another verse that seems applicable is I Cor. 7:14. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.(Q) Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

This seems to imply that children of a young age (too young to believe for themselves) are somehow part of the New Covenant if their parents are believers. That does not to say they are saved, but means to say that they are viewed as holy until such time that they either accept or reject faith in Christ for themselves (so called "age of accountability"). That is another verse that conributed greatly to my decision. Under this verse, it would seem that my daughter is "holy" and thus worthy to partake in the the Lord's Supper. We are not to partake in an unworth manner (we are all unworthy, but the grace of Christ has made us worthy...only through him). So, if the children are deemed "holy" if parents are beleivers, would they not be deemed worthy until such time that sense the call of Christ to follow and then chose to accept or reject him for themselves?

Tough questions. I see both sides. I still struggle with it a bit. I had never given this much thought until about two months ago. Fortunately, my wife and I had discussed it before our daughter expressed an interest. My friend has me thinking about it more and studying in more depth. I think the main thing is that parents should teach their children what it means and that it is a time to reflect upon our own lives and remember what Christ did for us on the cross.

#6 kindofblue1977

kindofblue1977

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
117
Excellent
  • LocationU.S.

Posted 21 July 2011 - 03:28 PM

Interesting question. As to the wafer, bread thing - just a reminder that the Jews used unleavened bread during the Passover time...so Jesus did also at the institution of the commemoration of His body and blood...and that bread is often cracker or wafer like...

Although scripture does not specify that children of saved parents who are themselves not yet saved cannot partake of the Lord's Supper, we need to remember that Jesus was speaking to His disciples when He instituted the observance: and Paul was speaking to the church - those who are saved.

The key word in these verses is "unworthily." What is unworthy? What is worthy? Can any of us be worthy of partaking if we are not saved? Personally, I believe that unworthily means not saved, or if saved, not right with God and not willing to get right with God.

That said, I can see how your approach might instill in your daughter a desire to know Christ. I don't think not allowing her to participate in communion is keeping her away from Christ. We did not allow our son to participate until he had a cognizance of what the ordinance means. He accepted Christ at 3 years of age, and many might think he should have begun to participate right away. But we believe that the time of observance should be a time of reflection and allowing the Lord to speak to us about sins we need to confess and forsake. Once he understood, we allowed him to participate. Did it drive him away from the Lord? No.


Yeah, bread/wafer is the same thing. Unleavened bread is thin/wafer like...broken into pieces = wafer. Techicality I guess. Same with priest/pastor....either term, they are the leader of the church. As far as dipping, we use a common cup, so some are given the option to dip their wafer if they are germaphobes. But the point is that we are consuming it and participating in remembering Jesus.

Another verse that seems applicable is I Cor. 7:14. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. "

This seems to imply that children of a young age (too young to believe for themselves) are somehow part of the New Covenant if their parents are believers. That does not to say they are saved, but means to say that they are viewed as holy until such time that they either accept or reject faith in Christ for themselves (so called "age of accountability"). That is another verse that conributed greatly to my decision. Under this verse, it would seem that my daughter is "holy" and thus worthy to partake in the the Lord's Supper. We are not to partake in an unworth manner (we are all unworthy, but the grace of Christ has made us worthy...only through him). So, if the children are deemed "holy" if parents are beleivers, would they not be deemed worthy until such time that sense the call of Christ to follow and then chose to accept or reject him for themselves?

Tough questions. I see both sides. I still struggle with it a bit. I had never given this much thought until about two months ago. Fortunately, my wife and I had discussed it before our daughter expressed an interest. My friend has me thinking about it more and studying in more depth. I think the main thing is that parents should teach their children what it means and that it is a time to reflect upon our own lives and remember what Christ did for us on the cross.

Edited by kindofblue1977, 21 July 2011 - 04:00 PM.


#7 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,127 posts
1,801
Excellent

Posted 21 July 2011 - 03:49 PM

I agree that parents should teach their children what it means. I don't know that the verses in 1 Cor 7 are applicable simply because we know that the verses aren't saying that the children would be automatically saved (I know you're not saying that - I'm just saying why I'm not sure the verses apply to this particular idea)

(kob, could you change those references to King James...remember we only post KJB on the forum. Thanks)

#8 kindofblue1977

kindofblue1977

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
117
Excellent
  • LocationU.S.

Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:03 PM

I agree that parents should teach their children what it means. I don't know that the verses in 1 Cor 7 are applicable simply because we know that the verses aren't saying that the children would be automatically saved (I know you're not saying that - I'm just saying why I'm not sure the verses apply to this particular idea)

(kob, could you change those references to King James...remember we only post KJB on the forum. Thanks)


Done. I'm sorry about that. I just went to bible gateway and did not even check the version. :)
No, I am not saying children are automatically saved. I am not certain this verse applies to this area either, but given the lack of guidance elsewhere, that combined with what Jesus says about children has led me to my conclusion. Not saying others are wrong, but right now for my house, that is what we have concluded (at least for now, unless further study changes my mind).

I'm still not 100% stuck on one way or the other. That is why I am still considereing the issue and giving it study and thought. Just getting thoughts from other people.

#9 farouk

farouk

    Senior Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
16
Good

Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:20 PM

What about the matter of giving false assurance to those who have not yet clearly been born again?

For those who think that believer's baptism is Scriptural, why it is that the Lord's Supper is deemed to be suitable to be partaken of by those who are not deemed suitable to baptize because they haven't yet clearly believed? ...and why make a stand against paedobaptism on the grounds that it raises false hopes, when a similar effect may be caused by giving the Lord's Supper to unbelieving children? To include unbelieving children in some kind of covenant idea of salvation has more in common with paedobaptistic drawing on Old Testament Jewish circumcision, than on New Testament, dispensational teaching on the new birth, and believer's baptism.

In any case, why is it the parent's supposed right to decide what a local church should practise on this matter? (unless the proposal is to change churches to accommodate unbelieving children participating in the Lord's Supper.)

#10 kindofblue1977

kindofblue1977

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
117
Excellent
  • LocationU.S.

Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:32 PM

What about the matter of giving false assurance to those who have not yet clearly been born again?

For those who think that believer's baptism is Scriptural, why it is that the Lord's Supper is deemed to be suitable to be partaken of by those who are not deemed suitable to baptize because they haven't yet clearly believed? ...and why make a stand against paedobaptism on the grounds that it raises false hopes, when a similar effect may be caused by giving the Lord's Supper to unbelieving children? To include unbelieving children in some kind of covenant idea of salvation has more in common with paedobaptistic drawing on Old Testament Jewish circumcision, than on New Testament, dispensational teaching on the new birth, and believer's baptism.

In any case, why is it the parent's supposed right to decide what a local church should practise on this matter? (unless the proposal is to change churches to accommodate unbelieving children participating in the Lord's Supper.)


At my church, as far as children go, it is up to the parents to decide if their children participate in communion.

In my study of the Scripture, it seems clear that somehow, God views the household of believers as holy, including children who have not yet believed for themselves. See I Cor. 7:14. Jesus said let the children come unto me, and used small children as an example of the kind of faith we should have in him.

I do not see how this gives a false sense of salvation if we teach her to remember that Jesus died for her and loves her and if we raise her in a manner to teach her that she needs to make a decision to follow Christ. I don't see how it is any different than teaching her to pray. After all, Jesus said to let teh children come to him, so we should encourage them to go to God in prayer.

I believe strogly in the New Covenant, and believe many aspects of the Old Covenant have carried over and have been replaced. For example, The Lord's Supper seems to me has replaced Passover. Both are extraordinarily rich in their meaning. Children under the Old Covenant participated in the Passover Feast, so shouldn't they participate in the Lord's Supper as well? Just a question that I have. There are many parallels between the two. Both are a sign of rembrance. Blood of a lamb was shed to save the first born son. Jesus shed his blood to bring salvation to us. Unleavened bread was used. Jesus gave his supper at the Passover Feast, so there is a clear connection between the two, indicating that one has replaced the other under the New Covenant. So, if children of the Jewish adults who were not yet able to believe for themselves that the Messiah would come participated and partook, what does that mean for children of believers who are under the New Covenant today?

I understand that the Lord's Supper is for those who are worthy to receive it. How are children unworthy? Are there other Scriptures sayiing this? If so, how do you reconcile with I Cor. 7:14? Perhaps there is not an answer, but those are the questions I have.

Edited by kindofblue1977, 21 July 2011 - 04:37 PM.


#11 Salyan

Salyan

    Super Contributor

  • Moderators
  • 3,100 posts
992
Excellent
  • LocationSP AB CA

Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:33 PM

What about the matter of giving false assurance to those who have not yet clearly been born again?

For those who think that believer's baptism is Scriptural, why it is that the Lord's Supper is deemed to be suitable to be partaken of by those who are not deemed suitable to baptize because they haven't yet clearly believed? ...and why make a stand against paedobaptism on the grounds that it raises false hopes, when a similar effect may be caused by giving the Lord's Supper to unbelieving children? To include unbelieving children in some kind of covenant idea of salvation has more in common with paedobaptistic drawing on Old Testament Jewish circumcision, than on New Testament, dispensational teaching on the new birth, and believer's baptism.

:goodpost:

#12 farouk

farouk

    Senior Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
16
Good

Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:36 PM

Nothing the Epistles say can contradict or supersede: 'Ye must be born again' (John 3).

Until they have credibly been born again, all talk of presumptive covenant inclusion and so forth would militate against the Lord's clear requirement: 'Ye must be born again'.

Believer's baptism means baptising believer's. A pity people don't also use the term, the Lord's Supper for Believers.

#13 farouk

farouk

    Senior Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
16
Good

Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:38 PM

:goodpost:


ms salyan:

You see, I think you and I do think alike to quite some extent, after all ... :)

#14 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,519
Excellent
  • LocationIn the south

Posted 22 July 2011 - 10:57 PM

No partaking of the Lord's Supper until one has been saved, so unsaved children, no! Its for believers only.

#15 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,434 posts
4,811
Excellent

Posted 23 July 2011 - 07:07 AM

The Lord's Supper is for Believers only. No unbeliever, no matter their age, should partake of the Lord's Supper and no Believer should allow unsaved children to partake of the Lord's Supper.

#16 DennisD

DennisD

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
70
Excellent
  • LocationPasadena, MD (From Utica, NY)

Posted 23 July 2011 - 08:17 AM


What about the matter of giving false assurance to those who have not yet clearly been born again?

For those who think that believer's baptism is Scriptural, why it is that the Lord's Supper is deemed to be suitable to be partaken of by those who are not deemed suitable to baptize because they haven't yet clearly believed? ...and why make a stand against paedobaptism on the grounds that it raises false hopes, when a similar effect may be caused by giving the Lord's Supper to unbelieving children? To include unbelieving children in some kind of covenant idea of salvation has more in common with paedobaptistic drawing on Old Testament Jewish circumcision, than on New Testament, dispensational teaching on the new birth, and believer's baptism.

In any case, why is it the parent's supposed right to decide what a local church should practise on this matter? (unless the proposal is to change churches to accommodate unbelieving children participating in the Lord's Supper.)


At my church, as far as children go, it is up to the parents to decide if their children participate in communion.

In my study of the Scripture, it seems clear that somehow, God views the household of believers as holy, including children who have not yet believed for themselves. See I Cor. 7:14. Jesus said let the children come unto me, and used small children as an example of the kind of faith we should have in him.

I do not see how this gives a false sense of salvation if we teach her to remember that Jesus died for her and loves her and if we raise her in a manner to teach her that she needs to make a decision to follow Christ. I don't see how it is any different than teaching her to pray. After all, Jesus said to let teh children come to him, so we should encourage them to go to God in prayer.

I believe strogly in the New Covenant, and believe many aspects of the Old Covenant have carried over and have been replaced. For example, The Lord's Supper seems to me has replaced Passover. Both are extraordinarily rich in their meaning. Children under the Old Covenant participated in the Passover Feast, so shouldn't they participate in the Lord's Supper as well? Just a question that I have. There are many parallels between the two. Both are a sign of rembrance. Blood of a lamb was shed to save the first born son. Jesus shed his blood to bring salvation to us. Unleavened bread was used. Jesus gave his supper at the Passover Feast, so there is a clear connection between the two, indicating that one has replaced the other under the New Covenant. So, if children of the Jewish adults who were not yet able to believe for themselves that the Messiah would come participated and partook, what does that mean for children of believers who are under the New Covenant today?

I understand that the Lord's Supper is for those who are worthy to receive it. How are children unworthy? Are there other Scriptures sayiing this? If so, how do you reconcile with I Cor. 7:14? Perhaps there is not an answer, but those are the questions I have.


But when are you going to decide she is unworthily partaking? Do you know your childs heart? I think it's somewhat foolhardy to assume you'll know when she reaches the "age of accountability" since it is different with everyone. What happens then though? Do you say, sorry you are now of the age where you cannot partake in the Lord's Supper unless you are saved? It seems there might be a backlash at that point. Whereas, if you just waited until she reached the age of some understanding before allowing her partake in the Lord's Supper...you wouldn't have to explain why you are not allowing her to partake anymore.

Hopefully that made sense, it did in my brain but maybe not in written word. The bottom line, yes, you can decide what happens in your house but be prepared for the repercussions of your decisions as well. I would recommend you reassess your decision based on scripture. A 3 year old, even if saved, doesn't necessarily understand the implications of partaking of the Lord's Supper unworthily. If taken unworthily (unsaved or not in the right relationship with God), you may fall ill or even die. This is very serious business and not to be taken lightly with a 3 year old. What is the harm waiting a few more years and praying the young child comes to Christ.

My 10 and 8 year old have given professions of faith in Christ but I don't let them partake in communion because 1) They haven't done believers baptism and 2) I just believe that they don't understand the implications just yet, not fully at least. Yes, those ages seem somewhat old enough to understand but they've only been saved a couple years and I want them to understand 100% first.

#17 Annie

Annie

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,613 posts
129
Excellent

Posted 23 July 2011 - 08:22 AM

I like Happy Christian's posts on this topic. KOB, we're Baptists, so we're definitely going to see the issue differently than you do. In my church, for example (and this was the way I was raised, too, in non-Baptist churches), those who have not "repented and been baptized" (and thus have not been "added to the church") do not participate in communion, because we believe that those two things go hand in hand, per the apostles' message. I should say--to clarify--that you (as an Episcopalian(?) visitor) would be free to take communion in our church, since you have professed to believe in Christ, and have been baptized at some point. We've had former Presbyterians (baptized as infants) join our church, and they join with the rest of us in communion. (There are no young children in that family.) We don't make an issue about that, and leave room for others' interpretation and church traditions. It was interesting, though...The husband in that family, apart from any prodding or pushing, did ask to be baptized by immersion--at the age of 70!--so that he could feel right about joining our body in communion.

We believe that the term communion signifies intentional, corporate "communion with God" and with one another as professing believers. This kind of communion is impossible in a body which isn't uniformly converted, or in a group in which all partakers do not understand at the most basic level what the bread and cup represent, and how significant and profound the remembrance is. My husband and I have held our children back from participating, for this very reason. All five of them have professed salvation, but none have yet expressed the desire to be baptized. They are not ready to take communion, since they have not yet identified themselves with the visible corporate body of believers. They are not yet "part of the communing body." They understand that "taking communion" isn't a "right," or just "remembering Jesus," but a gift, a privilege for those who, by their public profession and identification with the church of Christ, can indeed participate in free and open "communion" with Christ and one another...those who are organically part of the body of Christ--the church--through faith and repentance, publicly expressed by baptism.

That's my Baptist take on the issue, FWIW.

Edited by Annie, 23 July 2011 - 08:57 AM.


#18 Deb2live4Christ

Deb2live4Christ

    Advanced Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
11
Good

Posted 23 July 2011 - 10:21 AM

I have been talking about this extensively with a friend of mine. We both have daughters who are three years old. His daughter has not yet expressed an interest in taking communion. Mine has, and we have decided to allow her to participate.

My friend has a real hang up about this, believing that communion is solely for those who have already made a decision to trust in Christ. My view is that my wife and I have made that decision, and our household is part of the New Covenant under christ. We have committed to raising her in the faith and to direct her hopeful that she wll grow in faith and make her own decision to follow Christ. As my household is full participating members of our church, we decided to allow her to take communion with us when she expressed an interest. She did so about four weeks ago, and we talked about how it is to remind us that Jesus loves us and died for us. When the priest came by, she held out her hand and received a wafer, and he told her that it was a reminder that Jesus loves her and died for her. She dipped the wafer in the wine, and likewise, she was told that it was to reminder her that Jesus loves her and died for her.

The position of my church is that it is up to the parents (if the parents are baptized believers) as to when their children will participate.
I have studied the Scriptures carefully, and there seems to be nothing directly on point. We are to take the bread and wine to remember Jesus. Jesus did it with his disciples. The early believers took communion as a full meal (similar to the passover), and were admonished by Paul in one church that the rich were eating and the poor were going hungry. In the Passover meal, children were active participants. Jesus said "let the children come unto me." As I have thought about all of these things, I reached the conclusion that if I am right with God, and have committed to leading my familiy as followers of Christ, then she should participate. It is a great way to teach her about Christ and his love for us. As she grows in her capacity to understand, my hope is that she will make a decision to follow Christ.

My friend has a very different view. He believes that you must first have a full understanding of what Christ did for us.

As I have thought this through, I have wondered what message it will send if we tell her she cannot participate. Does that send a message to a child that God does not love her and that she is excluded somehow? Does that send a message that it is a special thing for adults to do once they are followers of Christ? How did the early chruch handle this and view this? How did children participate in the Passover meal, and should that participation be carried over into communion, which replaced the Passover meal in the New Covenant?

What is your belief on this topic? I'm just curious as I cannot seem to find specific instruction in Scripture either way, but can see how both views can be extrapolated from Scripture.


One of the things we must remember is that where scripture is not direct on a certain subject we then look for principles within the Word that would then direct us to proper conduct within the bounds of the written Word of God...The Lord Jesus did say, Matthew 19:13-15 "Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence." This has nothing to do with communion and notice it was not the children themselves coming but being brought to by "loved ones" that should put his hands on them, and pray...these may have been concerned parents, the Bible isn't clear as to the "who" but that "then were there brought unto him children" they (the children)may have spoken to the bringers that they wanted to go to Jesus and therefore the loved ones brought them to Him only to encounter oppostion from the disciples.

Scripture is clear in that he does call children...Samuel being an example...1Samuel 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him. 1 Samuel 3:8-10 And the LORD called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the LORD had called the child. Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, LORD; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place. And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth. 1 Samuel 3:19 And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground.

As far as unworthy...Because we are born with sin...that makes us unworthy to be partakers of the Lord's table unless of course we have taken the steps as instructed in God's Word to be born again...also instruction to the believer to confess and repent and make amends where possible before eligibilty of taking of the Lord's table...1 Corinthians 11:27-29 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. Children are concrete in their thinking...and until the Lord brings the child to an understanding the concepts of salvation they are very abstract and foreign to them...and Paul even expressed something in His teaching I thought to be interesting1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. ... in principle he made a distinction between childhood and manhood...interestingly enough in Jewish tradition, 12 years old a male "put away childish things"... or rather was expected to anyway...our culture (by way of my observation) somehow keeps children children well over their 20's sometimes...

My thoughts as far as if it should be carried over to the passover meal, Jesus waited until Judas was absent before he instituded this and a good question would be Why?

One of the greatest things we can teach our children is to wait on the Lord...wait for his appointed time in his appointed way for his appointed will for them as individual...everything is instant gratification nowadays...I want it now...somethings are ours to have but sometimes God calls on us to wait...

Does God love us less when He asks us to wait...no
Jesus was prophecied in the Book of Genesis Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. ...there was a waiting period...it was to the Jews first...then to the Gentiles yet the OT clearly expresses that the Gentiles will too be able to receive the grace of God...Isaiah 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

These are just a couple instances and in study you can find plenty more I am sure...

Ask God for wisedom as you interact with your little one and remember she is a child and let her know that Jesus loves and cares for her...somethings are given to adults to do in scripture and there is nothing unloving about it...back to Samuel 1 Samuel 7:2-3 And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim, that the time was long; for it was twenty years: and all the house of Israel lamented after the LORD. And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines. It seems 20 years went by before Samuel spoke as a prophet unto the people for the Lord....if you think about it from another perspective, would you give her keys to drive your car when she asks...

#19 farouk

farouk

    Senior Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
16
Good

Posted 23 July 2011 - 10:28 AM

I think another aspect of this question is, what is the church? because the Lord's Supper is an activity of the local church. If someone is not on the same page about what the local church is, in terms of how its organization is derived from Scripture, then consequently other related subjects are likely to be different, too.

#20 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,519
Excellent
  • LocationIn the south

Posted 23 July 2011 - 03:41 PM

Jesus' Churches were put in charge, authority of the Lord's Supper, and within the pages of the New Testament we have everything we need to hold it just as Jesus wishes. It is a church ordnance, and it is for the members of that church.

If you believe the Bible is true, you need to be careful about partaking of the Lord's Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:30. And Jesus' Churches need to be careful and hold to the Scriptures when observing it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500