Written by Paul J. Barth |
Tuesday, May 7, 2024
At the time of administration, covenant infants are capable of the grace signified by baptism (Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:15; John 3:8), but not the grace signified by communion. So, even though we confess that “the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered” (WCF 28:6), the signification of baptism, in principle, remains prior to, and during, the time of administration. This is not the case for the Lord’s Supper because the signification of it requires active faith, and a verifiable profession of such faith by the elders (1 Cor. 4:1; 5:11).

A common objection against infant baptism by credo-baptists is that if children are to be baptized, then, for the sake of consistency, they ought to also be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. In other words, the logical conclusion of infant baptism necessarily leads to the absurdity of infant communion; paedocommunion is obviously unbiblical and absurd, therefore paedobaptism must likewise be unbiblical. In like manner, paedocommunion advocates endorse the same logic, but instead of denying both infant baptism and infant communion, they affirm and practice both under the same pretense of consistency (cf. Infant Communion? By Douglas Wilson). Since paedobaptism is true, paedocommunion is likewise true, and it is inconsistent to treat them differently by giving one sacrament to infants but not the other.
But is this charge of inconsistency a valid criticism of confessional Reformed sacramentology?
Baptists and Paedocommunionists both hold to the same naive and superficial assumption: “Since Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both sacraments, they must also have the same qualifications for partaking worthily.” But this is not a sound conjecture, it is a false analogy. On the contrary, confessional Reformed Theology rightly affirms that the Lord Jesus Christ defines the manner in which each sacrament ought to be partaken of—and he does so in harmonious consistency with the nature, use, and ends that he himself instituted for each sacrament respectively.
So the remaining question is, why do confessional Reformed churches baptize infants, but do not admit them to the Lord’s Table? They do so for the following three reasons:
1) Covenant Status & the Requirements for Partaking of Each Sacrament
First, due to their covenant status, personal acts of faith (such as a credible profession) are not necessary for infants to be baptized, but yet they are necessary for them to partake of the Lord’s Supper.
A credible profession of faith, as validated by the elders of the church, is required of those outside of the visible church in order for them to join the covenant community. Converts to Christianity must enter the covenant community first, by professing faith in Christ, and then they can be admitted to the sacrament of baptism (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:37-38). However, infants of believers are already members of the covenant community, and are federally holy (Gen. 9:9; Gen. 17:10; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 7:14; cf. WLC 166). As members of the visible church, covenant infants have a right to the initiatory sacrament of baptism. That is why a profession of faith is not required of covenant infants before receiving baptism. [1]
Unlike the requirements for adult baptism, the requirements for worthily partaking of the Lord’s Supper are not given to unbelievers, but rather to the covenant community. There is no similar twofold requirement for this sacrament like there is for baptism with regard to unbelieving adults vs covenant children. This sacrament is exclusively for covenant members, not for outsiders of the covenant—which is why the prerequisites for worthy partaking are the same for all those who already are covenant members. These prerequisites are remembering Christ (1 Cor. 11:24-25), self-examination (1 Cor. 11:28; 2 Cor. 13:5), discerning the Lord’s body and blood (1 Cor. 11:27, 29), taking, eating, and drinking the bread and the wine (1 Cor. 11:24-25), not just physically, but spiritually by faith (John 6:35; 1 Cor. 11:26). As William Ames wrote,
“Baptism ought to be administered to all those in the covenant of grace, because it is the first sealing of the covenant now first entered into… But the Supper is to be administered only to those who are visibly capable of nourishment and growth in the church. Therefore, it is to be given not to infants, but only to adults.” (Marrow of Theology I.xl.11, 18, pp. 211 & 212)
Baptism requires covenant membership, which is obtained either by birth or by profession of faith. Covenant children are not an exception to this rule. Communion requires not only covenant membership, but also multiple spiritual exercises which are not required for any party in baptism. Of these spiritual exercises, John Calvin writes, “Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs [baptism & communion].” He continues with an analogy from the old covenant sacraments:
“This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the Passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26).” (Institutes of the Christian Religion IV.xvi.30)
Hence it is clear that the prerequisites for baptism are not comparable to those for the Lord’s Supper. The requirement for baptism is that one be a member of the visible church, yet one may become a member of the visible church in two ways. Non-covenanted individuals outside the church must profess faith in Christ to join the church and be baptized, whereas members of the church already have a right to baptism. However, the requirements for the Lord’s Supper, discussed above, cannot be met in multiple ways.
2) The Manner of Participation
Secondly, the recipient is passive in baptism, but active in communion. One is baptized by being a covenant member, and having water poured on the head, whereas in communion there are several physical and spiritual actions that must take place. The participant does not baptize himself, but in communion, the participant takes, eats, drinks, and remembers.
This passive and active manner of participation corresponds to the Christ-ordained ends of the two sacraments respectively. Baptism represents regeneration (Titus 3:5)—which is an irresistible act of the Holy Ghost upon the passive person (John 3:8) bringing him to spiritual life (Ezekiel 37:1-10; Eph. 2:5) and giving him a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26). Yet, Communion represents active faith (John 6:35; 1 Cor. 11:26)—which is an act of the believer reaching out and taking hold of Christ for himself unto salvation (John 1:12; Acts 15:11; 16:31; Gal 2:20). It is important to remember that justifying faith consists of three components: knowledge of the gospel message (notitia), intellectual assent acknowledging the truth of the gospel message (assensus), and wilful trust in, and a faithful apprehending of, the promises of God in Christ unto oneself (fiducia). This knowledge and assent are intellectual actions, and fiducial trust is an act of the will [2] — all three of which infants in their stage of development are not yet capable of (Isa. 7:16; Rom. 10:17; 12:1). [3] Yet, regeneration, being the sole act of the Holy Ghost, infants are capable of receiving (John 3:8). As Robert Baillie (1602-1662) wrote,
“[Infants] are not capable of the whole signification of the Lord’s Supper, for the thing signified therein is not the Lord’s body and blood simply, but his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken, by the actual faith of the communicants; of this active application infants are not capable; but in baptism no action is necessarily required of all who are to be baptized; for as the body may be washed without any action of the party who is washed: so the virtue of Christ’s death and life may be applied in remission and regeneration, by the act of God alone to the soul as a mere patient without any action from it.” (Anabaptism, the True Fountain of Independency, pp. 151-152).
Furthermore, this “taking,” “eating,” and “drinking” in the Supper are not only to be understood as physical actions, but as the spiritual actions of the subject. As Augustine said, “Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” (Tractate 25). Matthew Henry similarly comments,
“This is here exhibited, or set forth, as the food of souls. And as food, though ever so wholesome or rich, will yield no nourishment without being eaten, here the communicants are to take and eat, or to receive Christ and feed upon him, his grace and benefits, and by faith convert them into nourishment to their souls.” (Com. 1 Cor. 11:24). [4]
Hence, infants are capable of physically and spiritually participating in baptism (passively), but are not capable of participating actively in the Lord’s Supper. This will become more clear in our next point.
3) Infants Benefit from Baptism but Not from the Supper
Thirdly, regarding the efficacy of the sacraments, infants benefit from baptism outwardly and are able to inwardly, whereas they can not benefit from the Supper in either way.
Read More
Related Posts:

Scripture teaches us the necessity of being good evangelists (Matt. 28), but it also teaches us to be good watchmen (Ezek. 33) over the city and over the people. Shouldn’t we be just as concerned about the consequences of evil being unleashed–even on the Church–by corporate entities as we are about the salvation of souls?

How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! – Matt. 23:37
An Understanding & Definition
Our mission at Tanglewood Ministries is to teach how evil can be restrained and how to live together in an orderly manner–something that must be taught regularly in churches today by

Showing love for Christ by obeying what He commands. (John 14:15)

Warning against corporate violations of the Moral Law thereby subjecting whole groups and even nations to God’s judgment. (Ezek. 18:30)

Subjecting ourselves to governing authorities [except when those authorities command us to disobey God]. (Rom. 13:1 and Acts 4:18)

Understanding the doctrine of Common Grace whereby God can and does restrain evil through governing authorities (Romans 13) and makes the same promise to us today found in 2 Chronicles 7:14. So, isn’t it also Good News when nations begin to live under His protection? The answer is yes, and these things need to be taught in our churches.

While we support the work of today’s church and para-church ministries, our role at Tanglewood Ministries is to warn others about corporate groups (government, academia, big tech, banking, and even the established church, etc.) who violate the Moral Law of God. Scripture teaches us the necessity of being good evangelists (Matt. 28), but it also teaches us to be good watchmen (Ezek. 33) over the city and over the people. Shouldn’t we be just as concerned about the consequences of evil being unleashed–even on the Church–by corporate entities as we are about the salvation of souls? Biblically and historically, there is always a high price to pay for not heeding the warnings of Scripture, for not seeking God’s protection, and for not sounding the alarm when corporate groups violate His Moral Law.
Recently a group of Roman Catholic bishops met to discuss whether Catholic politicians like Joe Biden should continue to receive Communion because of their personal and political pro-choice positions. At a conference in November of 2021, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops passed a document by a vote of 222-8 which appeared to empower individual priests to deny Communion to pro-abortion rights politicians should they encounter them. Equally important is the corporate nature of the president’s sin. Shouldn’t that be the proper role of the Church and its leaders as well? Exercised biblically, the church has always had great spiritual power to proclaim everything Christ commanded–including His warnings–and it still does–even to a president and to a nation who follows him in his political position on abortion.
Remember to be thankful for those who do acknowledge and teach soundly on the moral issues. We may disagree doctrinally on many points with Roman Catholics, who are also concerned about the moral injuries to everyone caused by corporate sins (e.g., the political position of politicians on abortion), but again we should be thankful for these bishops who were concerned enough about the spiritual health of the president, other politicians, and the church to discuss the issue and pass a document.
Also, be concerned about the medium used to convey the message, but not at the expense of the biblical message. The medium needs to be constantly evaluated to make sure that all that Scripture says on a subject is being proclaimed. The medium used at Tanglewood Ministries, and the one we are proposing to the church, is both predictive (one who warns about ignoring God’s Moral Law) and evangelistic (the Gospel). Both must be delivered with grace and mercy, and both are Good News.
Unfortunately, today, the evangelistic duties of the church often minimize the importance of its predictive duties–as is the case when we warn individuals and groups of the consequences of their sinful actions. What is needed is “salt and light” (Mt. 5:13-16) in both areas. The proper balance between the evangelistic and predictive focus of Scripture is best accomplished when we teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26-27). It’s not either/or, but both/and because both evangelistic and predictive duties are fundamental to Christian thought and doctrine.
Below is a letter I recently wrote to a follow pastor. It is meant to be analogous to Lam. 5:7 (“We bear their punishment”) but only in the sense when we actually commit the same sin or remain silent (also sinful) which precludes a deterministic view of this verse.
“Our fathers sinned and are no more, and we bear their punishment.” (Lam. 5:7)
My Dear Brother,
It is so good to hear from you; and I well understand, regarding church matters, the importance of smooth transitions between the retiring pastor and new pastor. I think for most matters that a gentleman’s agreement–not to meet with anyone relative to church matters without the new pastor being present as you have describe–works best. 
That being said, the old adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” is still very prevalent today. Most church members look for solid biblical teaching and a pleasant time among believers, even if only one day a week. They need and deserve this time. Some think only in these terms, but there is another consideration which must also be taught and nurtured. There are times when immediate attention to an unpleasant and troubling matter is warranted, and that somehow light will come out of darkness.
Such is a time for the Presbyterian Church in America. Knowledge of the Revoice movement and “same-sex attracted candidates” to the Gospel ministry came as a shock, and perhaps too late (though we pray not), for most members and ruling and teaching elders to reverse the trend of events. Early on, proceedings in church courts were in the hands of some very capable and powerful men–men I might add whom I love as brothers, though I think some were wrong in their understanding of Scripture and of our Confessions regarding “Side B” ordination.
The message contained in my poster (“The PCA will never be able to argue “side B” ordination in God’s court) summarizes my biblical understanding on the subject of same-sex attracted, or in the vernacular of Revoice advocates, “Side B” (attracted, but not practicing homosexuality) candidates to the Gospel ministry. According to the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith (the lens through which Reformed Presbyterians understand theology, just as a Baptist would utilize the Baptist Confession or a commentary by C.H. Spurgeon), ordaining a man who is same-sex attracted should not to be permitted (Rom. 1:18-27); and that this is not just the concern of a few church leaders, but should be the immediate concern of all church members.
Conclusion:
If the “Side B” doctrine is neither “expressly set down in Scripture” nor “deduced from Scripture” (WCF 1:6), and if the Progressive “Side” B proponents outmaneuver the Confessional proponents, then isn’t this a case of corporate sin in the PCA, and shouldn’t we all (including me as a Teaching Elder) bear the punishment of others if we continue in their ways (my understanding of Lamentations 5:7 from the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible)? This summer’s PCA General Assembly will be a test case, like no other, to determine if the PCA remains Reformed. Our prayer is that the PCA will remain Reformed, but only if it rejects the “Side” B doctrine.
Note:
For inexplicable reasons, some may not be moved by my references to Scripture and to the Confessions of Our Faith, so I am providing a relevant warning from Franco-English writer and historian, Hilaire Belloc:
“In a word, the Barbarian is discoverable everywhere in this, that he cannot make: that he can befog and destroy but that he cannot sustain; and of every Barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilization exactly that has been true.
We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces there are no smiles.”
Charlie Rodriquez is a retired Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and lives in the Dallas, Texas area.

Paul’s teaching was not of human origin at all. Paul delivered to the gentiles the testimony of an apostle. He was a living witness of the resurrection. He bore witness to Christ’s triumph over the grave. Paul received grace from the Lord Jesus having been found guilty of persecuting Christ’s church.

Over the last few months, I’ve been stewing on a verse. It’s come to mind regularly at various times. It’s a verse that I’ve spoken or referenced numerous times as I’ve had the privilege of administering the Lord’s Table. Yet for all the times that I’ve served the Lord’s table, and all the times I’ve received communion, this verse hasn’t laid hold on me. It wasn’t until the Lord saw fit to move me out of my most recent pulpit, that this verse grabbed me.  “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” 1 Corinthians 11:23a.
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you…Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν…1 Corinthians 11:23
We typically think of this verse as an introductory note in the larger, more important section about the Lord’s table (v17-34). It is situated in the middle of both a rebuke and a corrective instruction for the Corinthian church regarding the practice of communion. While this sentence may seem like a simple linking idea, there is much to be learned from in considering these inspired Words from the Holy Spirit through Paul.
Rather than being a throwaway sentence or simple linking phrase, this verse is a statement from Paul regarding the origin of his own faith and what he teaches. This is a genesis, a backstory to all that he’s shared with the Corinthians. This is his source of authority, this is his source of faith, this is his source of practice, this is his source of instruction for other believers. His source is not his own mind (although he was perhaps the greatest thinker of his time), his source was not his own research (although perhaps he was the greatest interpreter of his time), his source was not his own spirituality (although no one could doubt that he must have possessed tremendous faith to suffer the horrific pains he endured). To put it succinctly and bluntly – Paul wasn’t the source for Paul’s religion.
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you…1 Corinthians 11:23a
This phrase reveals a pattern of ministry and consistent testimony regarding Paul’s faith, preaching, and teaching. In other words, this isn’t an isolated verse or a solitary statement. This is the repeated testimony of Paul. The substance of what Paul believed, taught, preached, and lived as an example came as something he received. His faith, its substance and essence, came as a gift from another. The source of the gift was none other than the risen Lord Jesus Christ.
The New Testament Concept of Paul’s Faith
When Paul writes to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Philippians, and to Timothy, he writes to them regarding what he himself has received and what he delivered to them (1 Thessalonians 4:1, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Philippians 4:9, 1 Timothy 1:16,). The most substantive testimony of what Paul taught, preached, and delivered to the churches is found in Galatians 1:11-12:
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11–12 ESV
When Paul speaks words of encouragement or challenge for the Corinthians and Thessalonians to continue in the faith, he speaks using terms of tradition (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15). This isn’t a philosophy (of Paul’s own making). Nor is this a new interpretation of something old (such as a Rabbinic comment which was very common in 1st century Judaism). What Paul delivered to the churches planted was precisely what he had received.
Paul’s preaching was put to the test after 14 years (as Paul counts in Galatians 2:1-2). His testimony to the gathered apostles was found to be Christ-honoring and in harmony with the testimony of the Apostles, even as he corrected another apostle (Galatians 2:11-14). How could this be if Christ did not disciple (teach and make him follow) this Paul? Thinking purely logistically, there were no assembled or distributed written gospels at the time of Saul/Paul’s conversion (recounted in Acts 9). All Paul could have heard from others would have been word of mouth. Even if there were documents for Paul to read and study, how could he have so accurately presented the resurrection message before the men who were there without himself being a witness? Yet Saul (so he was still called when Jesus was crucified and raised) was not there on what we call good Friday, or Easter. Yet he throws away all that he knew, his title, position, influence, social connections, all for the sake of the resurrected Jesus who confronted him (Acts 9:3-16). Paul’s preaching, absent the “seminary” training in Jerusalem from the disciples, came from none other than the Lord Jesus. Acts 9:16 is particularly helpful in understanding WHO it was that taught Paul. It was none other than the Lord Jesus:
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.Acts 9:15-16 ESV, emphasis added
Paul leaves his audiences with no doubt, whether they are gentile rulers (like Felix in Acts 24, or Agrippa and Bernice in Acts 25), or gentile commoners (Like those in Athens in Acts 17), whether they are Jewish leaders (like the Synagogue of Thessalonica in Acts 17), or Jewish disciples of Jesus (like the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15), it was no one else than the resurrected Jesus himself who confronted Saul/Paul and then instructed him in the faith.
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you…1 Corinthians 11:23a
How could this be? Jesus was already resurrected and ascended? Surely Paul didn’t walk on the road to Damascus (Luke 24), nor was he with the gathered disciples prior to Pentecost (Acts 1). How did Paul receive teaching from Jesus? Galatians is the book to turn to at this point. Notice what is absent, and what is present in Paul’s testimony.
Read More
Related Posts: