Board index ‹ Baptism

[Reconnoiter]

Jim,

What’s your viewpoint on the Catholic/Lutheran stance on requiring confirmation before communion. Furthermore, not allowing other Christians who aren’t catholic or Lutheran to take communion at church? I know a lot of their argument is in 1 Corinthians where Paul discusses communion. Could you shed some light? Thanks!!!

[jimwalton]

Well, for starters I disagree with the whole concept of infant baptism, which is the foundation of the Catholic/Lutheran practice. Vernard Eller, in a book called In Place of Sacraments, writes, "Incontestably, every person named or identified in the NT as being a recipient of baptism was an adult believer. We have no way of knowing that there were children in these families, but there is no need even to argue the point. These notices tell us nothing at all unless we know beforehand whether or not the church of that day practiced infant baptism. ... There is no notice that can be interpreted as a positive proof of the practice of infant baptism until more than a century after the NT period."

My brother Bob, a NT scholar and Church History expert, writes (of Acts 16.31), "The connection here between preaching, hearing, believing, and baptism indicates that credobaptism rather than pedobaptism is involved."

I also think it's obvious from the teaching of 1 Cor. 11 that communion is for believers only. It's a remembrance, conviction, and commitment for Christians, not for anyone else. I would say, in general, that of course a commitment to Christ (confirmation) is necessary before taking communion.

As far as "not allowing other Christians who aren't catholic or Lutheran to take communion at church," I think that's a travesty. As 1 Cor. 11.28 says, a person ought to examine himself. Communion is supposed to unite us, not be an occasion for exclusion or division. As is often said in my church, if you're a believer, you're welcome at this table.

We can talk more.