The Lord's Supper and Our Children (Conclusion)
Steve Wilkins

God in His grace and mercy has included the children of believers in His covenant. Because of this, the children of believers are rightly given the signs and seals of this covenant -- baptism and the Lord's supper. Children should be admitted to the Lord's table because of their membership in the covenant community and not because of their understanding or discernment of the theology of that community as important as that is. Children were admitted to the sacramental meals of the Old Covenant and there is no indication that this has been altered under the New Covenant.

It is important that we see both the advantages of this position as well as consider some misconceptions this position brings to the minds of many. That is the purpose of this chapter. First, we will consider the misconceptions.

Misconceptions Answered:

1. To say that baptized children should be admitted to the Lord's table is not to say that we must presume our children to be among the elect or regenerate.

The basis for all our actions is not to be what we hope or think might be true but what is certainly true. The basis upon which we admit our covenant children to the sacraments must not be something that is unknown or uncertain. We are never to base our actions upon the "secret will" of God (Deuteronomy 29:29).

I do not know for certain that my child is among the elect, nor can I know for certain that he or she is regenerate. Though both of these are possible, I cannot know either with certainty. What I do know without any doubt is that they are in covenant with God by virtue of His sovereign, gracious claim -- and, as a consequence, they are to be viewed and treated as those who have a real, legal, objective relationship with Him.

It is upon this clearly revealed, objective reality that the Church may admit covenant children to the sacraments with a clear conscience. We do not base our position upon presumption, assumption, or inference. We base it upon the clearly revealed will of God as it speaks of the nature of the covenant relationship we and our children bear to God.

2. To say that covenant children ought to be admitted to the Lord's table apart from a profession of faith, is not to say that they do not have to repent and believe or that their understanding of the gospel is a matter of little or no importance.

Obviously, it is the obligation of everyone in covenant with God to repent of his sins, believe in Christ for salvation and live faithfully. Without repentance they shall perish like the unbelieving Jews of old. Without faith, it is impossible to please the Lord (Hebrews 11:6). If they refuse to submit to God's word and obey it, they are covenant breakers and shall be cast into Hell just like old Israel .

It is the obligation of everyone in covenant with the Lord to repent, believe, grow in love, grow in their understanding, discernment, and faithfulness and persevere in all these to the end. If they refuse to do this, they break the covenant and suffer a greater condemnation than the world. Once joined publicly to God's people by their baptism, they are bound to continue faithful to Him who claimed them. The Lord's Supper points to this very obligation -- they must continue to feed upon Christ as their only hope of salvation and life all their days.

The issue here is not, should the children be taught, or should they grow in knowledge, love, and discernment. Of course they should! My point is this: Should we withhold one of the very means God uses to increase our knowledge, love, and discernment until they show these things? No . Though we will emphasize the importance of living faith in Christ and growth in knowledge and love as much as anyone, though we will be the first to acknowledge that having baptism and the Lord's Supper is not enough to save and will in fact, be as anchors to sink the souls of unbelievers deeper into the Lake of Fire, we will not make them the basis of admission to the covenant signs and seals. The sacraments are means of grace not "rewards" of grace. They are means by which our faith is nurtured, not the rewards of mature faith.

Thus, anyone who thinks that admitting children to the table apart from a profession undermines the necessity for faith and repentance and growth in knowledge and discernment is mistaken. We insist to the contrary, that it will promote faith and repentance, knowledge and discernment.

3. To say that baptized children should be allowed to the Lord's Supper is not to say that they should be allowed to vote or exercise judgment in the congregation.

Here is one of the chief objections in the minds of many to this teaching. How can we admit very young children to voting privileges in the congregation? Would it not be dangerous to do so? Indeed I believe it would. And further, I believe the Scriptures forbid such a thing altogether.

Even though discernment and a particular level of theological understanding and spiritual maturity are not required for admission to the sacraments, they are obviously required in order to exercise judgment or leadership in the congregation. In those areas where judgment and maturity are necessary, covenant children should be excluded on the basis of their immaturity.

This is why they are excluded from the eldership. An elder is to be one of mature godliness and wisdom to the degree that he manifests the characteristics of I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Clearly, elders ought not to come from children or new converts. But is it not equally clear that if elders are to have the characteristics of I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, that those who vote ought to be of sufficient years and maturity to be able to discern these traits (or the absence of them) in the candidates set before the congregation for election to this office?

There is a great difference between eating with the congregation and making decisions and exercising judgment in the congregation. For this reason we should insist that in matters that require mature spirituality and godly discernment, children may be rightly excluded. It would be perfectly proper for a session or congregation to establish requirements for admission to voting privileges within the congregation. It seems to me that this is the place for a careful theological examination to determine sufficient discernment to exercise this grave responsibility.

It may be that covenant communion would force the Church to rethink the whole matter of voting privileges. In our radically democratic age, we have assumed that the Bible teaches "one man, one vote" -- assuming that every member ought to be a voting member. Biblically, this was not the case. Head of household voting seems to be a better means of exercising judgment in the covenant family. But however that is resolved, we may say that nothing in our teaching of covenant communion threatens the peace and purity of the Church if the elders establish requirements for voting privileges.

The Advantages of Covenant Communion

1. This position takes the covenant seriously.

When our children are admitted to the Lord's table on the basis of their baptism, the covenant becomes more than a vague theological concept. It becomes (in their minds and in ours) a concrete, substantial reality. There is little question that the exclusion of covenant children from the table has undermined the glorious reality of the covenant which is that our children have a real, legal, objective relationship with God. It is a relationship that exists until they break it by rebellion and unbelief.

One of the reasons why the glory of the covenant is not realized by our children (or by us) is the fact that the visible sign and seal of this reality is withheld from them. The Lord's Supper is the sign and seal and thus the confirmation of the covenant union established with Christ and His body at baptism. By withholding this, we undermine the significance of baptism and introduce great confusion into the minds of our children.

On the one hand we acknowledge them to be in covenant with God (by baptizing them). But then we turn around and effectively deny their covenant union with Christ by excluding them from the Lord's Supper. We say they are in covenant when we baptize them, then treat them as if they are outside the covenant when we celebrate the Lord's Supper.

Rather than exhorting them to be faithful to the obligations of God's gracious covenant, we end up exhorting them to get into covenant with God. "Oh, but," someone says, "aren't we to be concerned that they repent and believe?" Yes! But you don't have to deny the objective reality of their covenant relationship to do that!

In the Scriptures, those in covenant with God are warned against breaking the covenant that has been established by God. The reality of the covenant relationship is gloriously held forth and men are exhorted to beware of breaking this covenant by impenitence and unbelief. God doesn't deny the objective nature of His covenant, He rather upholds the reality and the gracious privileges which the covenant has given to His people and on the basis of this, calls them to repent and believe and warns them of judgment if they don't.

We find this throughout the Scriptures. (And without this understanding we will never interpret certain passages correctly.) Look at a few of them:

Matthew 21:42-45 -- Jesus warns the unbelieving Jews, "The Kingdom of God will be taken from you."  Here, the objective reality of their covenant standing is acknowledged and on that basis, the warning is given that unless they bear the fruit of covenant faithfulness, they are going to lose that standing.

John 15:1-2,5-6 -- The branch is truly joined to the vine but is broken off because of unfruitfulness. How can there be "union" with Christ that is not saving? This is a reference to the objective covenant relationship that the Jews had with the Lord. But they were "broken off" and thrown into the fire because of their unbelief.

Romans 11:16-24 -- The Jews were part of the tree of salvation but were broken off because of unbelief.

Hebrews 10:28-29 -- Some who are "sanctified by the blood of the covenant" are yet lost. (see also Hebrews 6:4ff).  How so? Again, this does not imply that they were partakers of the saving work of God (for once a man is regenerated, the Lord keeps him in life and upholds him so that he never falls away). Rather, here again, the apostle is referring to the covenant relationship the Jews had with the Lord. The blessedness and wonderful privileges of this relationship are described in Hebrews 6:4ff.

II Peter 2:19-22 -- Some who "escape the pollutions of the world" are ultimately lost.  They were "sanctified" or "set apart" from the world by virtue of their covenant standing, but because they refused to repent and believe in the Son of God, they are lost.

Revelation 3:5 -- The only possible way to interpret this is covenantally. This is not referring to God changing the number or the identity of His elect, but refers to those who break covenant with God and are cut off (see also Exodus 32:31-33).

There are many other passages besides which show the objective reality of the covenant. This must not be denied in regard to our children. They are as much in covenant with God as Israel of old. We must not undermine this reality by excluding them from the sacrament which confirms this reality.

2. This position takes the sacraments seriously.

The Larger Catechism points to the significance of the sacraments (Q. 162: "A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, in His Church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those who are without.") A number of things should be noted in this definition:

First , both sacraments are necessary to reveal these truths adequately. One without the other is in danger of becoming a meaningless ritual. Baptism demands the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper unavoidably requires Baptism. Baptism signifies our ingrafting into Christ, our union with Him. Union necessarily implies communion. Where there is no communion, there is no true union.

To give Baptism but to withhold the Lord's Supper, is to make baptism (in effect) a meaningless dedication service (which is how most people view it). It is the Lord's Supper which "fleshes out" the glorious reality baptism signifies. To separate the two is to give a distorted view of the reality of salvation (i.e., you may be united to Christ but not nourished by Him nor dependent upon Him) and it diminishes the fullness of God's covenant. Indeed, it forces us to invent a new creature: the "non-communing" member. How can you be a member of Christ's body and not have communion with Him?

Second , the present practice inadvertently pits the sacraments against our theology. The sacraments are the visible signs and seals of the gospel preached. In the theology of the Bible, God always is the initiator and man is the responder. The Word comes to man -- God comes to man and man responds. Thus the sacraments picture primarily the sovereign grace of God and not the response of man.

But in Arminian theology, man comes to God. And thus, the sacraments signify man's initiation. Man must respond before the sacraments are given. To withhold the sacraments until there is a faithful response is to reverse the Biblical picture of salvation. Biblical theology demands that both sacraments be given to those in covenant with God prior to their faithful response -- to emphasize the grace of God and His impartiality. He does not love us because we first loved Him, but We love Him because He first loved us (I John 4:19).

3. This position guards our children from crippling temptations and errors.

Admitting children to the Lord's Supper forces the child to focus his confidence and trust in the sovereign grace of God rather than upon his own knowledge or experience. Do you see? The present practice unintentionally (but no less really) focuses on the knowledge and experience of a child and very often leads to a false assurance or "faulty" assurance.

Children are given a false assurance. They assume that because they have passed the "test" of the elders, that they truly have repented and believed. Rather than being constrained by the overwhelming reality of God's grace and driven to glorify and please Him, all too often they are merely relieved that this issue of salvation is over and done with!

Children have a "faulty" assurance -- i.e., an assurance focused not upon the grace of God but on their own knowledge or experience. Covenant children often have great problems with assurance simply because they grew up faithfully and have had no conscious conversion experience which is often made a necessity for admission to the table.

As a result, they end up either fabricating an experience which will satisfy the elders, or wonder whether they have ever been saved because they have not had such an experience. This is in part at least, a consequence of our present practice where we imply some special "conversion" is necessary after baptism. Growing up faithfully is suspect without this special experience. Far better to impress upon our children the covenant obligations for which God will hold them responsible.

This prevents us from identifying clear articulation with understanding and thus unnecessarily keeping children from the sacrament. The present position (of admitting children to the table based upon their profession of faith) forces elders to act upon some degree of uncertainty and presumption rather than the clear, objective truth of God. We are forced to judge the state of the heart on the basis of the profession made.

It must be noted that the basis of our judgment becomes not the level of understanding of the child, but the ability to articulate theological propositions. That is, the child who for one reason or another, is unable to articulate clearly the truth about Christ's redemptive work and the nature of repentance and faith, is rejected -- not because of a lack of understanding (which he could possibly have) but because of his inability to articulate clearly (to the satisfaction of the elders) what understanding he may have.

Clear articulation may reveal a clear understanding and true faith. But it may, on the other hand, simply reveal the response to good teaching on the part of parents and Sunday School teachers. It is possible to articulate orthodox truth apart from any real understanding of that truth much less belief of it. The idea that truth faith is manifested by clear articulation of that faith, is not true in every case.

Conversely, it is equally true that a child may understand something quite well and yet not be able clearly to articulate his understanding. Babies know a great deal but are unable to tell us what they know. The same is often true of children with Downs Syndrome. Could it be that the requirement of a clear articulation of the faith has kept many faithful children from the sacraments unnecessarily? I think so.

4. This position greatly assists the church in preserving its purity and peace.

Under our present practice, our children are made members of the Church by baptism (see for example, the Presbyterian Church in America Book of Church Order 56-4). But they are not admitted to the Lord's table -- thus we have to invent a new category of people -- "non-communing" members. What happens if these children grow up and never request to be admitted to the Lord's table? The Book of Church Order (28-3) says that we are to cherish them and use "every means to reclaim them." But what are the means God has given us to reclaim wayward sheep?

Again the Church Order (following the Scriptures) lays them out. They are: Admonition, Suspension , and Excommunication . The question is how can we suspend or excommunicate someone who has never been a communicate? Our present practice denies to our children the very means necessary for their safety, protection, and reclamation. There is no discipline that can be given them under the present form of government. Effectively, the reality of the covenant is denied. Our children are not really members of the church at all. Their membership is basically meaningless.

Sadly, this is the way many children view the church. Since they have always been treated as outsiders, they begin to act like outsiders. If we exhort them and warn them they will have to be taken off our rolls if they do not repent, they mock at us. What do they have to lose? They have never been treated as members ever!

When children are admitted to the Lord's Supper by means of their baptism however, their membership is meaningful. If they rebel, they have a great deal to lose. Their rebellion in and of itself becomes a very big deal indeed!

Think of what would happen under covenant communion. A child rebels against his parents. The father notifies the elders of this and the child is suspended from the Lord's Supper -- but that's not the end of it! Then the child must meet with the elders after worship to explain what he has done and face the confirmation of his parents' judgment. The covenantal implications of breaking the fifth commandment are most serious (Proverbs 30:17: "The eye {that} mocks {his} father, and scorns obedience to {his} mother, the ravens of the valley will pick it out, and the young eagles will eat it.") and that is brought home when there is covenant communion.

We could go on to talk about the great encouragement this would be to our children, the beneficial effects it would have upon the Church to recognize more consistently the covenant membership of children (maybe the end to Children's Church?). But more than all this, we must consider the glory that will be brought to God! He is truly a God to us and to our children after us. He is astoundingly gracious (II Samuel 7:18-29).