# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S62
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

62 SYNODICAL REPORTS

becomes clear is that unworthy eating, the eating without repentant
faith, causes the guilt of not discerning the Lord’s body as worthy,
that is, of dishonoring it by not receivirig it in faith” (38). Since we
can be sure that baptized infants have faith, they do not come under
judgment: “Therefore, baptized, believing infants cannot receive
the Supper to their condemnation” (40).

b. Arguments for Infant Communion from the Lutheran Confessions.

The proponent of infant communion concludes that “the theol-
ogy of the Confessions supports the admission of baptized infants
to the Supper and rejects the contrary theology” (Truly Worthy, 19).
In support of this conclusion he first cites “three chief passages”
from the Confessions: (1) FC Ep VII, 18-20, 38, 39; (2) FC SD VII,
68-71, 124, 125; (3) Ap XXII, 1-4. On the basis of the parallel texts
from the Formula of Concord,’ it is concluded:

... the truly Lutheran position on this matter is that those who have
repentant faith are worthy to receive the sacrament without any other
preparation, such as the traditional “examination.” It is the biblical ex-
amination, the ascertaining of repentant faith, that is required and noth-
ing more. To set forth intellectual or other human works as requirements
is contrary not only to the sense of doxtuaery, but to the Lutheran con-
fession of faith. ... The one whom our Lord would exclude is not the
uneducated or intellectually infirm, but the unrepentant. The unbeliever,
not the believing infant, is the only unworthy guest” (Truly Worthy, 21).
Reference is also made to Apology XXII which states, in part:

“There can be no doubt that the use of both kinds in the Lord’s
Supper is godly and in accord with the institution of Christ and the
words of Paul. ... It is evident, therefore, that the entire sacrament
was instituted for the whole church” (1,4). In the proponent’s view,
the confessional position that both kinds, according to Christ’s in-
stitution, are intended “‘for the whole church” is “the very rationale
that it [the sacrament] should be given back to the infant believers
as well: that the whole sacrament belongs to the whole church, that
is, all who have faith in Christ” (Truly Worthy, 22).

A response is then given to those who cite in support of not
communing infants the Preface to the Large Catechism, in which
Luther states that those who do not possess “the minimum of
knowledge required of a Christian”—at least the Ten Command-
ments, Creed, and Lord’s Prayer—should not be admitted to the
sacrament (Preface, 1-6, Tappert, 362). It is argued that, indeed,
“the baptized infant knows the three chief parts ..., without which ...
one is not a Christian.” This is “a theological comprehension
through faith,” not “a verbal comprehension” (Truly Worthy, 24).

The confessional texts that cite the practice of not administering
the sacrament to those who have not been previously examined and
absolved, it is said, have as their purpose not “to demand confes-
sion or examination from the one who would commune, but to
make sure that the gospel nature of the sacrament ... is made as
clear as possible to them.” In fact, it is pointed out, “all the bap-
tized, infants included, have been examined and absolved. and even
instructed in Baptism itself” (Truly Worthy, 25). Moreover, in-
struction and examination as urged in Apology XXII, 49 “are acts
required of the pastor so that his people might more readily receive
and take heart in the sacrament,” but they are not “laid down for
those who would receive the Supper” (Truly Worthy, 26, citing also
SA, [I and VIID.

2. Response to Arguments for Communing Infants.
a. Relationship Between the Sacraments.

Before we evaluate the scriptural and confessional arguments
for infant communion, it is necessary to address briefly the issue
raised in the concluding paragraph of the introduction to part 1
above regarding the relationship between the two sacraments. As
Lutheran theologians have often noted, the Lutheran Confessions
do not begin with a general doctrine of the sacraments or the means
of grace, from which deductions are then made or parallels drawn
regarding each of the sacraments. Werner Elert, for example, re-
gards it as significant “that the Lutheran confessions—in con-
tradistinction to many Reformed confessions—never derived their
doctrine of the Lord’s Supper from a general definition of the
sacraments.”* Such a way of proceeding would have obscured “the
fact to which the greatest importance is constantly attached: that
the words of institution are ‘extraordinary’ (inusitata), without

analogy of any kind (FC, SD VII, 38).”* Both Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper are based on the specific words of Christ when He
instituted each of the sacraments. °

Precisely because the institution of Christ—and not some ab-
stract concept of “sacrament”—is decisive for determining the na-
ture and proper use of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, Christ’s in-
stitution is also decisive for what we say about each of the
sacraments and their use. As Edmund Schlink points out, “[T]o
start with the general doctrine of the sacrament is impossible be-
cause the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the decisive words
‘This is my body,’ is without analogy in the institution of Bap-
tism.””” The Lutheran confessional writings honor the particularity
of each sacrament and its proper use.* This is already evident from
the fact that the Augsburg Confession presents separate articles on
the two sacraments. The Confessions proceed in this way because
that is the manner in which the biblical writings themselves reveal
what God wants us to know about the nature and use of each of
these divinely given means of grace.

To be sure, the Scriptures teach that Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper have much in common with each other and they are related
intimately with respect to the life of the believer. But the author of
the writings submitted to the commission seems to hold a priori,
and without qualification, that what is required for a proper under-
standing and use of the Lord’s Supper cannot be more than what
is required for a proper understanding and use of Baptism. The au-
thor argues, for instance, with respect to the faith given to infants in
Baptism: “As sure as the infant craves his mother’s milk without
any comprehension of what it is except that it is from his loving
mother, tastes good and satisfies his needs, so also must the bap-
tized infant crave his Father’s table without any comprehension of
what it is except that it is from his loving Father, tastes good and
satisfies his need” (Truly Worthy, 17; emphases added). As we will
discuss below, however, the scriptural texts which instruct us re-
garding the proper use of the Lord’s Supper and about the divine
blessings in it to which faith clings do in fact (and in a way not
found in scriptural texts regarding Baptism) stress the critical im-
portance of comprehending what is taking place in the sacrament
and in one’s spiritual life—which surely does not contradict or un-
dermine anything said in the Scriptures about Baptism and the re-
ceiving of its blessings by faith. St. Paul’s exhortations in
1 Corinthians 11 for communicants to partake of the sacrament
with comprehension are based on Christ’s institution of the Lord’s
Supper, not on a theology of Baptism (though, of course, he as-
sumes that those who commune are baptized Christians; | Cor. 10,
12:13). And, the warning given to the “brethren” in 1 Cor.
11:27-31 about the “judgment” resulting from eating and drinking
“without discerning the body” has no parallel in biblical texts
which speak about the proper understanding and use of Baptism.

b. Exegetical Considerations: 1 Corinthians 11:28, 29.°

To summon exegetical support for infant communion, the at-
tempt is made to “develop” a meaning of SoxipaCevv in | Cor.
11:28 that is strictly limited to “repent” or “believe in Christ” and
that excludes cognitive discernment. The procedure followed here,
and the conclusions thereby reached, are problematic for two rea-
sons. First, the author appears to argue that the verb Soxipaerv
has a basic meaning that can be applied to each of its uses. Lin-
guists refer to the attempt to find “a type of underlying meaning
which is to be found in all occurrences” of a term as the “basic
meaning (Grundbedeutung) fallacy” and warn of the extreme diffi-
culty of establishing one meaning that is “either shared by all the
meanings of a term or which has any relevance in explaining all
the meanings.””'° The basic or “general” meaning offered by the ad-
vocate of infant communion for Soxipcte is “to ascertain the wor-
thiness, suitability, or genuineness of a person or thing.” In his de-
fense of this “meaning” the author of Truly Worthy (14) rightly
admits that the particular uses of the verb allow for various “exter-
nal entailments” (subjects, objects, modifiers, etc.). The substitu-
tion of such a generic meaning, however, negates the effects these
entailments have upon the meaning of a given vocable in a given
context. This way of proceeding enables the author, of course, to
claim support for his view. In response we ask, why can the verb
not mean, as it is generally translated, ““examine’’? In the prepon-