# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S65
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

~_

SYNODICAL REPORTS 65

ought consciously to reflect on their readiness to receive the Lord’s
body and blood. Infants, our synodical catechism teaches—and cor-
rectly so—are not capable of such reflection and therefore must not
be given the sacrament.

Adopted April 29, 1997

Notes

1 The following items from Circuits 18 and 19 were forwarded
to the commission: 1) “Concerns of South Wisconsin District
Circuits 18 and 19 Regarding Infant Communion Which They
Request the CTCR to Address”; 2) “Truly Worthy and Well
Prepared”; 3) “A Statement of Concern”; 4) “An Epitome of
Arguments Favoring Infant Communion Not Yet Included in
Truly Worthy and Well Prepared’; 5) “Truly Worthy and
Well Prepared: A Consideration of Issues Raised by the
Circuits 18 & 19 Winkel”; 6) “A Look at Francis Pieper’s
Treatment of Faith, Especially as it Relates to Infant Faith and
the Lord’s Supper.”

2 At its November/December 1995 meeting the CTCR, in
response to ongoing concerns raised about the practice of
close(d) communion in the contemporary context, placed this
issue on its agenda.

3 A key text is paragraph 8 of the Epitome: “We believe, teach,
and confess that there is only one kind of unworthy guest,
namely, those who do not believe. Of such it is written, ‘He
who does not believe is condemned already’ (John 3:18). The
unworthy use of the holy sacrament increases, magnifies, and
aggravates this condemnation (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).”

4 Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, trans. Walter
Hansen (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1962), 303.

5 Ibid.

6 In the document titled “An Epitome of Arguments Favoring
Infant Communion Not Yet Included in Truly Worthy and
Well Prepared” it is said concerning Matt. 28:19-20 that
Christ’s command that we keep everything He has
commanded us includes the command that infants keep the
Lord’s Supper. This conclusion, however, is based on the
unfounded assumption that the communing of infants is
included in the Lord’s words “all that I have commanded
you.” See discussion below.

7 Edmund Schlink, Theology of the Lutheran Confessions,
trans. Paul F. Koehneke and Herbert J. Bouman (Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg Press, 1961), 182.

8 See C. Emst Kinder, “Zur Sakramentslehre,” Neue Zeitschrift
fiir systematische Theologie 3 (1961), 141-74 (esp. 166-71);
Friedrich Kalb, Theology of Worship, trans. Henry P. A.
Hamann (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965),
88-89.

9 In his discussion of the 15th-century Hussite “restoration” of
infant communion, the author refers to the Hussite view that
since John 3 refers to baptism, John 6 must be speaking about
the Lord’s Supper. He then notes, “... Lutherans would agree
whole heartedly with the exegesis of John 3. It is amazing that
we hold out on John 6” (Truly Worthy, 9). Commentators
ancient and modern have been divided on whether or to what
extent John 6 (specifically vv 51-58) may be interpreted as a
reference to the Lord’s Supper (For a more recent review of
the issue see such discussions as Craig R. Koester, “John Six
and the Lord’s Supper,” Lutheran Quarterly IV (Winter
1990), 419-37; Hans-Josef Klauck, “Lord’s Supper,” in The
Anchor Bible Dictionary [New York: Doubleday, 1992},
4:362-72; Raymond Brown, “The Johannine Sacramentary,”
in New Testament Essays [New York: Paulist Press, 1965),
51-95; B. Klappert, “Lord’s Supper,” in The New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed.
Colin Brown [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976], 2:534—35.).

Luther was among those who rejected a eucharistic
interpretation of the passage. He never deviated from what he
wrote in 1520: “... the sixth chapter of John must be entirely
excluded from this discussion, since it does not refer to the
sacrament in a single syllable” (LW 36:19). Luther held that
John 6 spoke of faith and of spiritual, not sacramental eating.

10

ll
12

16
17

18.

19

Participation in the Lord’s Supper does not and cannot
automatically confer eternal life, as would have to be the case
if John 6:54 referred to it (“He who eats my flesh and drinks
my blood has eternal life. ...’”).

Consistent with Luther, the Lutheran confessors in the
Formula of Concord declared that John 6:48-58 refers to
“spiritual participation,” that is, faith: “There is therefore a
twofold eating of the flesh of Christ, the one is spiritual, of
which Christ speaks chiefly in John 6:48-58. This occurs, in
no other way than with the spirit and faith, in the preaching
and contemplation of the Gospel as well as in the Lord’s
Supper” (SD VII, 61-62).

Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains,
Second edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989),
1:xix; see also, e.g., Anthony C. Thiselton, “Semantics and
New Testament Interpretation,” in New Testament
Interpretation, 1. Howard Marshall, ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing House, 1991 reprint), 80-82.

Louw and Nida, 332.

While of course not a finally determinative consideration, it is
noteworthy that no English translation specifically translates
the participial phrase as an attendance circumstance having
the meaning given to it by the author.

H. P. V. Nunn, in his A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek
(Cambridge: University Press, 1956), par. 245, lists the
participle in ] Cor. 11:29 as an example of the conditional
use. See also BDF, 418.

Truly Worthy makes the point that the term “examine” is tied
“not to intellect, but to absolution’(25). However, this is to
beg the question. The purpose of a conscious and purposeful
self-examination is, ultimately, the receiving of the
absolution. Moreover, it simply does not follow from a
command to examine oneself, as Truly Worthy contends, that
the “Gospel nature” of the sacrament is made less clear!

The author of Truly Worthy holds that since dox1paCetv
“basically ... means"(38) “to judge valuable or worthy”
(however. see previous discussion) and since these words are
used in the above parallel texts, “it is this meaning that we
should take with us into | Cor. 11:29” (38). Exegetical moves
such as this, operate, again, with a “basic meaning” fallacy
and fail to take seriously the context of a given usage. The
burden of Paul’s reflections on the practice of Lord’s Supper
in Corinth was that they failed to take seriously the difference
between the Lord’s Supper and their common meal
(1 Cor.11:20). St. Paul is calling them to be cognizant of the
difference and to act accordingly—and he does this by laying
before them again the apostolic paradosis concerning the
sacrament.

The Small Catechism, VI, 10; Tappert, 352.

The German text of paragraph 6 reads: Wiewohl wir’s fur den
gemeinen Haufen bei den dreien Stiicken bleiben lassen, so
von Alters her in der Christenheit [ge]blieben sind, aber
wenig recht gelehret und getrieben, solange bis man sich in
denselbigen wohl ube und lauftig werde, beide jung und alt,
was Christen heiszen und sein will, und sind namlich diese. ...
One cannot hold that the refusal to admit to the sacrament
constitutes excommunication without also discarding the
Lutheran practice of temporarily suspending someone from
the sacrament.

Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1986: 1991), 241.

R3-02

Commission on Doctrinal Review

That there were so few appeals to the commission may be an

indication of good health. Of the few received all but one were per-
suasively resolved.

Norman Nagel, Chairman