LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 61

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNODICAL REPORTS 61

come according to the promises. Still, the old Lutherans were
very cautious and generally did not find types lurking within
every Old Testament figure; nor did they seek to discover or
make anything of prophecy in the Old Testament where the
New Testament did not find it. They were careful, too, not to
confuse type and prophecy, although to them type was a kind
of prophecy.

There were times, however, when agreement could not be
reached over the classification of certain passages. For instance,
Hos. 11:1. ...”

Appendix R3-01B

Response to “Concerns of South Wisconsin District
Circuits 18 and 19 Regarding Infant Communion”

Background.

In a letter dated Jan. 5, 1996, the President of the South Wis-
consin District of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod endorsed
and thereupon forwarded to the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations the following request from two circuits in his dis-
trict “regarding the theology and practice of the Lord’s Supper in
regard to baptized infants”:

That the CTCR consider and answer fully and unequivocally, on the
basis of Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions and the formal position of
the LCMS, the attached questions; that in their study, the CTCR also
use, examine, evaluate and comment upon the documents enclosed with
this letter and resolution.

In submitting this request the aforementioned circuits noted that
a controversy has arisen in their midst on the question of infant
communion and they expressed the desire for “godly peace based
upon the Word of God.” Specifically, the dispute centers around
materials (prepared by a pastor of one of the circuits) that call for a
reexamination of the LCMS’ historic practice of not communing
infants and that advocate infant communion as alone based on truly
scriptural and confessional premises.

In view of the large number of questions presented by the cir-
cuits, it seemed advisable to the commission that a specific re-
sponse to each individual question would appear to be somewhat
unwieldy, and perhaps unduly complex. The commission has de-
cided, therefore, to proceed as follows.

Based on the accompanying materials forwarded to it,' the com-
mission has first summarized the line of argumentation employed
in defense of the practice of infant communion. A response to the
principal theological points at issue is then given. Finally, the com-
mission in a concluding word discusses the importance of other
matters that are directly germane to the question at issue. The
commission has not engaged the historical arguments presented in
the accompanying materials, nor has it evaluated the use of the
writings of the Lutheran Reformers and others. However important
the historical arguments may be, historical precedent carries weight
only insofar as it is supported by what the Scriptures clearly teach.

The commission notes that the communing of baptized infants
has become a matter of increasing discussion and concern within
the Lutheran community in recent times. The implications of this
practice and its theological rationale for communion practice in
general in Lutheranism are coasiderable, especially as the mem-
bers of our Synod seek faithfully to implement the Synod’s offi-
cial practice of close(d) communion.”

In completing this assignment, the commission submitted the
questions of Circuits 18 and 19, together with the accompanying
papers, to the faculties of the Synod’s two seminaries for reflection
and response. Input received from faculty members has been in-
corporated in this response.

I. A Case for Infant Communion: Questions at Issue.

The principal theological argument for infant communion is
summarized in the following paragraph from A Statement of Con-
cern:

Since worthiness “is and consists solely and alone in the most holy
obedience and complete merit of Christ,” and since this righteousness of
Christ is given completely to the newly baptized, whatever their age
and mental capacities, no baptized child of God can be declared un-
worthy to commune. To declare them unworthy would be to violate
Scripture and the Confessions, and to engage in Pelagianism.

The author of this statement argues in documents that were sub-
mitted to the commission that the faith which grasps the righteous-
ness of Christ is given in baptism to infants and adults alike, with-
out distinction, and constitutes the sole prerequisite for reception
of the Lord’s Supper: “The same human faith which grasped the
promise at Baptism is all that God requires of those who would
grasp the promise of the Supper” (Truly Worthy, 17). That is to say,
“... baptismal faith and eucharistic faith are not simply of the same
cloth, but one and the same thing” (17). Hence, there is no prepa-
ration or requirement for the Lord’s Supper apart from faith in
Christ. Self-examination understood as a cognitive process is not
required; in fact, to establish such a “requirement” is to adopt a
synergistic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper, to be guilty of Pela-
gianism and finally to turn the Lord’s Supper from Gospel into
Law (17; cf. A Statement of Concern, 1-2).

The assumption which appears to underlie these statements is
that the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are so simi-
lar that what can be said of one can necessarily be said also of the
other. In a “Scriptural Syllogism” summarizing the author’s case
for infant communion (Truly Worthy, 18; see discussion below,
pages 13-14), the burden of the argument is that no more can or
must be said scripturally about “repentant faith” in connection with
the Lord’s Supper than what is said scripturally about it in connec-
tion with Baptism.

a. Arguments for Infant Communion from the Scriptures.

Important for the theological argument for infant communion—
and against the traditional Lutheran practice— in the material pro-
vided is an exegesis of 1 Cor. 11:28~29. The biblical mandate
given in | Cor. 11:28 “Let a man examine himself and so eat of the
bread and drink of the cup” applies to infants and adults alike, since
infants, too, can examine themselves: “Infants can and do exam-
ine themselves in the biblical and confessional sense of the word
Sox tdCevv (to examine)” (13). “When one takes in all the different
uses of do0xipdaCerv,” the proponent of infant communion contends,
“the following definition seems best: ‘to ascertain the worthiness,
suitability or genuineness of a person or thing’”(14). Hence, | Cor.
11:28 is translated: “Let a man ascertain himself worthy and thus
let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (38). According to
this understanding, the “Scripture’s definition” of 50x1paGetv
refers not to “an act of intellect, but an act of repentance, and there-
fore an act that God is quite capable of bringing about within the
baptized infant” (2). Thus, “communicants must ascertain that they
are worthy to commune, that is, that they have repentant faith
(1 Cor. 11:28, 29).” This “repentant faith” “infants have been given
... by Christ in Baptism” and they “are sure of His salvation (Matt.
18:6 et. al.).” Therefore, so the syllogism concludes, infants can
commune (18). “To make self-examination anything more than re-
pentant faith is to turn it into a work done by us” (35) and finally to
deny the righteousness of Christ: “For us to claim that by reason
of age and intellect we are somehow capable of pleasing God is to
deny that our only righteousness is that of Christ” (16). Since the
“righteousness of Christ is given completely to the newly baptized,
whatever their age and mental capacities, no baptized child of God
can be declared unworthy to commune” (A Statement of Concern,
1).

Thus, the argumentation for infant communion in the materials
presented to the commission holds that Paul’s command, “let a man
examine himself,” does not refer to an act of the intellect. But then
the question arises, how are we to understand the assertion imme-
diately following Paul’s command: “For any one who eats and
drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon
himself” (1 Cor. 11:29)? The grammar of this verse—goes the ar-
gument—should be understood as follows. The participial phrase
Ln Staxpivev in 1 Cor. 11:29 expresses attendant circumstance,
yielding the translation “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy
manner eats and drinks judgment to himself while also not dis-
cerning the worth and purpose of the body.” Thus the following in-
terpretation, argues the proponent of infant communion, must be
given to this verse: “Rather than being the lack of discerning the
body which causes the unworthy eating, it is the unworthy eating
which causes the lack of discerning the body, that is, of discerning
its value and purpose” (Truly Worthy, 37). That is to say, “[W]Jhat