Why Paedocommunion is Dumb

Okay, so I put a title to make you read the post. I figured I needed to do something to get people to read about communion. I actually respect my brothers and sisters who practice paedocommunion, so you can now take pot shots at me and we can be even.

I purposely put this post after I showed my thoughts on what communion is and what our responsibility should be as we partake. The fight for centuries has been, "Who should participate?" Many say that only Christians should participate while others contend that any in the covenant community should also be participating, which would include, not only believers, but also believer's children. As I have stated before, I am not a history expert, so I'll leave that part to those who know more about our traditional thoughts on this matter.

I first want to start with paedocommunion, or communion that involves children of believers. The question really comes, "Why do these believers allow unprofessing Christians to partake of communion?" Besides the fact that they allow the Old Testament to testify more about the New Covenant than the New Testament, here is a succinct quote from Paedocommunion.com:

Paedocommunion was the universal practice of the Church until the late medieval period (c. 1200). It is attested at least as far back as Cyprian (c. 250), and is witnessed throughout the centuries following (e.g. in Augustine, Leo the Great, etc.).

Nonetheless, the practice dropped off in the Western Church. This was due to a combination of factors (such as superstition regarding the sacramental elements, and the view of the bishop as the conveyer of the Holy Spirit, so that confirmation could not be conducted by a mere priest at baptism, but had to be accomplished by the bishop). (For more, see Lee's article, linked at right.)

Biblically, paedocommunion is supported by the status of children within the covenant. Even as God counted Abraham's offspring as His own, and therefore required that they be circumcised (Gen. 17), so too Jesus assumes a priestly role in relation to the children of new covenant believers, and calls them the heirs of the kingdom (Matt. 19:13-14).

What is perhaps most surprising is that many (indeed most) who hold to infant baptism nonetheless reject paedocommunion. They suggest a cleavage between the two sacraments. Biblically speaking, however, the two sacraments are tied together very closely. Baptism incorporates one into Christ and His Church (1 Cor. 12:13). Meanwhile, the Lord's Supper is precisely the meal of the Church. The Church is the one body together precisely because it partakes of the one bread together (1 Cor. 10:16-17).

Consequently, just as the children of the old covenant were admitted to the sacramental communal meals of the OT (such as Passover), so too the children of the new covenant belong at the table of the Lord. This is the position of a growing number of Presbyterian and Reformed scholars and pastors, who are recognizing the profound biblical foundation that underlay the historic practice of paedocommunion.


Although that sounds like a great reason to believe that the children of believers should partake of the table, and is one reason that those who believe in paedobaptism should be paedocommunionists as well, it leaves out a major part of the call of Paul for those who are to partake of the table. Like I said, historically, anyone will whip me on explaining what has happened, but that is not my argument. My argument is going to come from the New Testament on who should be partaking.

Here is what Paul states about the table:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
1 Corinthians 11:26-29

It seems as though Paul also makes a point in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8

Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Corinthians 5:7-8

So, do the paedocommunion guys have some points concerning the fact of Passover being a shadow of Christ and the fact that covenant children participated within those feasts? Yes, they have a point. The problem with this, as a whole, is that the New Testament always is our guide for the Old Testament (This is why I am progressively leaving my dispensational roots for covenant theology). When we look through the Scriptures we find some things that draw our attention. One of those is a new term that is used, which is "church". This term is used in a historical sense for those we know as the visible church and the invisible church. The visible church are those around us that we believe are saved, the invisible being those that God has elected from eternity past and has put the seal of the Holy Spirit on. One can be part of the visible church, and really not a part of the invisible, but all those who are part of the invisible are part of the visible church. This new term is only used of those who profess Christ. This is the Lord's church. The term literally means the gathering of called out one's. How does one join a church? How does one become a member of local churches? How does one "prove" they are part of the church? Professing Christ is the first prerequisite.

This extension of profession is found in 1 Corinthians 11 when Paul states that when the visible church partakes in communion, they proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. This same idea is shown when Christ is speaking specifically to his disciples when he says,

You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 5:13-16

The idea is for the church to be doing the Lord's work so everyone will glorify God. The church is the light, the church is the salt and they are the ones who give God glory. Now, does this excuse the children of the professed church to then give way to do whatever they desire? No. They are a part of their family and should honor their parents. But, for a specific work, like communion, it is not for those who have not professed Christ.

Further Paul uses terminology such as remembrance, which I showed the significance of in the last post. This term is a very spiritual understanding of being united with Christ through belief and Holy Spirit baptism so that one can remember the great exchange that happened for them. This is also one reason why I believe the ordinance baptism is extended only to believers as well, but I won't go there for this post. Not only do we have the ideas of proclaiming and remembrance, but then we come to the clincher: the understanding of examination.

Again, Paul states this:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

This verse has caused some to think about their works and ask themselves if they have measured up to some sort of self righteous perfection on the day of communion. This isn't what this is speaking about.

But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election...He who believes in him is said to have passed from death unto life (Joh_5:24). In this sense he calls himself the bread of life, of which if a man eat, he shall never die (Joh_6:35). He, I say, was our witness, that all by whom he is received in faith will be regarded by our heavenly Father as sons. If we long for more than to be regarded as sons of God and heirs, we must ascend above Christ. But if this is our final goal, how infatuated is it to seek out of him what we have already obtained in him, and can only find in him?
John Calvin; Institutes 3.24.5

The idea of examination is to understand and see how filthy your sin is, then to look to the great exchange that happened on the cross. This isn't a time for you to look at your works and grade yourself to see if you are in the faith. The examination is to point you to the finished work on the cross and the exchange that happened because of the faith given to you by God. The reason one would be drinking judgment upon themselves is not because you are sinful, but because you believe yourself to be righteous enough to prove your faithfulness. The same thing happens in 2 Cor 13:5,6

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test? But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test.

Paul says that the Corinthians are to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith. Remember who he is speaking to. He is speaking to the Corinthians! Probably the worst church, outwardly speaking, in the New Testament. If the Corinthians were to examine their works, they would have failed miserably, yet Paul states, with confidence, "...that Jesus Christ is in you."

This examination, like the one Paul points to for those during communion, is an examination of the great exchange that was done at the cross, through faith. This can only happen with those who have professed Christ and have been sealed by Holy Spirit through inward baptism.

Although we see the Passover meal shared by the whole of the family, including the children, we find in the New Testament that Paul re-interprets the Old Testament call for the New Passover found in Christ to only be shared and proclaimed through those who have examined themselves and have found themselves a part of the invisible church and bride of Christ. If anyone partakes in the Supper who is not found to be of the faith, who has not received the righteousness of Christ, they drink judgment upon themself.

Read More......

FREE BOOK on Communion: This is For You

It has been odd to see that many aren't commenting, etc. on the posts on communion. Either I am doing a terrible job of writing or people just aren't that interested in taking a look at the aspects of communion. Whatever the reason...it kind of sucks. Oh well...I'll just keep writing. I haven't read the whole thing, and I will put up a review when I am done, but there is a great resource from Tim Lien and Company on the Table. What I have read so far has been very uplifting and filled with great understandings and personal reflection on the Supper. You can order a hard copy or you download the booklet for free. Check it out here: This is for You - Forty Reflections on the Sacrament of Communion

Read More......

What Is My Responsibility For Communion?

So, in the last post we went through a little on what communion is. Trying to show that it is more than merely symbolic, but not actually eating the flesh of Christ. There is, like most theologies, a balance. What I would like to focus on in this post is what we, as Christ's bride, should be focusing on as we come to the table.

Please offer up any suggestions or questions you might have in regards to the thoughts on this series.

When we come to communion, we come to celebrate a great and glorious Saviour. We come to remember all who Christ was, we come to remember how Christ died, how brutal He was slain, why He was slain and we are to proclaim that slain Lamb, who came to save sinners. We do not come to the table to remember what we have done, what we have accomplished, why we should be saved, but we come to remember what He has done, what He has accomplished and How Christ saved us through His blood.

This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness.
John Calvin

The calling to remembrance happens in both 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 and also in Luke 22:19 and it is quite the term to use as our Saviour calls us to understand where our eyes should be...not on self, but on Him.

Why Are We to Remember?

The first question when we come to the Lord’s Supper should be on understanding what Christ meant when He said, “Do this in remembrance.”

Remembrance meant to the Jews: to recall information or events, with a focus on responding in an appropriate manner ; mention, remind, cause to remember (proclaim, tell, i.e., assert truths about one, as one speaks publicly, implying that this information has been known before

So to the Jews, the word remembrance actually was very close to the word proclaim. To remember meant to proclaim, that is why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:26 that when you share in the Lord’s Supper you are proclaiming the Lord’s death.

We must understand that we are Christ’s remembrance, we are the ones who carry the remembrance of what Christ did through the nations, and it isn’t just what we say but is who we are. The Puritan’s used to preach and say that if there be any doubt in their message to look at their lives as living proof of the saving power of Christ. Can we say the same? Can we say that we truly are Christ’s remembrance?

Look to Joshua 4:1-7

We can see here that these stones were set up as a memorial, they were set up so when others asked, what are these here for, why are these stones gathered? People would answer and reconfirm, to bring remembrance what the Lord had done.

The parallel in the New Testament comes in 1 Peter 2:4-10

We are the very living stones for Christ. We are just as those stones who were set up for remembrance for the Israelites. Yet, because of Christ, we are no longer dead stones, but living stones. We are here so that when people ask, what are these stones, these people, here for, what do they represent, why are these stones gathered together? People, and we, will say they are here as a living remembrance of the Living Christ who came and died for His people. We are the stones that proclaim what Christ did just as the stones were set up for the remembrance for what the Lord did at the Jordan.

The question is when we come together for the Lord’s Supper is, is Christ glorified in us? Are we remembering the way that we are told, are we proclaiming his death? When people see us do they see living stones that tell the story of Christ. That show the transforming power of Christ so that we too can be described as Paul described in 2 Corinthians as a sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him.

Paul warns that we must examine ourselves, we must test ourselves because we are who people look to, to see Christ. Just as Hebrews 1 says that Christ is the radiance of God’s glory so shall we be for Christ, we need to be as the moon is to the sun; a reflection of the majesty, splendor and holiness of the risen Christ.

If we do not pass this examination, if we do not pass this test, and we still drink of the cup and eat of the bread, we are judged because we are falsely proclaiming who and what Christ is.

Look to 1 Corinthians 11:28,29

When we come to take of the Supper we are here to worship our God through remembrance. We are not here to just do a ceremony, we are not here because we have to be here, we are not here to make an appearance amongst the brethren, we are here to remember what the Lord did for us. Our complete focus is to be on Christ, and not on ourselves. That is why we are told that if we take in an unworthy manner we drink judgment on ourselves.

Why are we to examine? We are to examine so that we may bring our sins to the cross, so that we will remember how lowly of sinners we are, so that we will cry out like the tax collector did in Luke 18 when he said, "Oh God, be merciful to me, a sinner." When we examine ourselves and realize who we are and the remembrance of the righteousness imputed to us by our Saviour, how can we have any anger or malice towards another? For we are in deep debt to our God just like they.

Do you have anything against your brother? Then your focus isn’t on Christ but on yourself. Do you have sin that is uncared for and not despised in your life? Then your focus isn’t on Christ but on yourself. Do you come to the table wanting something besides worshiping and remembering Christ Jesus our Lord? Then you go for the wrong reason, because the Lord's table is only about Christ, it is only about remembering what He has done and who He is, and not about us.

We should come focused as Paul focused and said for to me, to live is Christ and John the Baptist said that He, Christ, should increase, but I must decrease.

We, the living stones of Christ come only to proclaim the risen Christ through the remembrance of Him. We are Christ’s living stones of remembrance.

Remembering the Body

First, Christ says, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” The first thing we must remember is who Christ was. we are to remember Christ’s body through the breaking of bread, Christ like David was born in Bethlehem which means “house of bread.” Bread was the staple in Jewish life to bring nutrients to the body, it sustained the body and made the body strong and gave the body energy. We are told to break bread to remember Christ’s body, the one who is now our sustenance, the one is our power and strength the one who gave us the Spirit to empower us and make us his bold witnesses, we are told through this to remember his body.

“For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. John 6:33-35

To the Jew, when someone’s body was mentioned it was more than just mere flesh, it meant the essence of who that person was, it described everything about that person. So when we see that Christ says this is my body and tells us to do this in remembrance, we are to remember His life, remember what He did on this earth, His ministry, His words, His teachings and yes remember His sinless life.

We must remember that He came and lived amongst us. He was the God/Man; 100% God and 100% Man. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

1 Peter 2:21-22 says, For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you can example for you to follow in His steps,
WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;

1 Peter 3:18 says, For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the 1spirit;

1 Corinthians 5:21 says He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him

This meant by implication that to know something meant to participate in, so Paul is saying that Christ, whether inward or outward, had no knowledge of sin based on experience.

I know of a father losing a son but I don’t know how that is, or how that feels, Christ knew of sin, but had no personal experience of sin.

Why is this important for us to know and remember His perfect life? Hebrews 2 and 4 both tell us so that we can confidently come to our Saviour who was tempted in all things yet without sin, so that we can draw near to Him and find mercy in the time of need.

The other reason leads us into our last point. We must remember His perfect life because of the blood that He shed. He had to be a perfect sacrifice and Hebrews 7:26-28 tells us why.

The other priest’s offerings were done out of the blood of animals, but this sacrifice was done from our perfect Saviour who knew no sin. We are to remember the life of Christ who in Luke 2:52 was said to be increasing in His wisdom, showing His humanness. And in forgiving the sins of the prostitute in Luke 7 shows His Deity. This is the Christ we remember.

Remembering the blood

The last is to remember the blood, Christ says, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9:22

We are told that the blood had to be shed. His blood had to be shed to cover our sins, our filthiness before our Maker so that we should share in the glories of heaven instead of the depths of hell. To remember this we must look to John 19 to remember His perfect sacrifice.

John 19:1-6; 16-30

Pilate then took Jesus and scourged Him.

It is important to note that before this happened, the night before it was said that as Jesus was praying His sweat became blood. There is actual medical evidence of this, and when it happens that the skin in response becomes very fragile, so the flogging to come was going to have a higher impact than any other human had ever felt.

This scourging happened by taking and beating Christ using a whip of braided leather thongs, which encompassed metal balls and sharp bone and sometimes nails to tear the flesh off the person, it was so brutal that most didn’t live through this and many times the spine became visible. The usually beat them with 39 lashes because experience told them that 40 lashes would kill the man. And remember that Christ’s flesh was very thin and fragile at this time because of the night before.

It is recorded by Josephus that “certain rebel Jews were torn to pieces by the scourge before being crucified”

Read John 19:16-30

Note that Jesus' thirst is from another condition known as hypovolemic shock caused by extreme loss of blood and so because the heart is pumping large amounts of blood to try and recapture the loss of the blood the person becomes very thirsty as the body craves fluids to replace the volume of blood lost.

The crucifixion was so bad that as they drove the nails into His hands and His feet it is said to try explain this pain would be to take that same nerve that causes pain when you bump your funny bone, the ulna nerve, and take pliers and squeeze and crush that nerve, that would be similar to the pain at this point.

This pain that our Saviour, our Creator went through was one that He knew He would have to endure for our sake.

And Hebrews 12:2 tells us that we are to fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him, He endured the cross!

This is what we are to remember and proclaim at the table. The precious blood that was spilled in our place, so that we would not be cast into the darkness but that we would be in His glorious light worshipping Him forever.

This blood, bringing into existence the New Covenant, bringing into existence hope for the gentile to be part of the church, the bride of Christ.

This is the kind of remembrance we are to have when we come to the table. May we take this seriously and may we understand Him more through the visible signs of Christ's death as we take part in communion.

Read More......

The Ins and Outs of Communion: What is Communion?

For most of my life, actually up until about a year or two ago, I had a firm belief that communion was simply a ritualistic, or merely symbolic, thing we did that had really very little, if no, spiritual significance. I was more in the Zwingli scope of thought than the historical Reformed thought on the Lord's Supper. But, from studying some of the Scriptures, it seems as though that yes, it is definitely a picture of the cross and redemption, but also has some real spiritual significance. I am not thinking here like a Catholic would where they believe that they are eating the actual flesh of Christ and such, but what I am saying is that in some way, hard to explain, Christ's presence is found. Now, we know that Christ is omnipresent, so in me saying this, I don't cross any lines, but I also believe that when communion is taken as an ordinance of Christ, we find spiritual significance.

Here is what I mean.

We speak of when the pastor preaches that he preaches by the tongue of the Spirit. We pray that he is not speaking but the Holy Spirit. When we pray, we believe that it is not us praying, because we do not know how to pray, but the Spirit prays in our stead. So, when looking to the table, Paul tells us something very important in 1 Corinthians 10:16

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10:16

The term used here when speaking of the Supper is "sharing" or "koinonia" in the Greek. It has this idea of fellowship with another. This isn't simply meaning that you and I as we gather share together, but what is happening here is that this sharing, this fellowship is sharing together in Christ's blood and body. We, in some way, which I believe is further proved in 1 Corinthians 11 when using the term "remembrance" (which I will get into in the next post), share in the sufferings of Christ on the cross as we partake of the table.

We can see the significance of this term when Paul uses it when speaking of sharing or to have fellowship in the sufferings of Christ:

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Philippians 3:7-11

“He who partakes of the cup, partakes of Christ’s blood.” But it may be asked here: ‘in what sense?’ This, of course, is not here explained. But it is in some real, veritable way predicable of all who partake. Otherwise the parallel with the idolatrous act rebuked, would not be sustained. Paul means to show that as by means of the sacrament we truly come into communion with Christ, so in the idolatrous feasts, whether a person intends it or not, he does worship the idol."
Christian Friedrich Kling
Lange, John Peter ; Schaff, Philip ; Kling, Christian Friedrich ; Poor, Daniel W.: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures : 1 Corinthians. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008, S. 210

Paul says, that the cup which has been in this manner blessed is κοινωνίαν — the communion of the blood of the Lord. It is asked, in what sense? Let contention be avoided, and there will be nothing of obscurity. It is true, that believers are united together by Christ’s blood, so as to become one body. It is also true, that a unity of this kind is with propriety termed κοινωνία(communion.) I make the same acknowledgment as to the bread. Farther, I observe what Paul immediately adds, as it were, by way of explanation — that we all become one body, because we are together partakers of the same bread. But whence, I pray you, comes that κοινωνία (communion)between us, but from this, that we are united to Christ in such a way, that

we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones? (Ephesians 5:30.)

For we must first of all be incorporated (so to speak) into Christ, that we may be united to each other. In addition to this, Paul is not disputing at present merely in reference to a mutual fellowship among men, but as to the spiritual union between Christ and believers, with the view of drawing from this, that it is an intolerable sacrilege for them to be polluted by fellowship with idols. From the connection of the passage, therefore, we may conclude, that (κοινωνίαν) the communion of the blood is that connection which we have with the blood of Christ, when he engrafts all of us together into his body, that he may live in us, and we in him.
John Calvin

As these two point out, the reason that we can partake and be in fellowship with one another as the church, is because we commune with Christ BY his blood and body. The cup and the bread do not save us, but we should not reduce this time to merely symbolic usage either. It has real significance. But, again, we do not take it as far to say that we are literally participating in the blood and body of Christ as we partake. This is what the early non-Christians thought we meant and why they called early Christians, wrongly I might add, cannibals.

So, what we see within communion, or the Lord's Supper, is some real spiritual significance that is also symbolic showing our participation, fellowship and sharing of the blood and body of our crucified and risen Lord and Saviour. From here, we can now take on our responsibility given to us by Christ and Paul as we come to the table.

Read More......

The Ins and Outs of Communion: Introduction

For whatever reason, the past year I have been thinking a lot about communion. For all my life I have only been a member in churches where communion was celebrated once a month with the reason always given that we don't want to make it just a repetitive event with no meaning. I always thought that made sense, until I really started to understand what worship meant. I always thought worship happened on Sunday, in the "sanctuary", with someone's grandma playing the organ or an ex-hippie playing the guitar and us singing songs (I have enjoyed both). This is what I thought worship was reduced to. Not much thought was put on the fact that every part of the weekly gathering was worship and that every day of my life was worship. When my eyes were opened to this reality, the questioning of communion started to really come into full view.

I started to think. If communion is a part of worship, why do we only do it once a month, whereas we collect an offering once a week? Can't giving become repetitive and meaningless? But, since we have to pay the bills at church, giving has always been given much more credence than communion. Once I started to question the amount of times communion was practiced, every other part of communion started to be put up for Scriptural testing. I will be honest, my historical viewpoint of communion is very weak. What I desire to put forth, and will lean on history buff's to aid, is the ins and outs of communion. Such as:

What is Communion? Am I a cannibal?

Who should practice communion?

What should I do during, before and after communion?

How often should we practice communion?

Where should it be practiced?

What elements should be used? i.e. Is wine appropriate?

Who should administer the elements?

All of these will be discussed at some point and hope that you will join in the discussion of understanding this very important part of our worship. Please also comment on other things that you would like to see a post on in regards to communion. Much discussion and killing has happened throughout the church ages on the different convictions of communion so I don't expect to "solve" those differences. What I would like to do is get a firmer grasp on what I believe and why and I invite you to join in the discussion and wonder if you will also actually challenge yourself through the Scriptures and not continue to observe communion the way you have always done it because "daddy told me this is how it should be done."

My tag line for this blog from the beginning that surprisingly has never changed (unlike my header picture) has been,

a blog dedicated to understanding how to live out theology. Always questioning tradition according to Scripture and never leaving Scripture out of the discussion.

This is what I hope to do once again with these posts on communion.

I will leave this first post with Calvin's comments on 1 Corinthians 10:16

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10:16

16. The cup of blessing. While the sacred Supper of Christ has two elements — bread and wine — he begins with the second. He calls it, the cup of blessing, as having been set apart for a mystical benediction. For I do not agree with those who understand blessing to mean thanksgiving, and interpret the verb to bless, as meaning to give thanks. I acknowledge, indeed, that it is sometimes employed in this sense, but never in the construction that Paul has here made use of, for the idea of Erasmus, as to supplying a preposition, is exceedingly forced. On the other hand, the meaning that I adopt is easy, and has nothing of intricacy.

To bless the cup, then, is to set it apart for this purpose, that it may be to us an emblem of the blood of Christ. This is done by the word of promise, when believers meet together according to Christ’s appointment to celebrate the remembrance of his death in this Sacrament. The consecration, however, which the Papists make use of, is a kind of sorcery derived from heathens, which has nothing in common with the pure rite observed by Christians. Everything, it is true, that we eat is sanctified by the word of God, as Paul himself elsewhere bears witness, (1 Timothy 4:5;) but that blessing is for a different purpose — that our use of the gifts of God may be pure, and may tend to the glory of their Author, and to our advantage. On the other hand, the design of the mystical blessing in the Supper is, that the wine may be no longer a common beverage, but set apart for the spiritual nourishment of the soul, while it is an emblem of the blood of Christ.

Paul says, that the cup which has been in this manner blessed is κοινωνίαν — the communion of the blood of the Lord. It is asked, in what sense? Let contention be avoided, and there will be nothing of obscurity. It is true, that believers are united together by Christ’s blood, so as to become one body. It is also true, that a unity of this kind is with propriety termed κοινωνία(communion.) I make the same acknowledgment as to the bread. Farther, I observe what Paul immediately adds, as it were, by way of explanation — that we all become one body, because we are together partakers of the same bread. But whence, I pray you, comes that κοινωνία (communion) between us, but from this, that we are united to Christ in such a way, that

we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones? (Ephesians 5:30.)

For we must first of all be incorporated (so to speak) into Christ, that we may be united to each other. In addition to this, Paul is not disputing at present merely in reference to a mutual fellowship among men, but as to the spiritual union between Christ and believers, with the view of drawing from this, that it is an intolerable sacrilege for them to be polluted by fellowship with idols. From the connection of the passage, therefore, we may conclude, that (κοινωνίαν) the communion of the blood is that connection which we have with the blood of Christ, when he engrafts all of us together into his body, that he may live in us, and we in him.

Now, when the cup is called a participation, the expression, I acknowledge, is figurative, provided that the truth held forth in the figure is not taken away, or, in other words, provided that the reality itself is also present, and that the soul has as truly communion in the blood, as we drink wine with the mouth. But Papists could not say this, that the cup of blessing is a participation in the blood of Christ, for the Supper that they observe is mutilated and torn: if indeed we can give the name of the Supper to that strange ceremony which is a patchwork of various human contrivances, and scarcely retains the slightest vestige of the institution of our Lord. But, supposing that everything else were as it ought to be, this one thing is at variance with the right use of the Supper — the keeping back of the whole of the people from partaking of the cup, which is the half of the Sacrament.

The bread which we break. From this it appears, that it was the custom of the ancient Church to break one loaf, and distribute to every one his own morsel, in order that there might be presented more clearly to the view of all believers their union to the one body of Christ. And that this custom was long kept up appears from the testimony of those who flourished in the three centuries that succeeded the age of the Apostles. Hence arose the superstition, that no one dared to touch the bread with his hand, but each one had it put into his mouth by the priest.

17. For we are one bread. I have already stated above, that it was not Paul’s particular design here to exhort us to love, but he mentions this by the way, that the Corinthians may understand that we must, even by external profession, maintain that unity which subsists between us and Christ, inasmuch as we all assemble together to receive the symbol of that sacred unity. In this second part of the statement, he makes mention only of the one part of the Sacrament, and it is the manner of Scripture to describe by Synecdoche the entire Supper by the breaking of bread. It is necessary to warn my readers, in passing, as to this, lest any less experienced person should be put off his guard by the foolish cavil that is brought forward by certain sycophants — as if Paul, by mentioning merely the bread, had it in view to deprive the people of the one half of the Sacrament.

Calvin, John: Calvin's Commentaries: 1 Corinthians. electronic ed. Albany, OR : Ages Software, 1998 (Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries), S. 1 Co 10:16

Read More......