We're making big changes. Please try out the beta site at beta.ccel.org and send us feedback. Thank you!

Discuss United, Separated, Re-united: The Story of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

United, Separated, Re-united: The Story of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

Star (2)

The history of children at the Lord's Supper is essentially the story of the relationship between the sacraments. In the early church, all baptized persons were welcome at communion. This practice was gradually abandoned in the Middle Ages, so that by the Reformation the Western church had separated the Lord's Supper from baptism and attached it to confirmation or profession of faith. Today, Protestant denominations have begun to reunite baptism and the Lord's Supper.

irakitic77's picture

support the motion

Following a religion is a very important aspect of life. Educating children with religion will help them be good and generous humans when they grow up. On the other hand if proper advice is not given it could lead them to an unhealthy living. Windows tech support

sudhendra's picture

baptism and salvation

Infant baptism has a purpose.This purpose is not salvation.
The Lord's Supper is for the saved.
The two sacraments, Baptism and Communion ,are inseparable to the saved.
John Calvin is correct.
To make infant baptism inseparable from Communion is to confuse baptism ,infant or adult,
with salvation .This is replacing Christ with the will of man. Definitely a heresy.


Paul Shunamon's picture

Separated and United

I would have to agree with my Lutheran brother here. These early sacraments, which we should still practice as they were taught, are not merely symbolic but effectual by God’s grace through the faith of the Son of God. In the recipient (which the early church practiced) our faith or cooperation was considered essential and so in infant Baptism it was expected these children would be brought up practicing faith and seeing it modeled in their parents and the supporting local Church community. However the act of the water only for infants is not itself any guarantee that the baby IS a child of God for John 1 makes it clear that it is to as many as “receive” Him that He grants the power to become a child of God where by also they are born from above (through the Holy Spirit) and infants do not have the means to exercise the gift of faith He has given by measure to every man (Romans 12:3) so they are covered by grace until such time as they can “believe” (that is pisteou) for themselves.
In our time we see that being baptized as an infant is not what makes on a child of God because it must be by the action of the Holy Spirit (take for example the unrepentant Pedophile Priests). Likewise the Bread and Wine are ineffectual in those who partake unworthily (unworthily being an adverb qualifying the partaking not the partaker), not discerning the Lord’s body in the breaking of the Bread.
In the early church, those taught by the Apostles themselves and the immediate generations of Holy men of God the Apostles instructed as to the meaning of these things believed and were taught (the Apostles being enlightened by Christ Himself) that “This is my body…and this is my blood” be taken very seriously and literally (though nowhere implying transubstantiation). They saw Christ and His work on our behalf when partaking and I fear too many today in the Protestant community miss this and partake as a ritual only as I use to do. When you discern the Lord’s body in the breaking of the bread, there is a distinct difference in effectualness. Remember you are also partaking of the divine nature, substance and substance, Spirit with spirit…He in us and we in Him as He was in the Father and the Father in Him (John 17) which is our common union as His body, Himself being our head. Whosoever does not eat His flesh and drink His blood (but merely eats a cracker and drinks some wine) does not have life in them (that is eternal life…the divine nature). This is His body and blood whether or not we understand the mystery ( mystery not being something we solve but rather something we enter into).

Brother Paul

toju's picture

Luke 3:3 Repentance and Remission

I want to say that when John the baptist preached, people responded to the message as they understood it and expressed their faith in Christ to attain the pardon for sin even as symbolized by water baptism. This act shouldn't preclude anyone so long as s/he can respond to the gospel of salvation.
We should not loose sight of the fact that salvation is not in the sacrament themselves: which becomes the case when we begin to consider what order the sacraments should follow or whether one is a prerequisite for another. As for uniting both the Lords supper and baptism i think it is a good idea for those who hold a view of ordered or separate applications of the sacraments: what better way to "welcome" a person to the body of Christ (the church)after expressing his/her faith in Christ than through the Lords supper.

elderdxc's picture

The unity of the Sacraments - a Lutheran perspective

Baptism and the Lord's Super are rightly linked. God has promised in His Word to meet with us in the Sacraments. He communes wih us in Word, Water, Bread and Wine. The article also points out that, in the early church, both baptism and the Lord's Supper were given to infants and very youg children. They are both means of grace, in that the forgiveness of sins is offered through each. To those who ask how it is that water can do such a thing as bring salvation, we respond that the power lies in God's Word, which is spoken in the act.
Just as God's Word makes the Lord's Supper a means of grace, so it is with baptism. Those who practice "decision theology," fail to fully appreciate the grace of God, believing that it requires human assistance to be effective. There are those who belive that "faith comes," not "by hearing," but by saying. The Bible states otherwise, for "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."
As long as one continues to hold to decision theology, a symbolic Lord's Supper, and believer's baptism, one views God's grace as being dependent upon the wisdom and power of man, which is contrary to the Scriptures.

Panoplia Soljah - Eph 6:11

Oliver128's picture

a non-sectarian perspective

Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart — that is, the word of the faith which we are preaching, [Deut 30:14]
Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from [the] dead, you will be saved!
Rom 10:10 For with the heart it is believed to righteousness, and with the mouth it is confessed to salvation. [ALT]

It appears to me (and from my own experience) that one must HEAR the WORD of the LORD and RECEIVE (believe) in the heart that TRUTH in order to CONFESS (say) with the mouth WORDS that corroborate what the heart has taken in as the TRUTH to be saved.

Immediately upon calling upon the LORD for salvation I had the inclination to be baptized and make my profession of faith in Christ a public declaration - even though I had been baptized as an infant in the RCC - believer's baptism provides the vehicle to put forth that public declaration but does not in and of itself provide any effectual means of obtaining salvation. [1 Peter 3:17-22]

The LORD commanded that we remember Him whenever we partake of the bread and the wine ~ I 'feel' that what we are to remember is His great sacrifice He made on our behalf ~ to fail to remember these things while partaking of the bread and wine would be to take these 'elements' unworthily ~ I do not 'feel' that these elements convey any amount of grace toward the forgiveness of sin for my sins were paid for when He died on the cross and I received sufficient grace for the forgiveness of all my sins when I believed in my heart and confessed with my mouth that Jesus Christ is LORD ~ He saved me to the uttermost.

Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"