The San Antonio Express-News carried a story of the inter-denominational battle between factions of the Lutheran Church concerning infant communion. The old guard was rejecting the innovation primarily on the basis that tradition excluded the infant from communion. No appeal to scripture. The younger and more liberal Lutherans reasoned that it would be good for the family relationship for the whole family to take communion together. No appeal to scripture, either. But they could have used the argument that so many others use in defending some religious practices today: i.e, "The Bible doesn't forbid it therefore we can do it." In fact a statement that is attributed to Martin Luther, the father of the Lutheran Church, goes something like this: "Whatsoever is not specifically forbidden we are free to practice." Luther was very strict in complying with certain scriptures. He was insistent that unleavened bread and wine be used in the communion. However, according to the above adage, buttermilk and cornbread were not forbidden in the communion, therefore we are permitted to use those elements if we so desire. But, I am fully persuaded that Luther would have been as adamant as a pope that it had to be unleavened bread and fruit of the vine.
Another reformer and a contemporary with Luther, was Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli approached a religious subject from more of a Bible concept. He said, "We must have Bible authority for everything we practice." Peter said the same thing: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God," and that concept is the answer to the question of infant communion. Lutherans, like many other denominational bodies, also practice infant baptism. But, like infant communion, there is no Bible authority for it, therefore it must not be practiced and those who do it, do it by the authority of man rather than .the authority of heaven thus becoming workers of iniquity (Matthew 7:23) or spiritual outlaws.
Return to the Daily Devotionals