Chapter 13: Covenant Theology and the Sacraments

This final chapter considers covenant theology and the sacraments. It begins with the nature and purpose of sacraments in general, then develops a covenantal argument for paedobaptism and a covenantal argument against paedocommunion. The central claim is that the sacraments are not isolated rituals. They are visible signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace, appointed by God to declare and confirm the promise of the gospel. The Heidelberg Catechism places Word and sacrament in their proper order:

Q. “It is by faith alone that we share in Christ and all his benefits: where then does that faith come from? A. The Holy Spirit works it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments.” — Heidelberg Catechism Q. 65

The Spirit works faith through the preaching of the gospel and confirms that faith through the sacraments. The sacraments do not replace the Word, create a second gospel, or function automatically. They visibly set before us the same Christ and the same promise proclaimed in the gospel.

Holy Signs and Seals

The Heidelberg Catechism defines the sacraments in covenantal terms:

“The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel.” —Heidelberg Catechism Q. 66

The Westminster Confession similarly calls them “signs and seals of the covenant of grace” (WCF 27.1). This language comes from Scripture itself. Circumcision is called the sign of the covenant:

“You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.” —Genesis 17:11

Paul adds that Abraham received circumcision not merely as a sign but also as a seal:

Abraham “received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” —Romans 4:11

A sign points beyond itself to another reality. A national flag, for example, symbolizes a country. A seal does something more personal and confirmatory. A wedding ring not only symbolizes marriage but also publicly identifies the wearer as belonging within that covenant bond. In the same way, a sacrament both represents the gospel promise and confirms it to the recipient. Calvin therefore defines a sacrament as

“an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his good will toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith.” —Calvin

God accommodates himself to our weakness. He not only speaks the promise to our ears but sets it before our eyes and, in the Lord’s Supper, places it into our hands and mouths.

The Promise Precedes the Sacrament

The Word always precedes the sacrament. A sacrament is an appendix to the promise, not an independent source of grace detached from the gospel. It seals, ratifies, and confirms what God has already promised in Christ. This is why the sacraments must never be treated as magical rites. Water, bread, and wine possess no automatic saving power. Their efficacy depends upon the blessing of Christ and the secret work of the Holy Spirit, who uses them to apply the realities they signify to those to whom those blessings belong. The promise remains primary. Baptism does not create a promise different from the gospel; it seals the gospel promise to the baptized person. The Lord’s Supper does not offer another Christ; it nourishes believers upon the same Christ proclaimed in the Word.

Sacraments and the Twofold Covenant Community

The sealing work of the sacraments fits the distinction between the Covenant of Grace as an outward legal relationship and as an inward communion of life. The visible covenant community includes those who profess faith and their children. Within that larger circle are the elect, in whom the Spirit brings about the inward saving reality signified by the sacraments. Baptism therefore truly incorporates a person into the visible covenant community, but baptism does not prove that every baptized person is regenerate or elect. Paul makes this point by comparing the church’s sacraments with Israel’s sacramental experience:

“Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink … Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” —1 Corinthians 10:1–5

All participated outwardly in the covenant signs, but not all possessed the inward saving reality. Paul expressly says these events occurred as examples and warnings for the church. The Westminster Confession therefore states:

“The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such … as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.” —Westminster Confession 28.6

The Spirit may use baptism long after its administration to strengthen faith in the promise sealed there. Yet the efficacy belongs to the Spirit’s sovereign work, not to the outward act by itself.

Baptism and Assurance

Some Lutheran formulations urge the troubled Christian not to look inward but simply to “look to your baptism.” Stronger forms of Federal Vision theology likewise appeal to the “objectivity of the covenant” and sometimes treat baptism as conferring regeneration upon every recipient. Such views cannot consistently uphold the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, because they must allow that persons truly regenerated and united to Christ may later fall away. The Reformed formulation is more precise: look to the promise of the gospel as signified and sealed to you in baptism. The wrong syllogism is:

1. Everyone baptized is saved.
2. I was baptized.
3. Therefore, I am saved.

The proper use of baptism remains joined to the syllogism of faith:

1. Everyone who believes in Christ has eternal life.
2. Baptism signifies and seals that gospel promise.
3. I am trusting Christ as he is offered in that promise.
4. Therefore, my baptism strengthens my assurance that the promise belongs to me.

Baptism personalizes the promise. The gospel is proclaimed generally to all who hear, but baptism is administered to a particular person in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The sign becomes effective for assurance only through the Word and Spirit, as the baptized person embraces the promise by faith.

A simplified paedobaptist argument says that infants received circumcision under Abraham, baptism replaces circumcision in the new covenant, and therefore covenant children should be baptized. That argument contains truth, but the full covenantal case is stronger when developed in five steps.

1. There Is One Covenant of Grace under Two Administrations

The Covenant of Grace begins with the gospel promise after the fall, is formally established with Abraham, and is fulfilled in the new covenant. The new covenant is not a fundamentally unrelated covenant. It is the messianic fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. There is therefore continuity of substance across the two administrations. There is one mediator, one way of salvation, one inheritance, and one people of God. Gentile believers are not a separate heavenly people standing alongside an earthly Israel; they are fellow heirs and members of the same body in Christ.

“The Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” —Ephesians 3:6

The Mosaic law introduced a temporary typological works principle involving Israel’s tenure in the land, but it did not annul the prior promise covenant:

“The law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void … Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made.” —Galatians 3:17, 19

The law was added; the promise remained. The old and new administrations therefore belong to one underlying Covenant of Grace.

2. The Covenant of Grace Has a Visible Covenant Community

The Covenant of Grace has an outward administration in history. The visible church contains those who profess faith and their children, while the elect form the inward communion of saving life. The proper purpose of the covenant is the salvation of the elect, but before the final judgment the visible kingdom contains both wheat and weeds. Jesus teaches that the weeds remain within the field until the harvest, when the angels gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin (Matt. 13:24–43). The church therefore treats visible covenant members according to the judgment of charity. We do not claim to read the secret decree of election. Those who profess Christ are treated as brothers and sisters unless they repudiate that profession through unbelief or unrepentant sin and are removed through church discipline. This distinction avoids two opposite errors.

This view does not treat every baptized person as certainly regenerate, but neither does it treat baptism as an empty ceremony having no objective ecclesial significance. Baptism marks real membership in the visible covenant community, even though only the elect possess the inward saving reality.

3. The Terms of Visible Membership Are Essentially the Same

The question is not, “Who are the elect?” but, “Whom should the church treat as belonging to God’s visible people?” Under both administrations, visible membership ordinarily rests on either personal profession of faith or inclusion under the parental and household authority of a professing believer. Ruth entered Israel through personal confession:

“Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.” —Ruth 1:16

Abraham’s household was included under his covenant headship:

“As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.” —Genesis 17:9

God explains that Abraham must direct his household in the covenant way:

“I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD.” —Genesis 18:19

The same household principle appears in the new covenant:

“The promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” —Acts 2:39

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” —Acts 16:31

These statements do not guarantee the election of every household member. They describe the ordinary covenantal means by which God gathers and nurtures his people.

4. Covenant Members Should Receive the Covenant Sign

Circumcision as the Abrahamic Sign of the Covenant of Grace

Circumcision was the sign of membership in the Abrahamic administration of the Covenant of Grace. Paul expressly calls it a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. Its original meaning was therefore evangelical and spiritual, not merely ethnic or national. Circumcision did not simply identify physical descendants of Abraham. A Gentile convert could receive circumcision and join the covenant people, while an uncircumcised physical descendant could be excluded.

“If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised … he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.” —Exodus 12:48

“Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” —Genesis 17:14

Circumcision distinguished the holy covenant people from the unclean nations. Samson speaks of falling “into the hands of the uncircumcised” (Judg. 15:18), and Isaiah parallels “the uncircumcised” with “the unclean” (Isa. 52:1). Circumcision was later placed by the Judaizers into a legal framework. Paul warns:

“I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” —Galatians 5:3

That legal use does not erase circumcision’s original Abrahamic meaning. The Judaizers were corrupting a sign of promise by making it an obligation under the law.

Baptism as the New-Covenant Sign

Baptism performs in the new-covenant administration the covenant-membership function formerly performed by circumcision. Paul connects baptism, union with Christ, and inheritance of the Abrahamic promise:

“As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ … And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” —Galatians 3:27, 29

Colossians 2 makes the connection even more directly:

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism.” —Colossians 2:11–12

Circumcision and baptism share the symbolism of cutting off the flesh in judgment and entering new life through union with Christ. Jesus describes his cross as a baptism:

“Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” —Mark 10:38

“I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!” —Luke 12:50

Baptism signifies not only cleansing but also death and resurrection. Christ underwent the covenant judgment on the cross, and believers are united to him in that death and raised with him to newness of life.

Objection: Does Genesis 17:14 Make Circumcision a Works-Covenant Sign?

Some Baptists argue that the threat of being “cut off” in Genesis 17:14 makes circumcision a sign of a works covenant rather than the Covenant of Grace. The phrase, however, denotes exclusion from the covenant community. Rejecting the covenant sign was an act of unbelief because it rejected the promise attached to that sign. The same language appears with the Passover:

“The man who is clean and is not on a journey, yet fails to keep the Passover, that person shall be cut off from his people.” —Numbers 9:13

Passover was plainly a sacrament of grace pointing to Christ. Being cut off for despising it therefore refers to exclusion from the covenant administration, not to the Mosaic curse principle considered narrowly.

Objection: Why Were Girls Not Circumcised?

The fact that only males received the physical rite does not mean that women and girls were treated as uncircumcised outsiders. Scripture distinguishes “the daughters of the uncircumcised” from the daughters of Israel (2 Sam. 1:20, 24). Dinah could not properly be given to an uncircumcised man (Gen. 34:14), and Samson’s parents objected to his seeking a wife among “the uncircumcised Philistines” (Judg. 14:3). Exodus 12:48 forbids the uncircumcised from eating Passover, yet women participated in Israel’s covenant life. Female members were reckoned within the circumcised household through the covenant headship of their fathers and husbands. The male rite symbolized the cutting off of the flesh and the transmission of the promised offspring; it did not exclude covenant daughters from the people of God.

5. Professing Believers and Their Children Should Be Baptized

The conclusion follows from the preceding steps. There is one Covenant of Grace under two administrations; it has a visible covenant community; the terms of visible membership remain personal profession and household inclusion; and covenant members should receive the covenant sign. Therefore, professing believers and their children ought to be baptized. The New Testament records baptisms following adult professions of faith (Acts 2:41; 8:12–13, 36; 9:18; 19:1–5). It also repeatedly records household baptisms (Acts 10:44–48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14, 16). Lydia’s baptism is particularly significant:

“After she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’” —Acts 16:15

The household’s baptism is narrated in connection with the apostles’ judgment concerning Lydia’s faith. The text does not say that each household member first made an independent profession. The New Testament also addresses believers’ children as members of the covenant community. Paul calls them holy:

“Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” —1 Corinthians 7:14

Here “holy” or “sanctified” is covenantal language. Paul is not declaring that every child is regenerate; he is distinguishing believers’ children from the unclean world and treating them as set apart within the covenant community. Ephesians 6:1 and Colossians 3:20 likewise address children directly within letters read to the assembled churches. This covenant status entails covenant nurture. Parents must teach their children the faith, pray with and for them, bring them under the ministry of the Word, and call them to embrace personally the Christ whose covenant sign they have received.

Q&A on Paedobaptism

What Does “Household” Mean?

The New Testament household term does not impose an age restriction. It refers to the family or domestic unit and may include children and servants. The formula “you and your household” deliberately echoes Old Testament covenant language associated with Noah, Abraham, and Israelite household headship. In the Philippian jailer’s case, the Word was spoken to all in the house, and the household rejoiced with him. That account may include persons old enough to understand the preaching. Lydia’s account, however, focuses explicitly upon her faith as the ground on which the household baptism is narrated. No single household text proves that infants were present, but the repeated household formula fits naturally within the continuing covenantal principle of parental authority.

What Does 1 Corinthians 7:14 Mean?

Paul addresses marriages in which one spouse has become a believer while the other remains an unbeliever. The believer is not required to leave the marriage, because the unbelieving spouse is “sanctified” in relation to the believer, and the children are “holy.”

“The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” —1 Corinthians 7:14

This cannot mean that the unbelieving spouse is inwardly regenerated. It denotes covenantal consecration or set-apartness. The children are not treated as pagan outsiders but as belonging to the visible sphere of God’s holy people.

The Traditional Reformed Argument

The Reformed tradition has generally required a credible profession of faith before admission to the Lord’s Table because Paul commands self-examination and discernment:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” —1 Corinthians 11:27–29

To partake “worthily” does not mean that communicants possess personal merit. It means that they partake in a manner fitting the sacrament: with repentance, faith, discernment, and reverence rather than treating the Supper as ordinary food. The Heidelberg Catechism asks who should come to the Lord’s Table:

“Those who are displeased with themselves because of their sins, but who nevertheless trust that their sins are pardoned and that their remaining weakness is covered by the suffering and death of Christ, and who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to lead a better life.” —Heidelberg Catechism Q. 81

The Westminster Shorter Catechism likewise requires self-examination concerning knowledge, faith, repentance, love, and new obedience (WSC 97). These requirements presuppose an active and credible profession of faith.

Are Paedobaptists Inconsistent?

An apparent difficulty arises. If circumcision corresponds to baptism and covenant infants received circumcision, why does Passover not correspond in the same way to the Lord’s Supper? The first Passover was a household meal:

“According to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb.” —Exodus 12:4

At first glance, the parallel might seem to require paedocommunion. Yet baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ in their sacramental meaning and covenantal function. Baptism is the once-for-all sign of entrance into the visible covenant community. The Supper is the repeated sacrament of conscious communion, spiritual nourishment, remembrance, and proclamation.

The Argument from What the Lord’s Supper Signifies

The outward action in the Lord’s Supper is eating bread and drinking wine. This signifies inward spiritual feeding upon Christ by faith. The Belgic Confession explains:

“Just as truly as we take and hold the sacraments in our hands and eat and drink it in our mouths, by which our life is then sustained, so truly we receive into our souls, for our spiritual life, the true body and true blood of Christ, our only Savior. We receive these by faith, which is the hand and mouth of our souls.” —Belgic Confession, Article 35

Baptism signifies membership, cleansing, death, and resurrection and is administered once. The Lord’s Supper signifies ongoing nourishment through active communion with Christ and is received repeatedly. Paul therefore calls it a participation or communion in Christ:

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” —1 Corinthians 10:16

The sacramental action itself presupposes conscious faith. Eating Christ and drinking his blood spiritually means receiving him, resting upon his sacrifice, and feeding upon him by faith.

The Old Testament Sacrificial Background

The Lord’s Supper is instituted in the setting of Passover, but it should not be understood merely as a repetition of the first Passover in Exodus 12. It also fulfills the broader sacrificial theology of Leviticus 1–7. The five major offerings may be grouped into three broad categories:

1. The sin and guilt offerings address the guilt and impurity of sin.
2. The burnt and grain offerings signify consecration and acceptance before God.
3. The peace offering signifies the fellowship that follows atonement and consecration.

The peace offering was unique because the worshiper could eat from it. The other offerings were wholly given to God or shared only with the priests. The peace offering was divided between God and the offerer. The fat, regarded as the best portion, was burned upon the altar as God’s holy portion, while the remaining meat became a sacred fellowship meal. Table fellowship signified peace and the absence of hostility. The offering therefore represented reconciliation and covenant communion between God and his redeemed people. It could also be offered voluntarily in thanksgiving or fulfillment of a vow. Leviticus presents the sacrifices in a theological order:

“Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he came down from offering the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings.” —Leviticus 9:22

Sin is dealt with first. The worshiper is then consecrated to God, and only afterward comes the fellowship meal. This sequence points to Christ’s work. The sin offering corresponds especially to his curse-bearing, commonly called his passive obedience. The burnt offering corresponds to the perfect consecration and righteousness of his active obedience:

“Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” —Ephesians 5:2

The peace offering represents the resulting acceptance, reconciliation, and communion with God.

Passover as a Fellowship Offering

Passover belongs within this larger category because the worshipers ate the sacrifice. Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper during Passover:

“On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, ‘Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?’” —Mark 14:12

The later Passover differed from the first household observance in Egypt. In the land, the lamb was sacrificed at the sanctuary, and adult males were commanded to appear before the Lord at the appointed feasts (Exod. 23:17; Deut. 16:16). Children were not explicitly excluded from participation, but neither were they individually commanded to appear. The peace-offering background adds a further element of conscious identification. The offerer laid his hand upon the head of the sacrifice:

“If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering … he shall lay his hand on the head of his offering and kill it at the entrance of the tent of meeting.” —Leviticus 3:1–2

This gesture signified identification with and appropriation of the sacrifice. The Lord’s Supper similarly requires communicants consciously to identify with Christ’s death and receive its benefits by faith.

Participation in the Altar

Paul explicitly interprets the Lord’s Supper by comparison with sacrificial meals:

“Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?” —1 Corinthians 10:18

He places three tables in contrast: Israel’s sacrificial table, the Lord’s Table, and pagan sacrificial tables.

“What pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” —1 Corinthians 10:20–21

This argument extends beyond the first Passover, which had no temple altar. The Lord’s Supper fulfills the larger pattern of sacrificial fellowship and requires deliberate participation in Christ’s once-for-all offering.

Remembrance, Proclamation, and Discernment

Jesus commands, “Do this in remembrance of me.” For Paul, remembrance is more than recalling a past fact. In the Supper, the church proclaims Christ’s death and actively appropriates by faith its covenantal significance.

“As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” —1 Corinthians 11:26

The communicant is, as it were, laying a hand upon Christ the sacrifice, confessing: his death is for sinners such as me; I rest upon him; I belong to the covenant people created by his blood. To eat without this discernment is to profane the sign and become guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. This explains the need for self-examination, a credible profession of faith, and church oversight of admission to the Table.

Children and Profession of Faith

The argument against paedocommunion is not an argument that children as such may never commune. Scripture establishes no universal age threshold. A child who can give a credible profession of faith, understand the basic meaning of the sacrament, discern Christ’s body and blood, and examine himself in an age-appropriate way may be admitted after examination by the elders. The decisive issue is not chronological age but profession and discernment. Baptism marks covenant membership; the Lord’s Supper is the covenant meal of professing believers who consciously feed upon Christ.

Q&A on Paedocommunion

Is Paedocommunion Heretical?

Paedocommunion has appeared at various points in church history and was clearly practiced by Augustine. It should therefore not be treated as though it were beyond the bounds of all Christian orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the warnings of 1 Corinthians 11 make the practice pastorally and ecclesiastically serious. Churches must explain how infants or very young children can obey the requirements of self-examination and discernment. The strongest Reformed objection is not mere tradition but the nature of the Supper as active communion and Paul’s explicit warning concerning unworthy participation.

What Does “Discerning the Body” Mean?

The phrase may include discernment of the church as Christ’s corporate body, since the Corinthians’ divisions contradicted the unity represented by the one bread. Yet the immediate sacramental context also requires discernment of the bread as signifying Christ’s body given for his people. The two meanings need not be opposed. To discern Christ’s sacrificial body is also to recognize the covenant body created by that sacrifice. Paedocommunion advocates often emphasize the corporate meaning and argue that excluding baptized children fails to discern the body. The Reformed response is that covenant membership does not eliminate Paul’s further requirement of self-examining, believing participation in the sacrament.

The Corinthian Abuse of the Supper

The Corinthian church appears to have merged an ordinary fellowship meal with the Lord’s Supper. Social divisions, overeating, and drunkenness obscured the sacrament’s holy character. Paul does not condemn ordinary fellowship meals; he condemns treating the Lord’s Supper as though it were merely such a meal. To partake in a worthy manner is therefore to recognize the Supper’s distinctive sacramental meaning, wait for one another, discern Christ’s body, and approach in faith and repentance.

Early Church Evidence

The historical evidence for both infant baptism and paedocommunion is complex. Some early statements imply baptism from infancy without describing the rite directly. Polycarp’s declaration that he had served Christ for eighty-six years is often cited as evidence that he was regarded as a Christian from infancy, though it does not by itself prove infant baptism. More explicit evidence for infant baptism appears in early third-century church orders, especially the work commonly known as the Apostolic Tradition, traditionally associated with Hippolytus. Later fourth- and fifth-century evidence becomes abundant, especially in Augustine’s argument that the baptism of infants confirms the doctrine of original sin. Paedocommunion also appears in the ancient church, with Augustine providing clear evidence. Historical practice is therefore relevant but cannot by itself decide the exegetical question. Scripture must determine how the covenant signs are to be administered.

Covenant theology provides the framework needed to understand both sacraments. They are signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace, subordinate to the Word and made effective by the Holy Spirit. They do not operate automatically, but neither are they empty reminders. Through their right use, the Spirit confirms faith in the gospel promise and applies Christ’s benefits to his people. Baptism is the once-for-all sign of entrance into the visible covenant community. Because there is one Covenant of Grace under two administrations, because the visible covenant community includes professing believers and their children, and because covenant members should receive the covenant sign, the children of believers ought to be baptized. The Lord’s Supper has a different covenantal function. It is the repeated meal of spiritual nourishment, communion, remembrance, proclamation, and conscious participation in Christ’s sacrifice. Its background lies not only in Passover but in the whole sacrificial system culminating in the peace offering.

For that reason, and because Paul requires self-examination and discernment, admission to the Table ordinarily follows a credible profession of faith. In both sacraments, the promise remains central. Baptism seals the promise of cleansing, union, death, resurrection, and covenant belonging. The Lord’s Supper seals the promise that Christ’s body and blood are true food and drink for believing souls. The Word declares the promise; the sacraments visibly confirm it; and the Spirit uses both to strengthen faith in Christ.