Lane has responded to me here. Just a couple of things, and I am ready to move on to Venema’s next chapter. First, Lane has not yet responded to whether or not Venema would consider him a soft paedocommunionist. It seems to me that according to the definitions, that is the way it would have to go. Second, Lane asked where I got the identification behind my statement that “all who are bread should get bread.” One commenter at his site correctly identified it as 1 Cor. 10:17. Lane responded to this by noting the placement of commas in various Greek editions, and another commenter pointed out quite correctly that the commas are not part of the original text. Be that as it may, commas or no commas, I cannot see any way to read that text which does not identify the entire body with the entire loaf. And all forms of paedobaptist exclusion of some baptized members from the Table are a refusal of bread to bread.
“For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (KJV). “Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, because all of us partake of the one loaf” (ISV). “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (ESV). “seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we are all partake of the one bread” (ASV). “Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf” (Darby). “because one bread, one body, are we the many—for we all of the one bread do partake” (YLT). “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (TNIV). “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (RSV). “For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread” (NKJV).
And, like I said, all who are bread should get bread. The theological point remains standing.