In Reformed (and particularly Presbyterian) churches, you may hear about “paedocommunion,” sometimes called “infant communion” or “child communion.” This view maintains that the child of a believer (a “covenant child”) is entitled not only to receive the covenant sign of baptism but also to partake of the bread and the wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
Proponents argue it’s inconsistent to bestow baptism on a covenant child and withhold from that child the Lord’s Supper. Strikingly, the ad absurdum argument made against paedobaptism by some credobaptists (“paedobaptism logically leads to paedocommunion”) is being championed by paedocommunion’s proponents.
Because of growing interest in paedocommunion within some quarters of the Reformed church over the last half century, the practice merits a closer look. Let’s consider the compelling biblical and theological arguments against paedocommunion. These arguments, furthermore, help to explain why the confessional consensus of the Reformed churches has knowingly rejected the practice. Then let’s review Scripture’s teaching about when and under what conditions a child in the church may come to the Lord’s Table.
Instruction to the Corinthians
The leading argument against paedocommunion comes from Paul’s teaching about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. Paul responds to gross misuses of the Supper within the Corinthian church (v. 17). Divisions among church members (1:10–17; 3:4) have manifested themselves in the church’s worship (11:18). The “haves” are feasting and getting drunk, while the “have nots” are reduced to playing the part of humiliated spectators (vv. 21–22). The situation appalls Paul, and he isn’t even willing to call what the Corinthians are doing “the Lord’s Supper” (v. 20).
But Paul wounds to heal. He reminds the Corinthians of the Supper’s origin and meaning (vv. 23–26). Christ himself instituted it for his church. The bread and the cup are to be taken “in remembrance of [Christ]” (vv. 24, 25). In particular, the Supper remembers Jesus’s “blood” shed for the sins of his people (v. 25). Therefore, when God’s people observe it, they “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (v. 26).
The apostle then turns to the criteria for coming to the Lord’s Table. Not everyone in the congregation may come. Those who come must “examine” themselves and “[discern] the body”—that is, the “body and blood of the Lord” sacramentally connected with the bread and the cup (11:27–29). Paul issues stern warnings. Those who partake “in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27). A person who eats and drinks without discernment of the body “eats and drinks judgment on himself” (v. 29).
Paul concludes his argument by applying these principles specifically to the Corinthians (vv. 30–34). The church has already been experiencing the severe, chastening hand of the Lord Jesus. They must, then, observe the Supper in a way that honors him.
Instruction for Us
On Paul’s terms, paedocommunion is impossible. An infant is unable to comply with the apostolic qualifications set forth in 1 Corinthians 11:27–29. Only at the point when a covenant child attains maturity and can demonstrate repentance and faith may the church admit him or her to the Table.
Only at the point when a covenant child attains maturity and can demonstrate repentance and faith may the church admit him or her to the Table.
Proponents of paedocommunion often interpret 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 to say that the Lord’s Supper is a family meal, and that Paul’s main point is to rebuke disunity that prevents people from coming to the table. “Body,” they argue, refers throughout this passage to the church as Christ’s body. So long as covenant children can recognize and promote the church’s unity, they should share in this meal.
The problem with this argument is not that Scripture never speaks of the Lord’s Supper as giving expression to the fellowship of the church–it does (see 1 Cor 10:17). The problem with this argument is that it makes fellowship the exclusive (or primary) purpose of the Supper. In doing so it effectively eliminates the Supper as a memorial of Christ’s death for sin and as a believing participation in the crucified Christ. Paedocommunion requires a radical overhaul of the nature and meaning of the Lord’s Supper.
Historic, Reformed Consensus
For these reasons, the Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries unanimously rejected paedocommunion. The Lord’s Supper, according to the Westminster Larger Catechism, is “only [for] such as are of years and ability to examine themselves” (Q&A 177; compare WCF 29.7). The Belgic Confession (article 35) and Heidelberg Catechism (Q&A 81) bear the same testimony.
These confessional rejections of paedocommunion were no innovation. The Genevan reformer John Calvin was not only aware of paedocommunion but advanced a brief but trenchant refutation of the practice (Institutes 4.16.30). His contemporary, the Scottish reformer John Knox, allowed no room for paedocommunion in his Genevan Service Book (1556).
Are Paedobaptists Inconsistent?
This historical Reformed consensus serves as a confirmation of the Bible’s testimony against paedocommunion. The question remains whether paedobaptists are inconsistent in administering baptism to the infant of a believer but withholding the Lord’s Supper from that young person until he or she professes faith in Christ.
This historical Reformed consensus serves as a confirmation of the Bible’s testimony against paedocommunion.
Confessional paedobaptists say no and point to an important difference between the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Christ appointed the sacrament of baptism to be administered to disciples at the commencement of their discipleship (Matt. 28:18–20). It points people to the salvation that Christ alone has accomplished and that’s freely offered in the gospel. If the child of at least one believer is, by birthright and by calling, a disciple of Christ, then that child is entitled to receive baptism (see Mark 10:13–16; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 7:14). Baptism summons this child to look in faith to Christ as Savior and Lord.
Christ has appointed the Supper, on the other hand, to be received by disciples who meet the qualifications of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. The Supper solemnly sets forth Christ as crucified and involves a believing participation in Christ and in the benefits of his death. In light of this reality, one must publicly declare his or her faith in Christ to be admitted to the Table.
The Table’s Benefit for Children
The church should desire every one of its children to come to the Lord’s Table. The biblical way to fulfill this desire isn’t to invite unqualified covenant children to come to the Lord’s Supper. It is, rather, to teach them the gospel, to point them to Jesus Christ as the only Savior from sin, and to urge them to take hold of the inheritance that can be theirs through faith in Christ. The Table, in other words, calls covenant children to make public profession of faith in Christ.
Seen in this way, the Lord’s Supper is a tremendous help to stir the church to lead its littlest ones to Jesus Christ.
from The Gospel Coalition https://ift.tt/ZxCJgWw
Yirah Group 