Quick note: There is already a mismatch in who can participate in one vs the other in baptism. So we know there can be changes to who will participate in the New Covenant.
3 Likes
Actually, no. The fundamental issue is fulfillment of the explicit mandates issued by God in 1Corinthians 11. This is the reason paedocommunion fails. Their exegesis is ridiculous, just on the face of it. So my recommendation is for you to study 1Corinthians 11, noting how it’s in shreds when paedocommunionists are done with it. But I’m sure there will be more on the Passover, tertiary though it is. Love,
2 Likes
So we know there can be changes to who will participate in the New Covenant.
The kind of change seems fundamentally different, however; while both males and females are baptized, due to the expansion of salvation to all (Gal. 3:28), there is an opposite limiting of communion to only those of age.
At any rate, I am not a paedocommunionist, but am mostly just interesting in the logic of the thing, particularly Calvin’s comment. 
1 Like
Our postmillennialism is deeply embedded in our lives. This is more than a preference for historical optimism. Postmillennialism is how we see the Bible moving. It is far from a mere academic discussion. In fact, it would not be easy to function happily in the CREC without that eschatological predisposition. It impacts everything from our preaching/teaching to our education and interpretation of the times.
So much for catholicity. Postmillennialism, in this formulation, is a hermeneutic rather than an eschatology. It shapes and determines the meaning of the prophets, rather than being shaped and determined by them.
None of the Reformed confessions speak this way. Our hope is in the coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead. There is no way, as this makes clear, to function happily within one of these churches without presupposing a very peculiar modern formulation of postmillennialism. Everyday a new application of this hermeneutic reveals itself, whether it be masks veiling the glory of God or some other religious-political commitment. I don’t see how binding the consciences of the sheep to eschatology in this way does anything but create schism.
Anyways, resume the conversation about paedocommunion. Thank you shepherds for warning us.
6 Likes
And so much for Ben Merkle’s sermon at the CREC general assembly (or whatever they call it) about 10 years ago. He urged that those things must not become the shibboleths of the CREC. It was a very encouraging sermon. Sad to see it so blatantly rejected.
8 Likes
Been reading voluminous correspondence between Buswell and Machen about intense conflict at the beginning of their Presbyterian Church of America between premils and amils. Growing most heavy in November and December of 1936, in his letter to Machen dated December 4, 1936, Buswell says:
I do not question the right of a professor in a truly Presbyterian seminary to teach the amillennial view if he believes it. You do not question the right of a professor to teach the premillennial view if that is his conviction. It has seemed to me however that the shift of emphasis from historical critical apologetics to philosophical apologetics has resulted in a very strong and disproportionate emphasis upon the amillennial view. This, in my humble judgment, has resulted from a philosophical conception which has unconsciously been allowed to creep in, and has not been the result of careful critical Biblical scholarship.
A few letters followed, then Machen suddenly died. This was the center of the controversy which, the following year, split the new denomination. It’s my conviction this conflict would have found a resolution if Machen had lived, and that is God’s providence, inscrutable as it remains.
To Moscow, all one would have to change in the text above is amil to postmil, and the thrust behind it being political rather than philosophical. Love,
6 Likes
Premillennialists have tended to be biblicists (a chapter/verse approach to theology; think Grudem’s ‘Systematic Theology’), and amillennialists have tended to be more on the side of good and necessary consequence (more of whole-scripture approach to theology; think Bavinck and ‘Wonderful Works of God’).
Both biblicism and good and necessary consequence have their place, but the CREC seem to have given both a miss. It’s like they’ve taken the credobaptist criticism of paedobaptists - ‘you give one sacrament to your children but not the other’ - as their North Star, without understanding either exegetical theology (biblicism) or historical theology (good and necessary consequence).
2 Likes
Some Thoughts and Questions on Fleeing Moscow’s Paedocommunion
I’m writing this after reading the article, but before reading any comments. Maybe I’ll find some answers to my questions and counter arguments to my arguments. We’ll see.
Notes on 1 Corinthians 11:17-34
Prior to this article I’d not read John Calvin’s writing against paedocommunion, and I’d not heard of remembering(vv. 24-25) and witnessing/proclaiming(v. 26) as requirements for receiving communion. To remember some historical event and to proclaim an historical event in view of its future culmination(v. 26) definitely would require maturity of thought and intention that would exclude all but the most precocious from participating in the Supper before the upper elementary or junior high years. But the passage seems to be saying that when an individual eats the bread and drinks the cup, that act in itself, done along with the others in the congregation is a remembrance and a proclamation, without any reference to the maturity and mental capacity of any individual.
Eating in a worthy manner(v. 27), examining oneself(v. 28), and discerning the body(v. 29) clearly are requirements for the individuals participating in the Lord’s Supper(v. 20). These requirements also necessarily imply some degree of individual thought and intention that I believe rules out a strict paedocommunion position. But I’ve read Moscow’s defense of allowing for a kind of immature expression of faith, the sort an 18 month old might express. The idea seems strange to me, but the argument made strikes me as plausible. I find myself in the proverbial situation of hearing the first guy make his case, which sounds pretty good. Then the second guy makes his case, and that also sounds pretty good.
So I’m going to imagine five different cases, and see if they might help us understand better.
Five Different Churches Fence the Table, or Don’t
Case #1: Willy Nilly Nondenominational International Fellowship
Elders don’t fence the table at all. The parents do whatever. Most of them are Baptists by default, but it doesn’t occur to them that their kids’ receiving of the Lord’s Supper, without being baptized, is kind of nuts from a Scriptural and historical point of view. The elders don’t teach them any different. Once an elder mentioned, while leading communion, that baptism is supposed to come before receiving communion. His theological acumen was not appreciated… by anyone.
Case #2: Tall Steeple PCA
The elders fence the table, if somewhat mildly and formulaically. It’s mostly understood that communion begins at age 12 after completing the Communicants’ Class. The elders would maybe go down to 8 or 9 for that precocious penitent, but once took a case to presbytery to prevent a 6 year-old from coming to the table. Precocious is one thing, but let’s not get crazy. Presbytery backed up the session against the parents’ desire and view.
Case #3: Clearnote Reformed
Elders passionately, carefully, conscientiously, and lovingly fence the table. Eight or nine is pretty normal, but they’ve gone as young as four. The nurture and admonition of parents and pastors is milk for the little ones until they can eat solid food.
Case #4: First Hinder-them-not of Moscow
Elders passionately, carefully, conscientiously, and lovingly fence the table, but also believe (mistakenly?) that an 18 month old who is not pitching a fit and coos or grunts assent to a few simple questions from dad is fulfilling 1 Corinthians 11 in the way an 18 month old is able. If John the Baptist could leap for joy in Elizabeth’s womb and David could praise the Lord at his mother’s breast and God ordains praise from infants, then why not? The littles need food so they can get strong, not the other way around.
Case #5: Pure Paedo Presbyterian
Elders strictly fence the table against unbelieving and rebellious adults while receiving the tiniest baby just as Jesus did. They teach parents not to starve their babies. Don’t let the tinies choke to death, but if they can eat rice mush, they can eat the body and the blood. Of course you’ve got to soften up the body with the blood until it’s more like the pablum of Christ, but I’m sure it’s fine.
I was baptized at age seven upon profession of faith and took the Supper from then on. I’m presbyterian now, and my kids were baptized as infants. I was a youth pastor in Case #2 churches and then a missionary school teacher and elder in a Case #1 fellowship. A Case #3 church is very appealing to me, but a #4, to me at least, also has a strong biblical case to make. Case #5? I don’t know. I guess they make the argument that all the discerning happens as one is able and has nothing to do with babies. Doesn’t seem like a good case to me, but maybe?
I believe in fencing the table, and I believe in letting the little ones come to Jesus. Actually the hard part is parents teaching and modelling repentance and faith for their kids all along the way and elders doing the same and helping parents and holding them accountable; parents and elders accepting expressions of faith from children and, as appropriate, holding them accountable as fellow believers. If you’re taking the Supper, you can be banned from the Supper, whether you’re a fit-pitching 4 or a fornicating 18.
Some may be getting sick and falling asleep because they’re coming to the table in an unworthy manner, but I don’t think being sincerely mistaken about how old someone must be to take the elements counts in that 1 Corinthians 11 category. That goes for a mistake in either direction, whether you’re holding the kids off a little too long and requiring a little too much or if you’re bringing them to the table too early. Do what you can do by faith in good conscience as guided by Scripture in the community of saints, and always be searching the word and praying for sanctification. Submit to your elders. They will give an account.
So, yes Willy Nillys are lazy and Pure Paedos are weird. Tall Steeples are in need of renewal and reformation. But must the ClearNotes and the Hinder-them-nots flee from one another? I want to say no, but maybe I’m wrong. I’m open to correction. Is Moscow a #4 or a #5? If they’re a #5, why can’t we just say you’re wrong and we’re praying for God to bless your child rearing just like we pray for Him to bless ours?
1 Like
But if Moscow is bearing good fruit and Evangel is bearing good fruit and they’ve both been rocking on for 30 plus years, isn’t that pointing towards an attempt to work out an agreement or a peaceable agreement to disagree? You might not need more careful engagement of differing exegeses (exegesi?), but I think I do. Probably others do as well. Maybe that exists. Tell me what to read.
1 Like
Hi Calvin,
Not sure where you picked up the name for #3 but that’s our church name and we typify that description. The issue between #3 and #4 is that only one of them is acutally fencing the table. #4 may claim to fence the table but they do it without regard to where Scripture builds the fence. In their context, all they require is baptism. No substantive examination, proclamation, discernment, ever.
When the children are young, they argue that the child is exempt from these requirements (if they’re even willing to admit that these requirments are applicable to adults) because they’re not able to obey. They assume the child will grow into these abilities but then never teach the children to this effect. It would be better for them to fence the table simply by saying that these things are required but that the children are exempt for a time but need to grow into these things as they mature. I’ve never heard anything of the sort in the numerous CREC worship services I’ve attended. They always have communion and there is never a word of warning, just “Come and welcome to Jesus.”
What goes on in CREC churches is not fencing. It’s just welcoming. That is part of the reason #3 And #4 can’t just agree to disagree. The link that Tim shared from Baylyblog is very helpful reading in explaining the differences and the dangers.
Love,
8 Likes
Welcome, Calvin. Glad to have you. You have by now read David Abu-Sara’s response, and I just want to add my agreement. The fundamental issue is the sacraments biblically administered is a mark of the church, and paedocommunion is not a biblically administered sacrament. I don’t stop saying, please compare paedocommunion liturgies of the eucharist to historic reformed and protestant liturgies. No smallest resemblance, and this particularly at the fencing of the table—as David Abu-Sara has pointed out. Please read the many links we have provided at the bottom of the OP. Years of work. Sacraments really really matter, and protecting them is fundamental to the duties of pastors and elders. Again, welcome. Love,
1 Like
Justin Martyr, who died in 160 AD, wrote the following:
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία1910 [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
The standard Reformed view of fencing the table really is so normal, and dare I say it, obvious, that’s it should be boringly boilerplate. Too boring for some, it seems.
8 Likes
Hi Dave (& others),
I do not understand this argument. Calvin, on 1 Cor. 11:5, says that Paul is not at all giving carte blanche to women praying in church, but rather he is addressing the principle of the thing (human nature), and deals with particulars when he gets around to dealing with particulars (1 Cor. 14). Similarly, 1 Cor. 11:23–34 is not about infants at all, and making the application from undiscerning gluttonous adults (the passage’s context) to young children in a faithful Christian household (not the passage’s context), and treating both with equal ferocity, seems to me, an outsider to these debates, to be applying a principle far beyond what it was intended to ever claim. With paedocommunion, we are dealing with application of an interpretation of a text not primarily about the topic—which is still important, to be sure, but seems a far cry from “Thus saith the Lord”. If Paul really wanted infants barred from the Table to the same degree he wanted factious drunkards barred, he probably would have mentioned it.
(I am also assuming from the inactivity of this thread that nobody has found any evidence/material on what Calvin is referring to by the Passover being barred from children. Alas.)
Paul starts by correcting the specific excesses and other failures of the Corinthian church in their celebration of the meal. He then moves on to general instructions on the proper way to celebrate the meal.
To limit his warnings in the instructional section—which are tied explicitly to failing to judge the body rightly—to the specific way they were failing, makes the entire passage incomprehensible.
4 Likes
The McNeill edition of Institutes gives [Ex 12:26] as Calvin’s reference. The implication being that catechesis preceded participation. "What does this rite mean to you?" Not “us”
1 Like
Dear brother, the Biblical doctrine of sacraments doesn’t yield to unstudied reactions. You might do well to start here, a place we already pointed to in the OP. Love,
PS: The link above reproducing Edward’s decimating arguments against halfway covenant he inherited from his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, is what really needs to be said opposing the paedocommunion schism condemned across the Protestant world since the reformers. It’s thorough in dealing with who participated in the Passover of the Old Covenant, and how that does and doesn’t apply to New Covenant Lord’s supper. However, if someone only wants to know what sort of reasons men like Calvin are dismissive of paedocommunionists’ “infants ate the passover” talking points, Cornelius Venema’s work would be a helpful thing to read. But let me repeat, Edwards is the first thing to read, although one would have to have some little understanding of the specific nature of his controversy in Northampton. Again, love,
8 Likes
Thanks for the reference!
I had considered this angle as one of a few possible explanations before posting my original comment, but had rejected it for the following reasons. Besides not really being the strongest implication from the verse proper, there are few problems with this view (in my unlearned opinion):
One, Ex. 12:3–4 commands a “lamb for each household”, “according to the number of persons in proportion to what each should eat”. It would be odd to deny children from being apart of “household” here when typical presbyterian logic supposes infants to be baptized when households are in the NT (special pleading).
Two, the Feast of Unleavened Bread (14–20) cuts off from Israel any person who eats anything other than unleavened bread for a full week, making the logistics of enforcing children’s non-participation rather awkward to say the least (do they fast?…).
Three, combining v26 with v24 (“an ordinance for you and your children forever”) doesn’t suggest barring children until they can pass a catechism exam, but rather that the ceremony and rites will naturally prompt questions from children to their parents (who by nature love asking questions about everything). The “to you” in v26 would therefore be referring to the children recognizing how important and laden with history and theology the Passover is to their parents. v24 presumes children’s involvement, and anticipates questions with the seriousness and profundity of the Passover of the reply given.
The form of the Q/A does resemble a catechism of sorts, true—I just do not see the logic for assuming this is a barrier for entry, rather than a “teaching theology to your kids via catechism” moment. I would love to hear other people’s takes on this though!
Thanks very much for tracking down the reference!
Dear Pastor Bayly,
Thank you very much for (again 
) linking the Edwards passage! I hope you take no disrespect when I say I’m a bit puzzled as to the relevance to my problem with the Calvin quotation, though. Edwards seems to be talking primarily about the purity and severity of God’s holiness with regards to the OT/NT ordinances, which I agree with. I also do not know Stoddard/Rayburn’s arguments, so it’s possible they are very bad. If you just posted it to refer to those elements of the discussion, then fair enough.
The reason I am puzzled is, oddly, it seems Edwards opponents are the ones appealing to a thematic connection between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper:
Now this is the argument of my opponents: that the Lord’s Supper comes in the room of the Passover, and therefore persons may come to the Lord’s Supper with the same qualifications with which they were allowed to come to the Passover. And either this is a good argument, or it is not; either what was commonly practiced and tolerated among the Jews with respect to the Passover, is a good rule to Christians with respect to the Lord’s Supper, or it is not. If my opponents insist upon that as a good rule, then let’em stand to it, and then it will overthrow their own scheme as effectually as that which is opposed. If it be not a good rule, then let it be given up and no more insisted on. If it ben’t a good rule in their case, then no more is it in my case.
This does not seem to square well with Calvin, who uses the Passover’s barring of age as an argument for barring children from Communion. It is an inversion of Edwards, where his opponents are arguing for a laxity in coming to the Lord’s Table, not a barring of children, true—but can we not turn Edwards’ logic against Calvin?— that if what was forbidden amongst the Jews with respect to the Passover is a good rule to Christians with respect to the Lord’s Supper (i.e., children), it will overthrow the whole scheme?
Am I misreading Edwards? (It isn’t clear to me what “as effectually as that which is opposed” is supposed to mean…) Or was there another section in the (admittedly pretty lengthy) quotation you had in mind?
Thanks again, and sorry for the long back-to-back posts!
Dear John,
Not understanding reason for your confusion. If Passover should be followed in New Testament sacraments, then unbelievers should be allowed just as long as they’re formally part of people of God and have been circumcised. This was the true practice regardless of whether infants were force fed the lamb (which Calvin says they were not, and which is obvious to anyone who has given birth to an infant or held an infant during participation in the Lord’s supper). The question Edwards is dealing with is whether the unregenerate should be communed. This is directly applicable to all discussions of sacramentalism, paedo or EO or RC.
Maybe you think I directed you to Edwards because he would lock down whether or not infants were force fed the lamb? I did not. Edwards was brought here to lead those confused by paedo’s arguments to see the multiple errors which follow neglecting obvious NT discontinuity with OT sacramental practice with regard to regeneration/circumcised hearts. Hope this helps.
If not though, to anyone reading this, again, I appeal to you to read the Edwards arguments. Edwards here is the definitive answer to paedo’s incessant appeal to the Passover. As Edwards says, if they win their appeal that it is the proper precedent and definitive in its application, they have proven too much and are simply stuck in their mud.
But also as I said, one needs to understand the specifics of the conflict Edwards was involved in. Read up on it anywhere online. Google it. Edwards succeeded his maternal grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, as pastor of Northampton church. Stoddard was a sacramentalist, believing specifically that the Lord’s supper was a converting ordinance. So Stoddard applied New England’s halfway covenant to Lord’s supper. No need for regeneration/conversion to come to Lord’s supper. Edwards accepted and administered this practice until, after years doing so, he came under conviction of his sin doing so. But read more than this to understand the conflict eliciting his arguments. Love,
3 Likes