Flee Moscow's paedocommunion

The Public Square
43

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
44

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.)

45

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
46

A post was merged into an existing topic: Bayly’s daily

47

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
48

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
49

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! :slight_smile:

50

Dear Pastor Bayly,

Thank you very much for (again :laughing:) 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!

51

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
52

Concerning Edwards’ objection to the Halfway Covenant, is it fair to say, as I remember some FV guys saying years ago, that Edwards had the problem of swinging the pendulum in the other direction, away from any hint of formalism? That is that he or elders in his church would not accept a “credible profession of faith and an upright life” as qualifying one for the table, but instead so emphasized a remarkable conversion experience that few could honestly lay claim to conversion. The irony in this case would be that many elders and churches today cheer Edwards and completely approve his stand against the Halfway Covenant while receiving into communion adults and children that no one on either side of the controversy in Edwards’ day would have considered converted. Maybe I’m off here. My paper on it back in 2008 certainly did not, if memory serves, impress my RTS prof.

53

Dear Calvin,

In a word, no. That is not accurate. It had nothing to do with formalism. It is true formalism often attends sacramentalism, but it’s hard to see any of the Puritans as promoting formalism if one knows their worship. Horton Davies is very helpful in this regard, both Worship of English Puritans and Worship of American Puritans.

I’m relentless in saying the issue is sacramentalism. Over two decades ago, I warned Doug this was where his F-V would lead, and I couldn’t have been more right. Of course the F-V schismatics tried to sell their novelties by attacking Edwards precisely as the leaders of Northampton did back during the controversy. Edwards answered their mischaracterization fully and left them groundless in their talking points, but it didn’t matter and he was fired.

As I said before, Edwards’s maternal grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, had been the pastor in Northampton, so when Edwards took the call to serve his congregation, he followed his grandpa’s practices and served the Lord’s supper to those who claimed no regeneration, personally. Solomon’s Northampton practice flowed naturally from his sacramentalism (there it is again—ex opere operato).

Stoddard believed the Lord’s supper was a converting ordinance and Northampton’s practice naturally followed that sacramentalist error.

One can read and gain sympathy for Stoddard’s harmful leadership in this regard. Sacramentalist errors are incredibly destructive to God’s sheep, as all Scripture attests, but it’s not at all difficult to understand why mothers want their infants communed and the children of excommunicated or unbelievers or self-acknowledged unregenerate baptized. Reading the history of Stoddard’s own conversion would help one to understand his giving in to this Roman Catholic dogma just as reading Cotton Mather’s explanations and defense of the Halfway Covenant in practice of baptism helps one understand (and have great sympathy) for caving to that error, also.

But pastors and elders must guard the sheep regardless of the cost they themselves bear, personally. And nowhere are the sheep so commonly destroyed and is the pastor’s guardianship more needed than sacramentalism. Sacramentalist churches are not true churches because the right (Biblical) administration of the sacraments is a mark of the true church.

So yes, both the Northampton leading men and Auburn Avenue F-V leading men accuse faithful shepherds of rigorism (and I might add, despise any awakening, Great or not, as merely the work of Zevon “excitable boys”). Pat the head and rub the belly is all that’s needed from a toddler, and anyone who denies him the Lord’s supper is a rigorist because, you see, right there it was obvious he was confessing his faith!

Away with such lies. Yes, they are comforting to mama—and what pastor doesn’t work hard to keep the mamas of the household of faith reassured concering the souls of their children? Nevertheless, the pastor and elder who forsakes or hides the necessity of conversion for the sake of comforting mamas has betrayed his calling. Hope that helps, and love

1 Like
54

Just to make sure I am tracking, are you going so far to state at this point that Christ Church, Moscow, and others like it within the CREC practicing paedocommunion, are not true churches?

I know you’ve long criticized this practice, while also continuing to embrace Doug as a brother and dear friend. I’ve also appreciated the care you’ve taken to defend Doug against those who are criticizing him for the wrong reasons. But as recent events in the CREC have brought this issue front and center (or perhaps rather, as you’ve alluded, it always has been front and center, and now it’s just undeniably so), it seems like your condemnation is heightening to an extent that I’m not sure I’ve seen from you in the past.

In your view, are Christ Church’s leaders unqualified? Does the church need to disband? Do you now pronounce your friend Doug to be anathema? I’m trying to put my finger on understanding how far the condemnation goes, in your view.

When you suggest Moscow paedocommunion is a sacramentalist practice, and also go on to say sacramentalist churches are not true churches, the math seems to be pretty clear. Or am I misunderstanding?

Thanks.

4 Likes
55

Dear Jason,

Rather than answering this personally, concerning Doug and Toby and Ben and etc., let me ask a few questions. Do we believe the reformers were right in declaring the two or three marks of the church must always include the right preaching of the Word of God and the right administration of the sacraments? If so, do we believe credobaptist churches have the right administration of the sacraments? If not, then is John Piper unqualified and does Bethlehem Baptist Church need to disband and do I need to warn everyone away from John and every practitioner and teacher of credobaptism?

My own answer to those questions would be yes, no, and no.

Why?

Because I don’t believe Scripture is clear on paedobaptism such that those who oppose it should be condemned, and therefore those churches that don’t practice it should be shut down.

Moving to sacramentalism, is it the right Biblical administration of the sacraments? If not, how serious is this error? How clear is Scripture in condemning this error? What harm does the teaching and practice of sacramentalism do to the sheep? Is the harm the same or worse than the harm of refusing to baptize infants?

I think we all know what all the reformers would say, and I agree with them here, too.

Moving to paedocommunion, ten years ago, my son Joseph was at a CREC national meeting in Florida where Ben Merkel preached to his fellow CRECers that the CREC must not define itself by the doctrine or practice of paedocommunion or the doctrine of postmillennialism. Now, the movement is on to make the practice of paedocommunion a confessional issue. (They would quibble with my word “confessional,” so I would point out that they are requiring its practice, which is to make it confessional.)

This is how heterodoxy becomes heresy: an error is sown into the true church schismatically, merely asking permission for freedom of conscience, at first. Gaining a foothold, the schismatics then evangelize for their error and the division grows. Then the schismatics begin to heighten their rhetoric, twisting Scripture in such a way that they begin to condemn anyone who doesn’t join their schism, doing so through the abuse of Scripture. Then the division becomes large and established enough that churches and denominations are founded upon that error. It becomes their reason to exist. What unites them. It becomes mandatory.

This is a well-recognized pattern. The CREC has long been calling everyone to join them in its practice. They have long been teaching that to forbid infants and toddlers to partake, the pastors and elders are failing to “discern the body of Christ.” Not communing infants and toddler is dividing the body. It is disobeying 1Corinthians 11, they say, and therefore a serious abuse of the sacrament.

Now then, what should be done about this schism of theirs, that paedocommuners are the only ones obedient to the command of Scripture that children be recognized to be part of the unity of the Body, and therefore communed? Should it be disagreed with, but entirely tolerantly. Let them go their own way? It’s wrong, but no big deal? It’s wrong and a big deal, but I want everyone to know what a peaceable person I am, so I won’t publicly oppose that big deal wrong? It’s wrong, a big deal, and I’ll oppose the doctrine and practice publicly, but do so without naming names? You know, like we did with F-V where all of us condemned it, but we never found anyone personally guilty of what we condemned, so we never had to discipline anyone?

Covid unified the CREC around belligeration. Now, the movement is on among them to unify themselves around sacramentalist paedocommunion. The pursuit of making paedocommunion central to their faith and practice—of requiring it—is a new level of false doctrine and schism by the CREC. Some may argue that sacramentalism is not integral to the CREC’s sacramentology nor to paedocommunion. May God bless them, but my judgment has long been the opposite. And with the stated intention of leaders in the CREC to make these things required, I have moved into public warning and condemnation of the doctrine, the practice, and those church officers promoting it.

So in the end, I believe paedocommunion is a sacramentalist doctrine and practice, that it is contrary to God’s Word, that it has been condemned by the Protestant and Reformed church since the time of the reformers, that it is a violation of the Westminster Standards, and that those who teach and practice it are not in possession of one of the marks by which the true church is known. As to Doug, we’ve been lifelong friends, but there are critical times in the life of truth and error when the defense of truth must trump relationships. This is such a time.

I end by pointing out that my own warnings and condemnations of this error have not been anywhere near as strong as John Calvin’s, and that is comforting. Love,

9 Likes
56

Thank you, brother. This is helpful.

57

Sorry, wrong place to post it. Moved it.

58

Did it again. Sorry.

59

Doug for his part in his letters section today 5/7 said he owes a lot to the Warhorn folks and is not going to get into it.

1 Like
60

What is the Roman Catholic theory (or practice) on paedocommunion?

61

Eastern Orthodox commune infants. Roman Catholics do not. Generally “First Communion” for RCs happens around age 7.

62

The Moscow movement seem to relish the praise of men, contrary to Paul. How can we be wrong, look at our growth! Look at our worship! Look who our enemies are!

2 Likes