Max A Forsythe
Christ covenant reformed (PCA)
4787 Palmer Road S.W. - Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3315

Copyright 2004

Credo-Communion
For the Lord’s Day:  the 29^th of June 2003

1 Corinthians 11: 27-29

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner
will be guilty of profaning 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.”

Introduction:  Very few people realize it, but the greatest of American preachers was put out of the pulpit because he challenged the conventional wisdom of his congregation by wanting to examine and approve those who would have access to the bread and wine of communion.  Jonathan Edwards was simply concerned that the children of the church had too easily been confirmed in their membership without any diligent enquiry into the substance of their faith.  Therein lies the real substantive reason why the practice of Paedocommunion is not more widely accepted and practiced within the Reformed Churches.  And the reasoning is simply this, if the children of the Covenant are allowed access to the table at an early age, and then grow up without showing any outward signs of sanctification and a faithful engagement to the doctrines of the church – then they would have to be excommunicated in order to protect them from  any further “profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

Ah-yes, there are many parents and grandparents like those in Edward’s congregation, who would decry the ultimate disgrace of excommunication just because their precious offspring might be unable to display the correct attitude and behavior in regards to the Lord’s Supper.  And then again, there are any number of people who on the surface are perfect examples of sanctification and in that they glory themselves proven as children of God.  To ask them to even “examine” themselves is to insult the wisdom of their having chosen the Lord of all the earth and to challenge their self-esteem and the honor of their character before the Lord.

I am reminded of the story my mother told me about going to get her first driver’s license.  Since she had already been driving since the age of seven – the examiner simply filled out the paperwork and explained there was no reason to give a person of her experience any test!  Of course, we might consider that a grandfathering of all of those driving into the legalities of the brand new law.  By contrast, my three sons were all taught to drive a pick-up truck in the fields of the farm at the age of eight, but were required to wait another eight years before being allowed out on to the public roads.  They were also taught to use a rifle and to go to work with a riding mower that same summer.  Yes, it is relatively simple to learn how to do all of those things, when your legs and arms are long enough.  It is much more time consuming to learn the pit-falls and dangers of that equipment.  It is also dangerous to learn the basics of driving when you have to share the road with something more crunchable than the ordinary hay bales.

When it comes to fire arms – knowing when to use them is of much greater importance than knowing how!  My introduction to weapons was in basic training and had I not qualified for something other than the Infantry – I would have continued learning the equipment even as the care and use of it in Southeast Asia demanded a familiarity beyond the technical limits of my learning curve.  Some years ago, when the popular movie, based on the life of Francis Marion, The Patriot was in the theaters, one of my school friends was shocked and even upset that young teenagers were participating in a running gun battle with the British who had just murdered their brother.  She was even more shocked when I announced that my sons had learned to shoot at that same early age!

The use of the riding lawn-mower by all three boys was a necessary pre-requisite for earning cash to invest in livestock and learning at an early age to pay their own way in life.  Yes, we had to overcome the safety devices and ignore a state regulation or two in order to accomplish the greater good of learning to work and to use any manner of equipment well and safely.  Whenever we were off our property – earning a living, I was always close by supervising.  And on one occasion when one of the boys was speeding around our hillside a little too fast, I stepped out onto the porch with a hair-dryer and aimed it in his direction until he remembered how that equipment was used on a recent Dukes of Hazard show, where the Deputy Sheriff had tried to pass one off as a radar detector.  Later in life, after one of the boys broke the front wheels off of his truck by jumping over a snow bank, he was scared to death to tell me about his stupidity.  When he finally worked up the courage to tell me what had happened (I already knew of course) – I handed him a Confederate flag to staple to the roof of his now broken truck!  The really hard part of the punishment was paying for his mistake himself!

I hope these several examples will help you realize the seriousness with which we should take access to communion for our little ones?  Yes, a person can seem to know everything that they need to know to drive a truck, shoot a gun and earn a living at an early age.  But, all of those activities need to be carefully monitored until the proper age of responsibility comes.  All three of the boys matured early on – in different ways, mostly before they graduated from High School.  And yet, there were still some careful, even painful instruction that was necessary.  I remember writing to the Juvenile judge to throw the book at one of them who was speeding more than he ought.  To this day, he hasn’t figured out why he got the maximum sentence for a ticket when his friends received a lot less!  But, unlike a lot of parents I was willing to work with the judge who had the legal oversight of the public highways and byways, and the judge was even willing to credit the seventeen days that I had imposed in anticipation of his ruling, towards the full forty-five actually given.

Development:  My point in all of this is that we must all learn to recognize and yield our wishes and God given authority in many cases to people, institutions and officers outside of the family, when they hold a God-given ordination to act in the best interests of society, family and church.  Now what has all of this to do with the current and ongoing argument about Paedocommunion versus Credo-Communion?  It is simply this, as Keith Mathison recognizes:  “Given the fact that confessional revision would be necessary in order for any of these churches to legitimately practice paedocommunion … there are legitimate avenues by which confessional revision may be pursued if that be deemed necessary.”

The presumption of the generation who wrote The Westminster Confession and Catechisms was based upon the verses with which we began from Paul’s first letter to Cornith.  “Let a person examine himself,” he writes as an admonishment for every believer to do before participation.  Within that confessional context, the early Reformers established a difference between communicant and non-communicant members of the body of Christ: the Church.

We turn to The Larger Catechism for a full description: Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ?

Answer:  The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the should, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion agrees when he writes about paedocommunion having “deservedly fallen into disuse.”  The Lord’s Supper he noted was “only for those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own conscience, of proclaiming the Lord’s death, and of considering its power.”  These necessary abilities come to children at different ages, and any session must work closely with the parents to determine the appropriate ability of each child to appreciate what Christ has done and their ongoing responsibilities before the Lord of all the earth.

Now, my commentator who has inspired our ongoing study of communion this year, goes into great detail for twelve long pages on the subject of paedocommunion and he details the history of it, and the arguments for and against the practice.  While he seemingly dismisses the arguments against paedocommunion, he does affirm the confessional obligations to continue the practice of Credo-communion, (which term he suggests for the common practice within the Reformed Churches).

“One of the most extensive examinations of the question,” Mathison tells us “is found in the writings of the Anglican Jeremy Taylor.  In his book Discourse of the Liberty of Prophesying (1648), he concluded that infants should either receive both sacraments or neither sacrament.  He thought that the arguments against paedocommunion were not convincing, but he suggested that the status quo be maintained in order that the peace of the church not be disturbed.”

Reasons for Credo-communion:  Basically, there are three arguments for Credo-communion.  First is the one that we have affirmed based upon our text for today: that participation in communion demands a thorough understanding of what is taking place in the sacrament.  A second argument centers on the passive nature of infant baptism as opposed to the active participation in communion which requires “taking”, “eating,” “thinking,” and “doing” specific things not normative for early childhood years.  The third argument is taken from the Old Covenant and centers on the questions that children were to ask about the Passover meal.  The key passage is in Exodus 12: 26-27 and it may easily be read that the question is from a child who still needs further training before participation.  Of course the text is not definitive in establishing that understanding.

Reasons for Paedocommunion:  There are also three arguments for Paedocommunion.  First is the all too ready objection to the Old Covenant proof texting, wherein the argument assumes participation instead of non-participation for children in the Seder meal.  The second argument for participation is the general doctrine that according to our confessional stance:  “children of believers continue to be included in the covenant of grace.” Mathison  outlines the third argument in these words:  “The proponents of paedocommunion also argue that the Baptists are correct when they accuse Reformed churches of inconsistency in the administration of the sacraments.”

Conclusion and Application:  The debate is ongoing and intense.  The OPC will not license men who hold this position, while the PCA will receive individuals who believe in the proposition, but will not allow the practice itself.  I do not know what more I can possibly add to the discussion to convince anyone, except that the confessional standards are in place and unlikely to be changed at this late date.  But, having to propose that sincere studious members would have to bow before the subsidiary standards in this regard is not likely to be a popular undertaking.  Such an obvious observation is also unlikely to win any realistic affection for the subsidiary standards which have informed our churches these many hundreds of years.  Now, don’t get me wrong – the last thing that I would like to see is any attempt to improve upon the Westminster documents!

However, I am not adverse at beginning my own conclusions in that confessional standard and working on from there as I have already hinted in the story telling premise with which I began.  So let me delineate my reasons for remaining comfortable with the doctrinal solution established in our confession.

1.        As in the case of Jonathan Edwards – if you give away access to the table too easily (cheap grace) there comes a time when it will be necessary to remove the access if there results a lack of faith and willingness to obey the lawful regulations of the Church and our Lord and King.  Any excommunication is never easy and it all too often gets very messy indeed.  We do not need an excuse to do more of that.

2.       Infant baptism is faithfully given in the hope and the promise that the faith is for us and our children.  And just as we hinted earlier in our short study of the differences between justification and sanctification, we realize that they are inseparable, but different aspects of our lives in Christ.  In the same way I would argue that while the sacrament of baptism acknowledges a beginning in the life of Christ, still the parents have much work to do in establishing the ongoing habits of sanctification which will make any future transition in the second birth less traumatic and agonizing.  But that training in comparative righteousness is basic for any self-examination.

I say this on the basis of some thoughts written by Ken Ham on the differences between the Hebrew and Greek cultures.  Within the Hebrew experience – no one raised in the families of that nation ever had to drastically change their world view in order to be born again into the Covenant relationship.  By contrast, in the Greek culture every aspect of truth, sin and confession before receiving the gift of grace could and would be debated because the world view of the pagans denied the essential details of God’s activity in the lives of men and nations.  Therefore – while the cultural definition of a child’s life within the context of the Covenant Church is not always definitive: it may as Paul describe his  own experience bring a person to Christ more easily.

3.       My third and final point is simply this.  The humanists, secularists and atheists are all too interested in making certain that no one, not even our own children should be so culturally conditioned to think consistently in biblical terms as we might desire for our own flesh and blood.  They would prefer that every human remain forever young, forever innocent and forever ignorant of the truths that would transform!  To that end they will continue to promote a cultural self-esteem that is less likely to be broken down so that hearts might truly know the depravity of sin and seek the grace and mercy of our God in heaven.

Therefore, let us all the more hold fast to the doctrines of salvation and teach them diligently to our children so that they will anticipate and pray for the realities of knowing the new birth and the privilege that comes with that: of supping with Christ our Lord and Savior.  Amen.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PREACHING RESOURCES
Battles, Ford Lewis.  Library of Christian Classics XXI (Calvin: Institutes).
Ham, Ken  Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium.
Hodge, Charles.  Systematic Theology III.
Mathison, Keith A.  Given For You.
The Westminster Confession & Catechisms.
Holy Bible: English Standard Version.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Permission granted to redistribute unedited versions with this notice.
http://www.tulip.org/Com/Com04.htm