The Biblical View of Paedocommunion

There is an ever growing segment within the Reformed church advocating paedocommunion. Among its more noted supporters we find men like RC Sproul Jr., Peter Leithart, Douglas Wilson, R.J. Rushdoony, James B. Jordan, Gary North, Steve Wilkins and N. T. Wright. Granted a large chunk of those listed are aligned with the Federal Vision crowd, but they have a following in the Reformed churches just the same. So, with this voice growing, it behooves all of us to not merely agree or disagree with what we have presupposed to be true but to do a little research into what our Bibles say, what the position of the Reformed Church has been historically, and what our Reformed Confessions say as well.

The Commentaries

Part of the argument in favor of paedocommunion is that we as Reformed Christians believe in infant Baptism, if we do that should we not also include them in Communion? We will start our answer by considering the biblical text of 1 Cor. 11:27-30, although it is most appropriate to read and study 11:17-34 for the whole context given here; yet for brevity’s sake we will confine our consideration to the four verses mentioned. It is said that this passage is dealing exclusively with the particular sins of the church in Corinth. Thus to use it in terms of whether or not it would be appropriate to admit a child, based on whether or not they are able to examine themselves, is incorrect. But, as I will show, it is almost universally accepted in the Reformed church that this passage specifically is to be applied not just to the specific situation in Corinth, not just to adults, but also to children. Let us look at some commentaries on this issue.

John Calvin says in discussing these verses, “Some restrict it to the Corinthians, and the abuse that had crept in among them, but I am of the opinion that Paul here, according to his usual manner, passed on from the particular case to a general statement, or from one instance to an entire class." Calvin goes on to paraphrase the examination command as follows, "If those that eat unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, then let no man approach who is not properly and duly prepared. Let everyone, therefore, take heed to himself, that he may not fall into this sacrilege through idleness or carelessness… If [a communicant] aspires after the righteousness of God with the earnest desire of [their] mind, and, humbled under a view of [their] misery, dost wholly lean upon Christ’s grace, and rest upon it, know that [they] are a worthy guest to approach that table…" Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 20, pp. 385, 387 – 388

Simon Kistemaker says, "[In dealing with the specific sins of the Corinthians,] Paul confronts them. But the text has a message for the universal church, too. Christians should never regard the celebration as a mere ritual. Rather, sincere believers ought to anticipate the Lord's Supper." He goes on to say, "Is Paul counseling the Corinthians to conduct self-examination before coming to the Lord's table? Should a pastor exhort the parishioners to examine themselves before they celebrate Communion? The answer to these two queries is a resounding yes… First, with the adversative but Paul prescribes self-examination for everyone who desires to partake of the bread and the cup of the Lord. He understands the word man generically to exclude no one… The present tense of the imperative verb to examine indicates that anyone who partakes of the Lord’s Supper must examine himself regularly… After due self-examination they must approach the Lord’s table with genuine love for both the Lord and their fellow man. This holds true for all Christians everywhere. They are to come to the Communion table with hearts attuned to God and the Scriptures… In brief, the table of the Lord tolerates neither unbelief nor disobedience. It is for those people who express true faith in Jesus Christ and proclaim His death in expectation of His return." New Testament Commentary, vol. 7, pp. 400 – 401

Thomas Watson says on 1 Cor. 11:28, “It is not enough that others think we are fit to come, but we must examine ourselves… before we come to the Lord’s table, we are to make a curious and critical trial of ourselves by the word.” The Lord’s Supper, pg. 41

As far as Reformed commentaries go, I could continue listing them here but it is easily known that the comments would be in agreement with each other just as the three I have included are (granting that there may be, as there usually is, some dissenters to be found). It is apparent that if there is a need to examine oneself when coming to the table then it is a necessarily prohibitive requirement for most young children. They are morally immature at best and devoid of any real understanding in life beyond whatever self-interest they are momentarily caught up in. To assume that a young child has the capability of giving a credible profession of faith or has the ability to adequately self-examine in preparation for the sacrament of Communion runs contrary to common experience and violates the clear command given to us in Scripture.

Systematic Theologies

Here too the issue of who is to be admitted to the Lord’s table is dealt with by most. And they too sound off in accordance with all of the other resources we may study. Let us see what they say.

“It is plain from the… nature and design of this sacrament, that it is intended for believers; and that those who come to the table of the Lord do thereby profess to be His disciples…, so those who partake in the Lord’s supper, do thereby profess to be Christians. But to be a Christian a man must have competent knowledge of Christ and of His gospel. He must believe the record which God has given of His Son. He must believe that Christ died for our sins; that His body was broken for us. He must accept of Christ as He is thus offered to Him as a propitiation for sin… Our Church… teaches that it is required of them who would worthily partake of the Lord’s supper, that they examine themselves, of their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, of their faith to feed upon Him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience… It is no valid objection to the doctrine that faith, love, and new obedience are the qualifications for an acceptable approach to the Lord’s table, that under the Old Testament all the people were allowed to partake of the Passover. This only shows the difference between what God demands, and what fallible men are authorized to enforce. It cannot be doubted that it was required of the Jews in coming to the paschal supper that they should believe the fact of their miraculous deliverance out of Egypt; that they should be duly grateful to God for that great mercy; and that they should have faith in the promise of that still greater redemption through Him of whom their paschal lamb was a divinely appointed type.” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, pp. 623-625

“What do our standards teach as to the qualifications for admission to the Lord’s supper…? Children born within the pale of the visible church, and dedicated to God in baptism, when they come to years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord’s Body, they ought to be informed it is their duty and their privilege to come to the Lord’s supper.” A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pg. 644

“[…] the Lord’s supper was… instituted… only for those who earnestly repent of their sins, trust that these have been covered by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, and are desirous to increase their faith, and to grow in true holiness of life. The participants of the Lord’s supper must be repentant sinners, who are ready to admit that they are lost in themselves. They must have a living faith in Jesus Christ, so that they trust for their redemption in the atoning blood of the Savior. Furthermore, they must have a proper understanding and appreciation of the Lord’s supper, must discern the difference between it and a common meal, and must be impressed with the fact that the bread and wine are the tokens of the body and blood of Christ. And, finally, they must have a holy desire for spiritual growth and for ever-increasing conformity to the image of Christ.” He goes on to say as to those that are excluded even within the church that the following exception must be noted, “Children, though they were allowed to eat at the passover in the days of the Old Testament, cannot be permitted to partake of the table of the Lord, since they cannot meet the requirements, for worthy participation. Paul insists on the necessity of self-examination (1. Cor. 11:28)…, and children are not able to examine themselves. Moreover, he points out that, in order to partake of the supper in a worthy manner, it is necessary to discern the body, 1 Cor. 11:29…, And this, too, is beyond the capacity of children. It is only after they have come to years of discretion, that they can be permitted to join in the celebration of the Lord’s supper.” Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 656 – 657

“It is absurd to speak of... heathens and infants, who from the order of Christ are removed from this sacrament, both because they are not capable of the examination (which is required here, as infants) and because they are not Christians and in the covenant (as… the heathen, to whom, therefore, the seals of the covenant do not belong).” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, pg. 451

The Confessions

Now let us look at the Reformed Confessions and see what they say on the matter. To start with, all of them cite 1 Cor. 11 as a text for showing what is required in order to come to the Lord’s table. This, in and of itself, is sufficient to show that the text has never been considered to be exclusive to the church at Corinth and has application to the church universal.

The Belgic Confession says, “[…] we receive this holy sacrament in the assembly of the people of God with humility and reverence, keeping up amongst us a holy remembrance of the death of Christ our Savior with thanksgiving, making there confession of our faith and of the Christian religion. Therefore no one ought to come to this table without having previously rightly examined himself, lest by eating of this bread and drinking of the cup he eat and drink judgment to himself.” Article 35

The Westminster Confession of Faith says, “Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.” 29.8

The Westminster goes on to say in the Larger Catechism that those that receive the Lord’s Supper must “[…] heedfully discern the Lord’s body, and affectionately meditate on His death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on Him by faith, receiving of His fullness, trusting in His merits, rejoicing in His love, giving thanks for His grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints.” Q. 174

Then, lest anyone should still think that a young child should be able to perform these duties required of all those coming to the Lord’s table, it goes on to say, “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 soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in Him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.” Q. 177

The Heidelberg Catechism says, “Who are to come to the Lord’s table? Those who are displeased with themselves because of their sins, but who nevertheless trust that their sins are pardoned and that their continuing weakness is covered by the suffering of Christ, and who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to lead a better life. Hypocrites and those who are unrepentant, however, eat and drink judgment on themselves.” Lord’s Day 30, Q. 81

Zacharias Ursinus writes this in relation to question 81, “[Only those should be admitted] 1. Who acknowledge their sins, and are truly sorrowful for them. 2. Who trust that their sins are forgiven them by and for the sake of Christ. 3. Who earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy… It is in these things that a true examination, in order to a profitable approach to the Holy Supper, consists. Paul speaks of this in… 1 Cor. 11:28… Those who have the consciousness that they possess these things; or, to express it in other words, those who have faith and repentance, not only in possibility, but actually, ought to come to, and partake of, the Lord’s supper. Infants are not capable of coming to the Lord’s supper, because they do not possess faith actually, but only potentially and by inclination. But here actual faith is required, which includes a certain knowledge of what God has revealed, and an assured confidence in Christ; it also requires the commencement of a new obedience, and purpose to live godly; and also an examination of ourselves, with a commemoration of the Lord’s death.” Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pp. 424 – 425

The notes in the 1599 Geneva Bible agree with this all when it says in relation to 1 Cor. 11:28, “The examination of a man’s self, is of necessity required in the Supper and therefore they ought not to be admitted unto it, which cannot examine themselves: as children, furious and mad men, also such as either have no knowledge of Christ, or not sufficient, although they profess Christian religion; and others such like.”

One of the things you can see becomes a contingent part of self-examination is a base knowledge which is required for a credible profession of faith. Thomas Watson addresses this well and says, “There ought to be a competent measure of knowledge, that we may ‘discern the Lord’s body’. As we are to ‘pray with the understanding’ (1 Cor. 14:15), so ought we to communicate at the Lord’s table with understanding… They that know not the mystery, feel not the comfort. We must know God the Father in His attributes, God the Son in His offices, God the Holy Spirit in His graces. Some say they have good hearts, yet lack knowledge; we may as well call that a good eye which lacks sight.” The Lord’s Supper, pg. 42

Summary

As has been clearly evidenced in this paper it is the summary position of the Reformed faith that paedocommunion is wrong. It is also to be readily admitted that while there is nothing in the New Testament that nullifies the practice of baptizing our infants as the Old Testament Jews circumcised them, that 1 Cor. 11 is a clear mandate that children are not to be admitted to the Lord’s table; which does nullify the previous admission of them to the Passover meal. If it be said that 1 Cor. 11 is misapplied in refuting the practice of paedocommunion, then it is sure that the Reformers, the Puritans, Reformed theologians, and our Confessions alike are all misapplying the same verse. A more unreasonable proposition I can hardly imagine. To practice paedocommunion goes against the Bible, the Confessions, our clear historical evidences, our greatest theologians, and our greatest Systematic Theologies. The issue is not that the Church has not always been firm in the practice of keeping children from the Lord’s table; it has. The issue is when men try to reconcile, apart from the word of God, things that cannot be reconciled. All of our study here was firmly rooted in the Bible and 1 Cor. 11 was quoted in every instance specifically. To dismiss the passage because it doesn’t agree with a position we have embraced is dangerous. All of the evidence points to the fact that children are not to be permitted to the Lord’s table until such a time as they are able to give a credible profession of faith which requires that they are knowledgeable and cognitive enough that they are able to examine their own hearts to see if they are living with unrepentant sin or not.

I don’t doubt that some of the motivation for churches and parents wishing to include the children stem from a good place. They want to see the children nourished by this sacrament. But good intentions can still be dangerous. Uzzah had good intentions when he reached his hand out to steady the ark as it looked as if it was falling. Yet God had commanded that he was not to touch it and when he did he was killed on the spot (2 Sam. 6:6-7). Please don’t forget the warning the Apostle Paul has given us here, and which is reaffirmed by all who we have looked to in this study, that the Lord will bring judgment upon those that partake in an unworthy manner. “For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many are dead.” (1 Cor. 11:30) Not that the Lord has instantly killed every person that has ever violated this command. But why would we, parents of covenant children, seeking their good in the Lord, test His mercy on our children? His wrath is nothing to be trifled with and it is clear that by leading our children to partake in an unworthy manner we are putting them in danger of facing the wrath of God. What we had hoped was for their good can be for their ruin; as I said before, good intentions can be dangerous.

I don’t find it even a little odd that the men that have embraced that heresy known as Federal Vision or that heresy known as New Perspectives on Paul would also embrace leading their children to ruin. The Federal Vision crowd are sacramentalists and over-esteem the salvific benefits bestowed upon those that participate in the sacraments. It is no great wonder to me that a defrocked minister with radical opinions in a variety of areas such as RC Sproul Jr. would embrace such thought. But the cry of semper reformanda, which so many use to justify any radical shifting in the position of the Church, isn’t advocating change for the sake of change or following heresy down dangerous paths. If we have erred and the Lord shows us we have erred then we must change. But where everything we have depended on for the last five hundred years is in basic agreement, and is verified by the word of God, then we must hold strong to biblical truth and insist that those that call themselves Reformed do so as well. If our logic seems to fail us as to why we would baptize our children but not admit them to the Lord’s table then let us study each of the sacraments to see why that is so. Switching the administration of one or the other simply to match the two together in a form that is palatable to our feeble understanding will in this case, and in all others, lead to ruin. If there appears to be issues in passing from the Passover to the Lord’s supper then we must do the same, not come to a conclusion simply to reconcile the two. If we fail to do so we become like the world and we make the word of God to be a liar, which it is not. The word of God stands true and where we cannot reconcile apparent contradictions we must pray to the Lord to show us the correct position, study, and wait patiently for Him to answer our prayer. Therein are the keys to orthodoxy, which is essential to the health of the Church.

May the Lord use this to His glory and the edification of any who may read it I pray, Amen.