What Mean Ye?
2. Introduction
How has it come to pass that Presbyterians have historically insisted that the infants
of believers are to be baptized but are not to receive the elements of the Lord's Supper?
Are they guilty of inconsistency at this point? Are they simply and blindly following mere
traditions received from the Reformers? Paedocommunionists charge anti-paedocommunionists
with either or both of these faults. Modern paedocommunionists claim that the Reformers,
in fact, "never had to deal seriously" with this issue.
Anti-paedobaptists, such as Baptists, baptistic Charismatics and Bible Churches, accuse
Presbyterians of inconsistency in claiming that Presbyterians have a correct view as to
who should receive the Lord's Supper, but not as to who should be baptized. If
Presbyterians would apply the same principle to baptism that they apply to the Lord's
Supper, the argument goes, they would also refuse the water of baptism to children. This
charge fails, however, because anti-paedobaptists fail to show that baptism and the Lord's
Supper both have the same import to the same people. Furthermore, as we shall see,
Presbyterians do not deny their infants the elements of the Lord's Supper for the same
reason that anti-paedobaptists deny the elements to their infants.
Paedocommunionists also accuse Presbyterians of inconsistency and for much the same
reason. The paedocommunionist generally approves of baptizing the infants of believers.
They see that there is a one to one correspondence in Scripture between circumcision and
baptism. The infants of church members were clearly to be circumcised in the Old Testament
and so the infants of church members are to be baptized today.
By analogy, the Lord's Supper has replaced the Passover of the Old Testament.
Paedocommunionists argue that the infants and young children of Israel were admitted to
the Passover, and without specific command to the contrary, the covenant children should
be admitted to the Lord's Supper today. If Presbyterians would only apply the same rule of
interpretation to both sacraments, surely they would see that they are inconsistent in
denying the elements of the Lord's Supper to their children. Or so the argument goes.
Recently, the charges against those who hold the position of the Westminster Standards
have escalated. Writing in Journey Magazine (Nov.-Dec. 1988), Vance Lemasters
makes the following charges: "[I]t is an issue that calls for repentance on the part
of those who forbid covenant children to partake of the Lord's Supper. The church has too
long practiced spiritual infanticide on its own covenant children . . . . The practice of
covenant children appearing before session before being allowed communion smacks of
incipient Arminianism." As strange as it seems, Mr. Lemasters here accuses the
position of John Calvin of smacking of incipient Arminianism! But Lemasters does not
content himself with attacking the position of John Calvin. He has additionally adjudged
the church guilty of "spiritual infanticide." If Mr. Lemasters actually thinks
the charge of "spiritual infanticide" is meaningful with respect to the Lord's
Supper, then I must caution him that his opinion is dangerously close to sacramentalism.
At any rate, with such excessive charges in print, a defense of the Reformed position must
be provided.
While not bowing to the charge of inconsistency, let us confirm that the truths of God
form a single fabric. A supposed truth which is inconsistent with (or even contradictory
to) an accepted truth must be regarded as suspect. But anti-paedocommunion is not
inconsistent with paedobaptism, as I hope we will see.
What paedocommunionists must prove is that infants and young children were routinely
admitted to the Passover. Lacking that, they must show that infants or young children were
admitted to the Lord's Supper. They do not have to prove both. If they can show from
Scripture that the infants of Israel were admitted to the Passover, then the
anti-paedocommunionist must show a later command prohibiting the practice from being
applied to the Lord's Supper. Or if they can show the case of an infant being admitted to
the Lord's Supper they will have demonstrated their case.
Another accusation often brought by paedocommunionists against the Biblical doctrine is
that the only reference against the practice consists of a misunderstanding or
misapplication of I Corinthians 11:27-30. There we read, "For he that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's
body." While they would agree that an adult is to examine himself, since a child is
incapable of doing this, he is not to be included in Paul's injunction.
They argue that I Corinthians 11:27-30 is similar in intent to II Thessalonians 3:10,
where Paul says that if a man does not work, neither should he eat. Children are incapable
of working, so this injunction simply does not apply to them. In the same way, since
children are incapable of examining themselves, the examination requirement of I
Corinthians 11:27-30 simply does not apply to them.
Remember that the paedocommunionist argues that since children were admitted to the
Passover meal, by analogy they ought to also be admitted to the Lord's Supper. The Lord's
Supper shows forth the death of Christ; and we believe that our children are included in
the covenant of grace; so we should allow them all the means of grace that God has given.
Their point is well taken if they mean to drive us to a covenantal approach to Scripture.
We should approach the question of paedocommunion from the first page of Scripture and
proceed historically. Anti-paedocommunionists, it is true, often utilize I Corinthians
11:27-30 to show the error of the paedocommunionist's position. But this does not mean
that they reject the historical approach to Scripture. We must beware of letting the heat
of controversy cause us to become uncharitable or make false accusations against brethren.
In the New Testament (John 1:29; I Corinthians 5:7; etc.) we find that Christ Himself is
our Passover. For a correct understanding of what that means, we must begin our study in
the Old Testament and then apply the words of the New Testament to our covenantal
understanding of the Passover and the Lord's Supper.
Page Last Updated: 01/10/08 02:16:17 PM