What Mean Ye?
7. Lemasters vs. Calvin
Vance Lemasters, in concluding his Journey Magazine article, "A Position
Paper on Paedocommunion," made a number of charges against the Westminster
Confessional position against paedocommunion. He claimed that repentance is required
"on the part of those who forbid covenant children to partake of the Lord's
Supper." The body of this paper addressed that issue. While a defense of the Reformed
view may be in order, it has been demonstrated that the view is a biblical one.
Additionally, however, Lemasters made some unsupportable charges against the Reformers
themselves.
Earlier in that article Mr. Lemasters stated, ". . . it becomes evident that the
Reformers and writers of the Westminster Confession allowed the influence of the
Roman Catholic tradition to shape their view of not allowing children to receive the
elements [of the Lord's Supper]." Although Mr. Lemasters called this
"evident," he supplied not one bit of "evidence" apart from noticing
that in chapter 29 of the Westminster Confession of Faith "no mention is
made of the inclusion of infants and children." Perhaps Mr. Lemasters is aware of
evidence, but he presents it nowhere in his article.
This argument in a slightly different form is often used by anti-paedobaptists to justify
withholding baptism from their children. They claim that the Reformers simply adopted the
practice of Rome in baptizing their children. This claim is as unsupportable as is
Lemasters' claim that the Reformers, including Calvin and the Westminster divines, simply
adopted the view of Romanism with respect to forbidding infants and young children to the
Lord's Supper.
This charge must fight uphill against the evidence, for Calvin himself had nothing but
disdain for the traditions of Romanism. With reference to Paul's statement in Colossians
2:23, Calvin says "human traditions . . . deceive under the appearance of
wisdom" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV:x:11). Furthermore, Calvin
went on to say, "Now, this is the reason why Paul so urgently warns us not to be
deceived by the traditions of men" (Institutes, IV:x:24). Accusing the
Reformed position of merely inheriting traditions from Rome denies what the Reformers were
doing. In fact, with specific reference to the sacraments, Calvin stated, "What,
therefore, was practiced under Papal tyranny involved a monstrous profanation of the
mysteries. For they thought it enough if the priest mumbled the formula of consecration
while the people looked on bewildered and without comprehension" (Institutes,
IV:xiv:4, emphasis added). This hardly sounds like someone who is "allowing the
influence of Roman Catholic tradition to shape his view!"
Calvin continued to explain his difference from Romanism, "You see how the sacrament
requires preaching to beget faith. And we need not labor to prove this when it is
perfectly clear what Christ did, what He commanded us to do, what the apostles
followed, and what the purer church observed. Indeed, it was known even from the beginning
of the world that whenever God gave a sign to the holy patriarchs it was inseparably
linked to doctrine, without which our senses would have been stunned in looking
at the bare sign. Accordingly, when we hear the sacramental word mentioned, let us understand
the promise, proclaimed in a clear voice by the minister, to lead the people by the hand
wherever the sign tends and directs us" (Institutes, IV:xiv:4, emphasis
added). These again are not the words of one who is simply, blindly and vainly following
the traditions of men.
The Romanist doctrine of the sacraments is that they work grace ex opere operato.
This is the view of sacramentalism — that the sacraments work grace of their own
accord. It really implies that the sacraments have a magical, or at least miraculous,
effect by some virtue that is present in them. Calvin and the Westminster Standards warn
against this. Westminster Shorter Catechism # 91 states, "The sacraments
become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth
administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in them
that by faith receive them."
Calvin said much the same thing when he refuted the traditions of Romanist sacramentalism.
"But the sacraments properly fulfill their office only when the Spirit, that inward
teacher, comes to them, by whose power alone hearts are penetrated and affections moved
and our souls opened for the sacraments to enter in" (Institutes, IV:xiv:9).
Calvin went on to say "any man is deceived who thinks anything more is conferred upon
him through the sacraments than what is offered by God's Word and received by him in true
faith" (Institutes, IV:xiv:14). Calvin accounted it vice, "by not
lifting our minds beyond the visible sign, to transfer to it the credit for those
benefits which are conferred upon us by Christ alone" (Institutes,
IV:xiv:16, emphasis added).
Having established (as though such were truly necessary) that Calvin was not inclined
blindly and vainly to receive Popish traditions, especially concerning the sacraments, let
us examine Calvin's words on the subject of paedocommunion. Calvin was a careful student
of ecclesiastical history and was fully cognizant of the fact that paedocommunion had
begun to be practiced in approximately 250 A.D. Nevertheless he applauded its
discontinuance as being scriptural (Institutes, IV:xvi:30). Furthermore, Calvin
did not cite Popish authorities or traditions for excluding infants from the Lord's
Supper, but cited the fact that infants and young children were excluded from the
Passover. "Circumcision, which is known to correspond to our baptism, had been
appointed for infants [Genesis 17:12]. But the Passover, the place of which has been taken
by the Supper, did not admit all guests indiscriminately, but was duly eaten only by those
who were old enough to be able to inquire into its meaning [Exodus 12:26]. If these men
had a particle of sound brain left, would they be blind to a thing so clear and
obvious?" These are not the words of one who "allowed the influence of Roman
Catholic tradition to shape his view of not allowing children to receive the
elements," nor of one who "never had to deal seriously with the issue."
Lemasters goes on to accuse anti-paedocommunionists of "faulty exegesis" of I
Corinthians 11:27-29. He insists that the causes for eating and drinking unworthily be
limited to those specific sins and excesses "listed in vv. 17-22." But this is
not the Reformed understanding of the passage, nor does it accord with the principle of
analogy of the Scripture. Fornication with one's stepmother is not specifically mentioned
in vv. 17-22, but we know from chapter five of the same epistle that such an one
is to be suspended from the Supper (I Corinthians 5:1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13). Mr. Lemasters is
himself guilty of "faulty exegesis" if he wishes to limit "suspendable
offences" to those listed in vv. 17-22. Paul is rather laying down a principle and
the sins listed in vv. 17-22 served as the occasion for it.
According to Calvin, here is the principle that Paul enjoined upon the Corinthians:
"By this (as I interpret it), he meant that each man descend into himself, and ponder
with himself whether he rests with inward assurance of heart upon the salvation purchased
by Christ; whether he acknowledges it by confession of mouth; then, whether he aspires to
the imitation of Christ with the zeal of innocence and holiness; whether, after Christ's
example, he is prepared to give himself for his brethren and to communicate himself to
those with whom he shares Christ in common; whether, as he is counted a member by Christ,
he in turn so holds all his brethren as members of his body; whether he desires to
cherish, protect, and help them as his own members" (Institutes,
IV:xviii:40).
It is also in this context that Lemasters approvingly draws our attention to James B.
Jordan's statement, "Once the sacrament becomes `special,' however, people want to
keep it `special' by having it only infrequently . . . . The exclusion of children is part
and parcel of this error of viewing the sacrament as something `special.'" Jordan is
right in saying that anti-paedocommunionists view the Lord's Supper as "something
special." However, he is incorrect in saying that infrequent communion follows
necessarily from this view and that the view is erroneous. The Lord's Supper is a holy
ordinance and Westminster Confession (29:3) teaches us, "The Lord Jesus
hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His Word of institution to the
people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from
a common to a holy use . . . ." (emphasis added — see also Larger
Catechism # 169).
Yet our Presbyterian standards teach quite the opposite of infrequent communion. The Larger
Catechism (# 175) exhorts us to the duty of "frequent attendance on that
ordinance" and explains that "the Lord's Supper is to be administered
often" (#177). This is in full agreement with Calvin who said of the sacrament,
"It was ordained to be frequently used among all Christians in order that they might
frequently return in memory to Christ's Passion, by such remembrance to sustain and
strengthen their faith, and urge themselves to sing thanksgiving to God and to proclaim
His goodness" (Institutes, IV:xvii:44).
Lemasters also complains "the practice of covenant children appearing before session
before being allowed communion smacks of incipient Arminianism." He equates this
practice with that of "making a personal decision for Christ." Hopefully a
covenant child brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord will make countless
personal decisions for Christ, but that is not the issue. The issue is the same as it was
in the case of the child in Exodus 12:26 who was to inquire into the meaning of the
sacrament.
Here is Calvin's advice to sessions: "Not that it would be a confirmation such as
they [Papists] fancy, which cannot be named without doing injustice to baptism; but a
catechizing, in which children or those near adolescence would give an account of their
faith before the Church." Notice that Calvin here presumes the faith — the
children are not "deciding" to believe, but giving account of their faith.
Calvin continued, "A child of ten would present himself to the Church to declare his
confession of faith, would be examined in each article, and answer to each; if he were
ignorant of anything or insufficiently understood it, he would be taught. Thus, while the
Church looks on as a witness, he would profess the one true and sincere faith, in which
the believing folk with one mind worship the one God" (Institutes,
IV:xix:13).
In conclusion, we have examined the words of John Calvin and the Westminster Standards and
learned that Vance Lemasters made a number of accusations in his article that are either
untrue or based on a misunderstanding of the Reformers. Although Lemasters claimed that
the Reformers "allowed the influence of Roman Catholic tradition to shape their
view," Calvin rejected the Romanist understanding of tradition and based his
exclusion of infants from the Lord's Supper on Exodus 12:26 and I Corinthians 11:27-32.
Lemasters faulted anti-paedocommunionists with faulty exegesis of I Corinthians 11:27-32,
insisting that only those sins listed in vv. 17-22 of that passage were sufficient to
cause one to partake unworthily. But we found in chapter five of the same epistle that the
sins listed in vv. 17-22 were the occasion, but not the exclusive cause, of being held
back from the Supper.
Finally, we showed from Confession, Catechism and Calvin that a proper view of the
sacrament requires both that we see the Supper as holy and that we celebrate it
frequently. Each of Lemasters' accusations fails. Reformed Churches should continue to
fence the sacramental table as has been done from at least the institution of the
Passover. They should continue to encourage their covenant children to inquire into the
meaning of the sacrament. And parents and Churches should together continue to catechize
their covenant children until such time as they "are of years and ability to examine
themselves."
Page Last Updated: 01/10/08 02:17:43 PM