This is part two of a three part post on paedocommunion that my friend Jon put together. Part one is here.  It’s the practice of allowing young children to partake in the Lord’s Supper. The usual disclaimers apply in that I didn’t write this, but I happen to think what he says has merit. I’ve posted this as is, as close to what he sent me as possible. Please comment and check out his blog where he opines on things infosec.

Observations regarding the historical record of the practice

I have not performed an exhaustive study of the historical record of the practice of paedocommunion. There is an excellent summary of historical material on the topic available for review at http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/tl_paedo.html . However, I have several opinions that have taken shape in my mind about what has contributed to this consensus against paedocommunion:

1. The Reformers were typically confronted with these arguments, not by fellow paedobaptists who sought to be consistent in their covenant theology, but rather by Anabaptist detractors who primarily sought leverage against the doctrine of infant baptism. I fear this goes a long way towards explaining why they were so dismissive of points made, often failing to give what I regard to be any substantial rationale for the traditional practice.

2. Historically, the consideration of these points within the Reformed tradition has been partly obscured by the larger theological battles being waged over the Lord’s Supper. For instance, the question of the nature of Christ’s presence in the supper came to focus largely on the question of whether the unbeliever who received the elements also partook of the flesh and blood of Christ. Calvin and the Reformed tradition answered, “No, Christ is only received at the Table by faith,” while Luther and Rome answered, “Yes, otherwise there is no integrity to the sacrament.” It seems obvious, particularly from reading Calvin, that the language of 1 Corinthians 11 was repeatedly pressed into use for this particular debate as if these words were addressing that specific issue of unbelievers at the Table. Yet in my estimation, Paul nowhere suggests that the unworthy partaking of the Table is due to the unregenerate state of certain members of the Corinthian church. In fact, he presumes that even the worst offenders among them are regenerate people as he identifies the Lord’s judgment upon them as a means of preserving them from being condemned with the world. (v. 32)

3. One other incredible obstacle in Reformed church history to a paedocommunionist perspective, particularly among Presbyterians, has been the misplaced emphasis by many (most?) of the Puritans on a covenant child’s public profession of faith as a means of preserving experiential religion – and even the purity of the Church. I am of the opinion that in their zeal to combat nominalism in the Church and to hold out the necessity of “true conversion,” many of them found it hard to resist making admittance to the Table the primary means of ensuring a regenerate church membership. However, it is teaching, rather than the administration of the sacraments, that is the primary pastoral means of combating nominalism in the church. The administration of sacraments in the New Testament does not seem to be constrained by concerns to avoid nominalism, especially as I think of the near immediate access to the sacraments granted to those who simply professed faith.

In the next entry I hope to dive face-first into the primary concern for those following traditional reformed practice. Some of my biggest appreciation for the reformed tradition is found in the desire to interact with the text we claim as authoritative in a honest, open and consistent manner. The true benefit of this is frequently found in a willingness to discuss and genuinely explore, seeking continuation of the reformation.