In this volume Cornelis Venema tackles a serious problem in the Reformed world that needs to be addressed, and he has done so in a thoughtful, thorough, biblical, and confessionally Reformed manner.
Background to the Review
Before we begin the review, it will be useful to put the current question in its immediate historical and ecclesiastical context.
Over the last forty years, the conservative and confessional Reformed churches (the two groups are not always identical) have been afflicted with a series of movements which reflect what I call the Quest for Illegitimate Certainty (QIRC—on this see Recovering the Reformed Confession).1 Among these movements have been the theonomic and Christian Reconstruction movements, the Federal Vision movement, and the paedocommunion movement.2
Each of these three movements has attracted followers from evangelical fundamentalism in the Reformed sphere and in the NAPARC (sideline) Reformed and Presbyterian churches. They have also stimulated ecclesiastical committees, reports, and controversies. Over the years, most of the NAPARC churches have addressed theonomy. The RCUS (Reformed Church in the United States) and PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) have had Synodical and GA reports, and most of the NAPARC denominations have rejected the self-described Federal Vision movement. A few have tackled paedocommunion. The PCA, the largest of the NAPARC bodies, addressed infant communion in a 1988 report.3 The majority concluded,
It is the thesis of this report that . . . the main argument [for paedocommunion] is not sustained. The PCA is well advised to continue the classical Reformed practice of delaying the admission of children to the Lord’s Table until they reach a level of maturity at which they can profess their faith and partake of the elements with discernment.4
We should be grateful that the GA adopted the majority report and their recommendation: “That the PCA continue the practice defined in our standards and administer the Lord’s Supper only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.”5
About the same time that the PCA addressed this problem, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) received a report containing a majority report which rejected paedocommunion (and two minority reports advocating it).6 As the OPC site notes, these reports have no constitutional authority, but they probably reflect the range of opinion in the OPC.
The United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) addressed the doctrine and practice of paedocommunion at Synod in 2004. Synod concluded,
The confessions to which the URCNA subscribe (the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort) accurately summarize the teaching of Scripture in, for example, 1 Cor 11:24–25; 28. Thus our confessions, in harmony with the Scripture, require that the Lord’s Supper be administered only to those who have publicly professed their faith, in the presence of God and His holy church.7
The question of paedocommunion has also been addressed recently by Matthew Winzer, in The Confessional Presbyterian.8
Nevertheless, the paedocommunion problem persists. There was a minority report in the PCA written by Robert S. Rayburn (pastor of Faith PCA in Tacoma, WA) which argued “That the common opinion of the Reformed church on this matter was and remains ill-considered.”9 This was essentially an Anabaptist argument: The Reformation did not go far enough; it remained unduly influenced by medieval theology and practice. There are other advocates of paedocommunion, many of whom are Federal Visionists, theonomists, or at least sympathetic to theonomy or the Federal Vision. A website propounding paedocommunion provides a “Who’s Who” list of paedocommunion advocates which confirms this judgment.10 It offers the names of fifteen proponents, several of whom are advocates of the Federal Vision or the New Perspective on Paul (e.g., James Jordan, Steve Wilkins, N. T. Wright), and many others of whom are associated with the theonomic movement either as outright advocates (e.g., Gary North, R. J. Rushdoony) or as advocates of quasi-theonomic ethic (e.g., G. I. Williamson, who wrote essays in the 1980s advocating a sort of quasi-theonomic ethic). A couple of names on the list are a little surprising—Jack Collins (Old Testament Professor at Covenant Theological Seminary, the denominational seminary of the PCA) and William Willimon, a mainline (UMC) Methodist and insightful critic of contemporary Christianity. There are other advocates of paedocommunion, however, who are not listed: Douglas Wilson, the de facto head of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, and Tim Gallant (a graduate of Mid-America Reformed Seminary, who operates a website devoted to paedocommunion), who advocated paedocommunion within the URCNA, whose views were rejected by the URCNA, and who has since left for the Christian Reformed Church (CRCNA). The move by the CRCNA in 1995 to open the door to paedocommunion was overlooked in the furor over women in office; but the admission of infants to the Lord’s Table is arguably as significant a sign of the inroads of fundamentalism and evangelicalism into the CRCNA as the admission of women to presbyterial and ministerial office is a sign of liberalism.
As a matter of logic, the fact that the primary and most vociferous proponents of infant communion are advocates of, associated with, or tolerant of aberrant movements such as the Federal Vision and theonomy does not, in itself, prove that paedocommunion is wrong. The provenance of the doctrine, however, is relevant for understanding its impetus and its adoption in segments of the Reformed world. In my experience since 1980, many of those who are attracted to paedocommunion are recent converts to the Reformed faith from fundamentalism.
It is also worth noting that it is beyond doubt and admitted by all intelligent proponents of paedocommunion that the Reformed churches do not and never have confessed paedocommunion. It is a fact that the Reformed churches were aware of the theology and practice of paedocommunion as they formed their confession and practice of the Supper. As we begin the survey of Venema’s book, we should understand that the question is really this: Have the Reformed churches been fundamentally wrong about the nature of holy communion and the relations between the sacraments of baptism and the Supper since the early sixteenth century?
I realize that this is a prejudicial way of stating the question. That is intentional. On matters indifferent to the being or safety of the churches we may be dispassionate and open-minded, but on matters touching the being or essential theology, piety, and practice of the Reformed churches, we should be more than careful. We should be aggressively defensive of the Reformed confession. At ordination, Reformed ministers vow to take such a stance toward the confession. It may be that our confession is wrong. We confess the primary and unique authority of holy Scripture and thus our confession is subject to revision; but when the Donatists, Novatians, Valentinians, or more recently, the Anabaptists, or the Federal Visionists come knocking, we have every right to place the burden of proof squarely where it belongs (upon their shoulders), to demand that they meet the highest standard of evidence, and to exercise the greatest caution about their proposals. In the case that, in the NAPARC world at least, the theology and practice of paedocommunion usually comes wrapped in a theonomic or Federal Visionist bundle should also make us abundantly hesitant about it.
What We Confess
The Heidelberg Catechism (HC) 81 asks, “Who are to come to the Lord’s Table?”
Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the passion and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.
In his introduction, Venema makes the point that how we frame the question makes a good deal of difference. If we ask, “Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated?” (1) we beg the question (i.e., assume the conclusion in the premise). I would add that we distort the question because “excommunication” presumes that one was “communicated” in the first place. The author says,
The historic view does not deny that the children of the covenant are invited to the Lord’s Table. As a matter of fact, if their baptism means anything, it means that they are invited to respond in faith to the Lord’s gracious promise, which would qualify them to receive the sacrament that nourishes that faith. Therefore, the only thing preventing such children, or any others, from coming to the Table is the absence of an appropriate response to the invitation. (2)
What is meant by “covenant children” and “paedocommunion”? He distinguishes between a “soft” version of paedocommunion which advocates communion earlier than middle to late adolescence (2–3). It admits those who have made a simple but credible profession of faith. The second class of paedocommunionists he calls “strict,” that is, those who favor “the admission of any baptized child of believing parents who is physically able to receive the communion elements” (3). These two views, he rightly says, are “quite distinct” (3). Indeed, I was not aware that arguing for communion prior to “middle to late adolescence” made one a paedocommunionist of any kind.
Some advocates of the “strict” view (which seems to me to be paedocommunion proper) like to call their position “covenant communion” (3). With the “strict” view, however, “there is only one basis for admission to the Table of the Lord, namely, membership in the covenant community” (3). Venema is quite rightly unwilling to concede the term “covenant communion” to the “strict paedocommunionists.” The Reformed churches have reckoned their practice of communion as “covenantal” since the sixteenth century. For paedocommunionists to appropriate (hijack?) the adjective covenant is to assume what needs to be proven (more question begging; 4).
He acknowledges that the appropriate age for communion is not easily determined (4). This will be discussed more later in the series.
The rest of the introduction quickly sketches the four main areas of discussion: the history of paedocommunion, the nature and administration of the covenant of grace, the matter of the analogy with Passover, and the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11.
Comment
As one who is sympathetic to the notion that communion might occur before “middle to late adolescence” (2–3), I am a little skeptical of Venema’s assertion that “middle to late” adolescence is the “historic” position of the Reformed churches. It may have been the practice of some of the Dutch Reformed Churches in the modern (since the eighteenth century) period, but my understanding is that Calvin expected children to learn a catechism which was rather larger than the Heidelberg and to be ready to make profession of faith and come to the table by age ten (see below). Would this make Calvin a “soft” paedocommunionist? I think not.
Calvin wrote:
How I wish that we might have kept the custom which, as I have said, existed among the ancient Christians before this misborn wraith of a sacrament came to birth! Not that it would be a confirmation such as they 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. But the best method of catechizing would be to have a manual drafted for this exercise, containing and summarizing in simple manner most of the articles of our religion, on which the whole believers’ church ought to agree without controversy. 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.11
Article 54 of the Acts of the Synod of the Hague (1586), a regional synod of the Dutch Reformed Churches, declared:
No one shall be admitted to the Lord’s Table unless he conforms to practice of the church he is joining and has made profession of the Reformed religion as well as furnishing a testimony to his pious conversation. Without this those who also come from other churches shall not be admitted.
This was the language of Article 61 of Church Order of the Synod of Dort (1619):
No person shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper, but those who make confession of their faith in the Reformed religion (Gereformeerde Religie), agreeably to the practice of the churches to which they are joined, and who also have the testimony of pious deportment; without which also, none coming from other churches shall be received.
These two articles do not answer when that profession was made, but neither do they stipulate that it can only be made in mid to late adolescence.
The Historical Argument
The historical argument for paedocommunion, according to its proponents, is that the evidence is mixed but that it was “likely the original practice of the church” (11). Proponents argue that the loss of paedocommunion in the Western church was due to the rise of the doctrine of transubstantiation (i.e., the doctrine that the elements of the supper become the literal body and blood of Christ). “In contrast to the relatively strong evidence for the early and general practice of infant baptism, clear evidence for the practice of paedocommunion in some segments of the church begins” in the middle of the third century (12).
Justin Martyr made reference to the “proper recipients of the Supper” in his First Apology where he taught that only those who have embraced the teaching of the church and who have resolved to live in accord with the gospel are to be communicated (12–13). Clement of Alexandria restricted access to the table “to active believers” (13). Origen also “seems to suggest that small children (parvuli)” are restricted from communion (13).
There is some evidence from Cyprian that, during the Decian persecution, children may have come to the table (14–16). Venema argues that this practice was probably not widespread (15). Contemporaneous evidence suggests that the earlier practice of restricting children from the table was the practice.
Paedocommunion became a “normal practice” of the church in the fourth and fifth centuries (16). This is clear from many places in Augustine’s writings and was closely connected to his realism (i.e., things do what they do because they are what they are) and his view that the sacraments work ex opere (i.e., by the working, the use of the sacraments). The thing signified is the sign. It was closely connected to his doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It is not clear when paedocommunion became the dominant practice in the Eastern church, but the “practice of Eastern Orthodoxy since the fourth century certainly lends support to the argument that paedocommunion enjoys the sanction of church history” (19).
Venema disputes the account of medieval history given by proponents of paedocommunion as “unduly simplistic” (20). The evidence, however, is that “prior to the eleventh century, paedocommunion was practiced” (20–21), but it diminished in the period leading up to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) where admission to the supper was granted to those age seven or older. Between the thirteenth century and the Reformation, the practice of baptism was separated from the practice of communion.
By the Reformation, “the only groups practicing paedocommunion were the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Armenian church, and the Bohemian Hussites” (22). In the Reformation, the Lutheran and the Reformed admitted children only after catechism training. Venema distinguishes between the Lutheran practice of “confirmation” and the Reformed practice of “profession of faith” (22). He continues by surveying Calvin’s approach to the differences between baptism as “the sign of new birth and incorporation into Christ” and the Supper as a “means of nourishing the faith of believers” (23).
Wolfgang Musculus was one of the “few dissenters to the prevailing view” (24). He argued for paedocommunion “on the ground that children are included in the covenant of grace with their parents” (24). His view was “an exception to the rule among the Reformed churches of the continent and the British Isles” (24).
Venema observes that observance of paedocommunion was only “in some sectors of the church” by the middle of the third century (24), but it was never as prevalent in the Western church as in the Eastern (25). He reminds us to take note of the diverse reasons offered for it. We should note the connection between the rise of paedocommunion and sacerdotalism. He reminds us that, though transubstantiation may have had a role in the decline of paedocommunion, there were other reasons for challenging it even in the medieval period, including the long-standing view in favor of an informed reception of the Supper. Finally, he notes that the Reformed churches stressed the unique function of the Supper as distinct from baptism. The argument for paedocommunion from history is “inconclusive” (26).
Notes
- R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008).
- For more on the theonomic movement, see R. Scott Clark, “Theonomy and Federal Vision: Separated at Birth?” For more on the Federal Vision movement, see R. Scott Clark, “For Those Just Tuning In: What Is The Federal Vision?”
- PCA, “Report of the Ad-Interim Committee to Study the Question of Paedocommunion,” 16th General Assembly (1988), 498–519.
- PCA, “Paedocommunion Report,” 500.
- PCA, “Paedocommunion Report,” 498.
- OPC, “Report of the Committee on Paedocommunion” (1987).
- URCNA, “Minutes,” Acts of the Fifth Synod of the URCNA (2004), article 50, p. 21.
- Matthew Winzer, “The True History of Paedo-Communion,” The Confessional Presbyterian 3, (2007): 27–36.
- PCA, “Paedocommunion Report,” 505.
- “Who’s Who,” Paedocommunion.com.
- Calvin, Institutes, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 4.19.13.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
Editor’s Note: This review was published originally on the Heidelblog as a series in 2009 and appears here slightly revised.
You can find this whole series here.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Reviews and Notices
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›