Heidelcast For October 5, 2025: Nourish And Sustain (21): Paedocommunion (Part 3)

by on October 5, 2025 | 6 Comments

Dr Clark continues the series on the Lord’s Supper, Nourish and Sustain. This series explores what the Supper is, why it was instituted, how it has been understood in the history of the church, what Scripture says, how we should understand it, and practice it.

The Lord’s Supper is one of the two sacraments instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. A sacrament is a sign and seal of Holy Spirit-given benefits. Where baptism is the sign and seal of initiation into Christ-confessing covenant community, the Lord’s Supper is the sign and seal of renewal and personal appropriation of the benefits promised in the covenant of grace. Tragically, since the mid-ninth century at least, holy communion, which is intended to bring Christ’s people together, has often been a source of division. Perhaps worse, however, for much of the last one hundred fifty years, the Supper has been much neglected among evangelicals.

In this episode, Dr. Clark concludes a 3-part discussion on paedocommunion.

This episode of the Heidelcast is sponsored by the Heidelberg Reformation Association. You love the Heidelcast and the Heidelblog. You share it with friends, with members of your church, and others but have you stopped to think what would happen if it all disappeared? The truth is that we depend on your support. If you don’t make the coffer clink, the HRA will simply sink. Won’t you help us keep it going? The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. All your gifts are tax deductible. Use the donate link on this page or mail a check to Heidelberg Reformation Association, 1637 E Valley Parkway #391, Escondido CA 92027.

Call or text the Heidelphone anytime at (760) 618-1563. Leave a message or email us a voice memo from your phone and we may use it in a future podcast. Record it and email it to heidelcast@heidelblog.net. If you benefit from the Heidelcast please leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts so that others can find it. Please do not forget to make the coffer clink (see the donate button below).

SHOW NOTES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027

USA

The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


6 comments

  1. Dr Clark,
    I have a question concerning visiting Baptists in Reformed churches taking communion. If we put our own members under church discipline for refusing to baptize their children, is it consistent to allow communion with those who confess against it?

    My extended family is nondenominational (lowercase baptist in their practice), and was wondering if it would be appropriate.

    Sincerely,
    Mr Wood.

    • Mr Wood,

      No, it’s not consistent and we didn’t do it until rather recently. They CRC began admitting Baptists to communion in the late 60s/early 70s. They were still using the Church Order of Dort until 1967, when they revised the church order. A case came to Synod, from Iowa, as I recall, about ’72, in which a complaint was lodged against a congregation for saying (as most P&R churches do today) that if you love Jesus and are a member of an Protestant/evangelical, Bible-believing church, you are welcome to communion. Synod upheld the complaint that decision was overturned the next year on the grounds that the ’67 church order no longer prohibited Baptists from coming to the table.

      Article 61 of the Dort order says:

      Only those shall be admitted to the Lord’s supper who, according to the usage of the churches which they join, have made confession of the Reformed religion, together with having testimony of a godly walk, without which also those who come from other churches shall not be admitted.

      They certainly didn’t admit the Anabaptists to communion (or at least they weren’t supposed to do). To the best of my knowledge, when the Baptist movement first arose in 1611, they were not admitted to the table either. By the way, the Dutch don’t really distinguish between the Baptists and Anabaptists. They’re both called Doppers.

      To confess the Reformed Religion is to confess before a consistory the Heidelberg, Belgic, and the Canons of Dort. It’s not possible for a Baptist to confess these since the Belgic and the Catechism specifically denounce the Baptist view of baptism and their reading of redemptive history. The Canons are implicitly at odds with the Baptists in 1.17.

      So, no, in my opinion, three forms congregations should not be communing Baptists but, as a matter of good order, that is a decision for a consistory to make. It’s not a private judgment for individuals to make on behalf of their families.

      • To play Devil’s Advocate –

        If to confess the Reformed Religion is to confess the three forms, would those who confess Westminster similarly not be allowed to commune? I’m just thinking of how Westminster and the Three Forms have their own differences as well.

        • Ben,

          There were Anglicans at the Synod of Dort. William Ames was an observer at Dort. There were no Baptists, however, at Dort. In the context of the Church of Order of Dort it would have been impossible to include the Standards since they didn’t exist yet.

          When Dort said “confess” they were referring to the Confession and Catechism (and implicitly the Canons). There wasn’t a great deal of international travel in the 17th century but I suppose that when an English Presbyterian visited a Dutch Reformed church with evidence of membership, they were admitted to communion. Our practice in the URCNA is to commune members of NAPARC churches and others with whom we are in communion.

Comments are closed.