Lately, the world of reformed Christian churches (often called "Calvinists" and "Presbyterians") has displayed a fervent preoccupation with a doctrine gaining currency, which bears the name "paedocommunion." This heterodox notion aspires to usurp the unanimous testimony of the Holy Scripture and the solitary testimony of the confessional reformation, usually identified as "credo-communion."

What is paedocommunion [hereafter "PC"]? It is the practice of giving the Lord's Supper to baptized children, even apart from a rite of passage or criterion such as confirmation or the making of a credible profession of faith. Herein, unless specified more particularly, however, PC refers to the doctrine which advocates the practice of giving the Lord's supper apart from a prior examination, rather than to the practice itself.

Contrariwise, I will use "credocommunion" [hereafter "CC"] to refer to the doctrine which advocates the practice of requiring a test (criterion) for cognitive and moral maturity (as judged by the elders of a particular church) as a prerequisite for participating in the sacrament of the Lord's supper. The following provides an excellent and brief overview of the confessional perspective on the Lord's supper. It is this position I purport to defend at present, though the whole confessional position is much longer, consisting as it does of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), chapter 29 and the Larger Catechism, questions #168 - #177. Here is the abbreviated form from WCF chapter 29:

I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.

III. 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 an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.

The title above indicates that the doctrine of PC incurs a "transcendental failure." What I mean by this maybe better understood with a brief history of the idea of a "transcendental." This referred with German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, to the most basic categories (i.e. modes, etc) of human perception, or (in more modern terms) ways in which people are "hardwired" to view and interact with the world. A more obscure Dutch theologian, one Cornelius Van Til, used the idea in a novel way by applying these not to people, but to the worldviews -- basic units of thought which form an interpretive matrix for understanding what kind of world this is (metaphysics), how we know what we know (epistemology), and how we ought to live our lives (ethics). For Dr. Van Til, transcendentals comprise the most basic parts of a worldview, which woven together properly provide the foundational picture of the world that enables us to make sense out of life's experiences.

"Transcendentals" thus render human experience intelligible to us. Without them, one's attempts to account for the different features of what we wake up to in the morning (the unity of our experience and yet the many different kinds of particular things making up that experience, called the "problem of the one and the many" by some) would leave some or all such features of reality unexplained. Thus, transcendentals skillfully interlaced into a cognitive framework -- as with the Christian worldview -- provide the elemental interpretive components sufficient to "make sense of it all."

But for the transcendentals to render an account coherent, they must be related to each other in a consistent fashion. For a worldview to accomplish its "interpretive function," it cannot permit internal dissonance among its many parts, for this would ruin its claim to coherence. Each part of the worldview in question must sweetly comport with the others -- both the transcendental, or more basic parts, as well as those more peripheral, in order to manage the "consent of all the parts." Thus any worldview whose basic elements relate to each other like Larry, Moe and Curly (dissonantly) necessarily cannot provide the transcendentals -- for some of its parts would logically exclude some transcendental elements, thus promoting "epistemological chaos."

Now how is any of this profitable to this discussion? It implies that one may test the veridicality (truthfulness) of any doctrine by superimposing it, as it were, upon the Christian worldview to see if it implies the other parts of that worldview, so that one may see clearly whether it relates to the biblical outlook either by the consent of all the parts (logical coherence) or else by the dissent of many of the parts (logical dissonance). When we attempt this -- and we will do so shortly -- our exercise clearly falsifies the counterfeit doctrine of paedocommunion, identifying it as an element foreign to the biblical perspective -- as we shall see.

Our first test for the PC doctrine finds it wholly incompatible with a biblical doctrine accepted by most advocates of PC, one typically dubbed "postmillenial eschatology."

A. Paedocommunion v. Postmillenial Eschatology

PC advocates promote as a reason for yielding to their view the idea that the early Christian Church unanimously or generally promoted PC for the first nine centuries of its history. Moreover, they often give various reasons for why the Reformed confessions at present unanimously reject PC in favor of CC. This means that both sides are agreed, at least, that the Christian church's confessional position presently is CC, not PC.

This places an interesting question before us then. Given postmillenial eschatology's demand that the Church must grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus progressively over time (corporate sanctification), which should we tend to favor, that of the early (far less doctrinally mature) or the much later and much more learned church? Or, put differently, which view identifies the era of greater grace and sanctification in the Church, the second or the seventeenth century? By answering the question consistently with the postmillenial outlook, the progress of the corporate sanctification of the Church would require us to favor the CC position.

B. By What Standard? Paedocommunion vs. Theonomic Ethics

Many, if not most, of the advocates for the PC position hold to the biblical position ordinarly dubbed "Theonomy," the biblical view which maintains the principle of continuity as a rule for distinguishing which of the laws of the Older Testament continue to bind men and women to the performance thereof, and which laws do not, in the Newer Testament. This principle simply affirms that unless abrogated or qualified by a New Testament passage, or by the logical force of several such passages combined, Older Testamental laws continue to bind men to perform them as orginially given.

This implies, and Theonomists like the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen state so explicitly in their works, that God judges all men by the one and same standard -- the law of God -- which may be known by a proper application of the principle of continuity in studying out the various texts -- together with other sound rules for properly interpreting the Word of God. So far, so good. But PC advocates quickly run up against an enigma created by one of their very own exegetical necessities.

Now PC proponents need to circumvent the CC requirement for children to show themselves able to examine and assess the moral quality of their lives against the standard of God's Word as a way of preparing to partake of the Lord's supper in a worthy manner. The perennially disputed passage in question reads, "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup . . ." Here, PC adherents quickly point out that this must not apply to children (for it says "man") and the early typological counterpart (see 1 Cor. 10:1 ff) surely included children without requiring such a test.

If we grant this position, however (simply for the sake of argument), we may quickly note that none of the persons -- children OR ADULTS -- in the typological shadow of "spiritual food and drink" in the previous chapter had to meet any such cognitive criterion; yet in 1 Corinthians 11, PC advocates expect us to accept the view that God has now chosen to require one communion standard for adults, and a different one (none at all), for children.

But Proverbs 20:10 clearly weighs in against just such ethical bifurcations required by anti-theonomic positions: "Differing weights and differing measures, the Lord detests them both." I hasten to add here the very next verse, which in context deliberately expands on it -- reads, "Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right." And since to do what is right means to do what God has commanded, the Bible clearly teaches that children and adults NEVER properly have two different ethical standards applied to them -- as the PC position requires in its conflicting interpretations of "one standard for all," and yet different standards used in 1 Cor. 10 as set over against 1 Cor. 11.

Thus, we find the PC advocate cannot maintain his pet exegtical strategy in 1st Corinthians 11, on the one hand, and the integtrity of a single ethical standard required by his Theonomy, on the other. How did Dr. Bahnsen say it so often ... oh yes, now I remember, "You cannot have it BOTH ways."

C. Paedocommunion vs. the Biblical Doctrine of The Nature of Oaths and Covenants

Next we come to examine whether or not the PC position meshes with the biblical teaching on the requirements for confirming covenants. These, we will see, are different than those required for initiating oaths and covenants in the Bible. First, we note that God has given historically two sacraments as signs and seals of the various administrations of the covenant of grace: the first initiatory and probationary, and the second continuous and confirmatory; in the first, the recipient of grace remains passive and receptive; in the second, the receiver of grace actively participates in the oath-based ritual in question.

The two trees in the garden of Eden provide examples: the trees of life, and of the knowledge of good and evil. The first showed a kind of probation and the other signified and sealed one in righteousness. The Old Covenant likewise displays two sacraments, (initiatory and probationary). Those circumcised into the Mosaic covenant took on this initiatory rite to enter the OT Church, the people of Israel.

Israel's sacrificial system, summed up in the Passover, continued throughout the life of Israel, confirming the life promised by the covenant Lord. Here, the sacrificer waxed reckless only at his own injury (2 Samuel 6:5-15 and Lev 10:1-3).

The New Covenant also displays two sacraments where Baptism corresponds to circumcision (See Colossians 2:12-13), both of which function as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. Neither confers grace merely by the elements themselves.

After -- and only after (note the biconditional) -- one's probation is fulfilled, he may be confirmed in his rights and priviledges of the second sacrament, which, in the case of the NT is the Lord's Supper.

These examples, both from the Older and Newer covenants provide instances of a more general point about making and taking oaths (of which covenants are a subset). The making of any oath by one recognized as a domestic inferior in the Bible (i.e. a wife, son or daughter) is subject to judicial review and nullification by the federal head of the house.

Numbers 30:3-5 reads:

If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

D. Common Objections to Credocommunion Overcome.

Some have alleged that this position requires an arbitrariness on the part of the elders since the Bible provides no objective way to decide when a child may begin taking the Lord's Supper. I answer that a non-arbitrary marker of delineating readiness for the Lord's supper does in fact exist in the Bible: nature itself. With puberty comes physical development, including the ability to think in terms of abstract and moral reasoning. This then provides the obvious point at which elders ought to begin an inquiry for readiness on the part of the child in concert with the assessment of the head of the house.

Moreover, Paul regularly appeals in the Scripture to such markers offered from nature, saying things like "does not even nature teach us..." . In the case of maturity as readiness for communion, the Scripture (Luke 2:41) agrees with this.

"And when he was 12 years old, they went up [to the passover] according to the custom." That this was Jesus first trip to Passover is manifest from the context, and in this most commentators agree. J. Jeremias, in his landmark Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, throws some valuable light on this custom. He says, "...we may conclude (from Luke 2:41) that it was custom among people from a distance to bring their children when they reached twelve years of age." (p. 76) Before twelve years of age, they remained at home.

Some have challenged that all the privileges of membership in the covenant community belong to all the saints, and that covenant children (being saints) should be admitted to the Lord's Table.

I answer that this overlooks the obvious point that one may not necessarily undertake every covenant privileges from the moment of his entry into the covenant community (i.e. Church). Although each person (saint) in principle has every spiritual blessing in Christ from the moment of his or her baptism, yet he does not inherit them all at once in practice -- but only in principle. Likewise, he obtains all his spiritual gifts from the moment he is born again, but this does not entitle him to begin preaching the gospel -- even if he is so called -- without first undertaking intellectual preparation and certification by elders of the church.

Examples of "delayed privileges" in the Bible include the facts that:

* No male can go to war to fight for his country until he reaches the age of 20.

* No minister may begin ministering in an official ecclesiastical post until he reaches the age of thirty, (see the Levitical age requirement and the Lukan account of the age at which Jesus began ministering) even though he receives the gifts for ministry at the moment he is born of the Spirit.

* No one may "practice the theology" (Ahem) of the Song of Solomon until he or she is first married.

E. Paedo-communion vs. Salvation by Grace alone through FAITH alone.

The classical reformed (and biblical) formulation of the grace communicated by the sacraments comes to the heart of the believer who participates rightly via the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit who indwells every regenerate saint. But the doctrine of PC seeks to circumvent this understanding by making the Lord's supper efficacious in the life of the UNbelieving saint also -- the saint before he is old enough even to understand the gospel, and, therefore (ordinarily) to possess saving faith. The Scripture says plainly enough that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God [preached]. By making the sacramental grace efficacious APART from the faith-imparting work of the Spirit results in (i.e. implies) affirming the doctrine of "mechanistic grace" common referred to by people addicted to Latin as "ex opere operato."

But this has the easy and swift refutation that mechanistic grace is a "yes or no" proposition in which it would not be possible to receive baptism in an "unworthy manner" - you either do or do not receive it - and no one would ever die from participitating in such a version of the Lord' s Supper the wrong fashion. This is because the curse as well as the blessing attending holy communion remain the work of the Spirit of grace.

But since faith is in fact a biblical prerequisite for receiving the blessing of communion, so also is the proper understanding of the gospel (intellectual maturity), since faith comes by hearing and understanding the Word of the Lord.

CONCLUSION: From this brief introduction and internal critique of a counterfeit doctrine and the positions normally associated with it in a Christian (Theonomic-Postmillenial) worldview, it should be apparent almost immediately that the doctrine of paedocommunion contradicts several major features of biblical teaching, denying in principle the consent of all the parts. Therefore, the Bible necessarily teaches the doctrine of credocommunion, and the Westminster divines once again win the day. These were wise men.

Carson Day has written 1.3 gazillion articles and essays with insightful -- and sometimes even conventional -- viewpoints. But don't get your hopes up on the conventional part. Carson studied the history of ideas in college, and really likes to study up on the internet, the world wide classroom.

To visit Carson's websites, go to: http://ophirgold.blogspot.com (The Omniblog) or http://extremeprofit.blogspot.com (Carson's Day Trading Outpost)