In his book, Children at the Lord’s Table?, the next thing to be examined is the Reformed Confessions of Faith. Is the practice of infant communion consistent with or inconsistent with the doctrine (orthodoxy) and practice (orthopraxy) of Reformed Confessions?
Why Confessions? Scripture is our ultimate standard. But people disagree as to the meaning of Scripture. Confessions of faith are summaries of the teaching of Scripture. As such, they define allowable interpretations of Scripture for a community of believers. We are concerned with Reformed Confessions in this discussion because we are talking about the practice in the Reformed community, not other communities.
The charge is made by credo baptists and paedocommunionists that advocating infant baptism and believer’s communion is inconsistent. But this ultimately means that the sacramental theology of the Confessions must be wrong. Covenantal credo baptists argue from a different sacramental theology than Reformed Theology has traditionally held. The presuppositions they hold make our position seem inconsistent. Is the same true for Reformed paedocommunionists? Do they have presuppositions that result in a sacramental theology that is different from that found in the Reformed Confessions?
“In the opinion of proponents of paedocommunion, the insistance that covenant children profess their faith before they are received at the Table of the Lord denies to them a privilege that ought to be extended to every covenant member.”
There are 3 main ways to look at the sacraments. First is the view of the Roman, Eastern and possibly Lutheran churches toward salvation, or grace, being communicated by the sacraments. This means that the sacrament actually accomplishes that which it signifies. As a result, baptism always regenerates sinners and cleanses from sin. Communion would be understood to always strengthen faith (presuming the previous regeneration of the celebrant).
The second main way of looking at the sacraments is the signs are simply that. They do not communicate grace to anyone. Baptism becomes a sign of the faith that has already been expressed. It is a sign one has been regenerated already. The Lord’s Supper functions primarily (or solely) as a Memorial (remember).
The Reformed theology of the sacraments is that they are signs and seals of the covenant. We neither unite the sign and thing signified nor separate them. It is a middle road that distinguishes the sign and thing signified, but sees the grace communicated on the basis of faith. It is not ex opere operato as in sacerdotalism. Nor are they are mere sign. Confused yet?
My quick answer is that baptism is the sign of entrance into the covenant community, but we don’t mean this makes the person a Christian. In the case of an infant, they have not yet repented and believed. I considered my children covenant children upon baptism. They have professed faith, but being young I am cautious about the sincerity of that faith. I’m not sure they are Christians. Since the Table is a covenant renewal ceremony, to partake of it is to say that someone is a Christian (this profession could obviously be false). But in this way they are different from one another. But I digress from Venema’s argument.
Reformed Theology joins Word and Sacrament. Saving faith comes through the ordinary ministry of Word and Sacrament. Faith comes by hearing, says Paul in Romans 10. It is faith, joining one to Christ, that saves. The sacraments are signs of this, and baptism is a call to faith for those baptized as infants (see Romans 4 to see that circumcision was a sign of justification by faith, the faith Abraham had and that his children were called to have).
“Just as the sacraments require the preceding Word, so the Word calls for, by virtue of Christ’s appointment, the accompanying sacrament.”
Reformed Theology puts a priority on the preaching of the Word. Apart from the Word, the sacrament is meaningless and powerless. Sacerdotalism puts the priority on the Sacraments and often minimizes the ministry of the Word. They have homilies, short sermons, because the apex of the Mass is the Supper. In some Orthodox churches they have a form of children’s church, so the kids miss the homily, but they return to partake of the Supper. Do you see how doctrine affects practice?
The sacraments are signs, visible representations, of unseen realities. Baptism represents (among other things) the washing away of our sin and cleansing from their pollution. There is a correspondence between the sign and the grace it signifies. Our Baptist brothers and friends go this far with us.
They are also seals (this is what tripped me up for years) to “authenticate the truth of the gospel promise and assure the believer of it.” They strengthen our faith we when see another person baptized, or when we partake of the Supper by faith.
As noted above, we do not confuse the signs with the spiritual realities they point us toward. You can have one without the other. The key thing, according to all the Reformed confessions, is faith. All that is signed and sealed by baptism is received by faith at the moment of faith whether or not the sign is given before or after that moment. All that is signed and sealed by communion is only received by the person who partakes in faith. So, we reject the notion that they work by virtue of their administration.
Just as in the Old Covenant, there are 2 sacraments in the New Covenant. Why the change? In the Old Covenant they were bloody signs- the foreskin was cut and the lamb was slain. Christ has come, and shed his blood to save sinners. The signs of the New Covenant are therefore bloodless. They point to his blood shed for us, but we no longer shed blood. Baptism, like circumcision, is the sign and seal of entrance into the covenant community. It did not mean one was saved in the Old Covenant, and it doesn’t in the New Covenant. It was placed on the children of believers in the Old Covenant, and Reformed Theology has historically held it is to be placed on the children of believers in the New as well. By its nature, it is only administered once. In this way it is like justification- an act. It points to justification (Romans 4). Since the sacrament is distinguished, in Scripture (Gen. 17 for instance), from the grace it confirms, the efficacy is not tied to the moment of baptism.
“Knowing the weakness and uncertainty that often characterize the faith of believers, the Lord instituted this sacramental meal as a visible representation of His work on their behalf.”
The Lord’s Supper is a repeated sacrament which pictures spiritual nourishment through the bread and wine. It is to be celebrated frequently, mirroring the sanctification process. As such, the Supper is for Christians. The main confessions of the Reformed heritage (the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms) all teach that the Table is reserved for those who have professed faith. Since it differs from baptism in what it signifies, it differs from baptism in who may partake. The pursuit of logical consistency should not trump this.
“To argue that baptism alone is a sufficient basis for admitting that children of believers to the Lord’s Table would require a substantial change in the way the confessions understand the use and effectiveness of the sacraments in relation to the preaching of the Word.”
Venema’s conclusion is that the Confessions emphasize two things that oppose paedocommunion. The first is that the primary way Christ dwells with and communicates himself to his people is the preaching of the gospel. This preaching produces faith, and strengthens faith. The second is the confessions’ recognition of the differences between baptism and communion.
Advocates of infant communion cannot argue their position on the basis of the Reformed Confessions. Instead, they must prove from Scripture that the confessions are wrong and seek to change them. This is why most of Venema’s book takes up the question of the biblical arguments for and against infant communion. What should the Church believe?
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply