The final chapter, though there is an appendix, in Children at the Lord’s Table? has Venema’s concluding observations and an evaluation. Most of the chapter reviews the material presented earlier in the book. It is fairly redundant, as one other reviewer noted.He does remind us that since this view is out of step with the Reformed Confessions, the burden of proof is on them to show from Scripture that they have it right and we’ve gotten it wrong for 500 years (it is possible). But they failed to provide sufficient evidence (in his opinion, and mine).
But his evaluation includes some thoughts about the different view of the covenant that functions under the surface of their arguments. In other words, he moves on to their presuppositions. This is where the disagreement really lies. The subject of infant communion is just the visible evidence of the different presuppositions (the same is true for the infant-believers’ baptism debate).
The advocates of infant communion operate with a view of the covenant that claims that all members of the covenant “enjoy a full and saving union with Christ.” This got me to thinking. It sounds remarkably like the argument for the “pure church” used by many credobaptists. Their argument for paedocommunion is completely consistent with that view of the covenant. But is that a proper view of the covenant? Is the pure church a proper understanding of the covenant community? Why then practice excommunication (apart from being commanded to) if they have a saving relationship with Christ because they’ve been baptized?
“We must insist that the covenant is nothing less than union with the Triune God, nothing less than salvation…” Rich Lusk
The biblical teaching expresses the idea that the visible church (the church militant and on earth) is not pure. There are tares among the wheat. There are some like Demas who left because they, though baptized, went from among us because they never really were of us. There are those who are excommunicated, revealing they were false professors of Christ. The “pure church” view of the covenant does not stand up to Scripture, reason or experience (see passages like Romans 2:28ff; 9:6, 11-14; Hebrews 11:20-21; 1 John 2:19).
This view, that every covenant member enjoys the saving benefits of Christ is joined to a strong view of the efficacy of baptism. Whether of the infant or believers’ variety does not matter. They’re baptized, they’ve got it. To be fair, the baptists say the person already had it. But for the advocates of infant communion, baptism is understood to actually join them to Christ even though they have not believed the gospel. This sounds like baptismal regeneration, which would be a serious departure from Reformation Theology. This is not just a different sacramental theology, but a different understanding of the covenant and a different method of interpreting Scripture. The difference is far greater than whether or not we agree on giving communion to baptized children who have not professed faith.
Their argument includes the idea that to withhold ANY right or privilege from the children would mean that they are “excommunicated” or not treated as full citizens of God’s kingdom or members of His family. Venema uses a good analogy (recognizing that all analogies can break down or mislead). The baptized children who have not yet professed faith are like minors in a family and nation. My kids are full members of the family, but they do not enjoy all the privileges I do. They don’t set their own bedtimes, decided what they can and cannot watch on TV etc. They are U.S. citizens but they are not able to vote, enlist in the armed services, drive a car or drink alcohol. And they should be able to do so! They are not excluded from either community. Nor are they excluded from the church. One of the arguments of advocates for infant communion is seen to really not be true.
So, as we stand back from the arguments we see the main issue is a radical departure from the historic understanding of the covenant. Perhaps this is an exception that “strikes at the heart of the system of theology” just as much as credobaptism does. I’ll have to chew on that some more. But this view of the covenant leads to a very different ecclesiology and sacramental theology- ones that do no conform to Scripture (in my opinion) and the historic Reformed Confessions.
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply