Considering Concluding Observations on Paedocommunion

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?

Read Full Post »

Considering Paedocommunion in Church History

While I was in seminary the topic of paedocommunion (infants receiving communion) was largely unaddressed. I may have overheard a conversation or two, but it was very much under the radar. During my time in the ARP, the subject was not even on the map. While candidating for a position in a PCA church in New Jersey, the retired minister who was their stated supply encouraged me to study this subject (and I thought “why?!”).

Now that I am in the PCA it is time. There are pastors who hold to this view, though they are not permitted to practice it. One of my elders read Children at the Lord’s Table? by Cornelius Venema so I decided to read it for myself.

“Though it is true that the church’s practice ought to be formed by the teaching of the Scriptures, which are the supreme standard for faith and practice, the Reformed churches read the Scriptures in the company of the whole church and may not ignore the lessons of history.”

The first argument for paedocommunion that Venema examines is the argument from church history. As noted above, sola scriptura is about our final authority regarding practice. Properly applied we also examine church history and historical theology to see how the church has thought and acted in the past. We recognize that the Spirit has been instructing the church in the meaning of the Scriptures for 2,000 years. We don’t start from scratch. But not all the church has thought or done has been in accord with the Scriptures.

Those arguing for infant communion assert an early and widespread practice of infant communion. They claim that the western church has departed from this practice and should return to the practice. Venema examines this claim first. He notes the ample early evidence for infant baptism (he depends upon Jeremias’ work). The evidence for infant communion is note nearly as strong or as early. The first clear statement affirming the practice of infant communion is from Cyprian in the middle of the 3rd century. Prior to this we find statements indicating the church did not practice infant communion. For instance, Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) says that “no one is allowed to partake but the man (person) who believes that the things which we teach are true…” (First Apology). So the practice he was familiar with was communion after a period of instruction in the faith. Clement of Alexandria (150-219) also teaches that those who receive it have been instructed and receive it “by faith” in Instructor and The Stromata. In the east, Origen, also says that children were not given communion in his Homilies on the Book of Judges.

Read Full Post »

Considering Circumcision

This Sunday I’ll be preaching on Genesis 17.  It is a great passage, filled with a great many promises (as Paul Tripp calls gospel comfort).  It is also filled with the call to a newness of life (as Tripp calls gospel call).  God promises not solely justifying grace, but also sanctifying grace.

“walk before me and be blameless”

There is a great expansion of the promise, including identifying Sarah as the mother of the child of promise.  We see here the progress of revelation.  God didn’t just drop a revelatory bomb on Abraham.  He revealed his promises in pieces.  We do well to keep this in mind.

One of the phrases that comes up repeatedly is “you and your offspring”.  He will not only be Abraham’s God, but the God of his offspring (except Ishmael, which was surely a struggle for Abraham’s soul).  The covenant is not just for Abraham but his offspring.  The covenant sign was not just for Abraham, but for his offspring.  Sounds very similar to Peter’s statement in Acts 2:

³⁷Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” ³⁸And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”  (ESV)

If we take Genesis 17, as well as Paul’s discussion of this in Romans 4 [he calls circumcision the sign that justification is by faith, not bloodline or obedience], seriously, we see that God calls the children of the covenant to faith in the promise through the covenant sign (see some of the books below, and my comments.  Our method of interpretation is what drives the differences in our understanding of baptism).

Read Full Post »

Dr. Schreiner: Reformed Inconsistent on Baptism

Justin Taylor (Between Two Worlds) interviewed Dr. Tom Schreiner about baptism as his new book on the subject is about to be released.  As a former Reformed Credo-Baptist turned paedobaptist, I certainly disagree with Dr. Schreiner on a few of the finer details of this discussion (note- this is not a conversation 🙂 ).

But I take some exception with what he says here: 

“You argue that Reformed evangelicals who baptize their babies are inconsistent–how so?

“We love fellow believers from Reformed churches with whom we share so many precious truths, especially in terms of the doctrines of grace. The Reformed are inconsistent, however, in that they require adults who are baptized to be believers, while they baptize infants who are unbelievers. Steve Wellum and Shawn Wright demonstrate that to do this they have to redefine what they previously said about the doctrine of baptism and use the theological (but, in the way they use it to support infant baptism, biblically unjustifiable) construct of the “covenant of grace” as proof of their position. “

If we are inconsistent in this matter, so is Genesis 17 & Romans 4.  Both texts refer to the application of circumcision.  In the case of Abraham is pointed to the faith he possessed.  In the case of his children it pointed to the faith they were to possess.  Converting male Gentiles prior to Jesus and the New Covenant were to be circucumcised, as were their infants in keeping with the covenant (as it is referred to in Genesis 17).

I suppose I would ask, what is the eternal covenant in Hebrews 13:20 referring to?  I don’t think we’ve invented anything.  Nor do I think we are any more ‘inconsistent’ than the Scriptures on this issue.  I’m disappointed in how Dr. Schreiner chose to express this.  No, I won’t be burning any of his books.  I just disagree with his assessment of me and my brothers on this matter. 

Where we disagree is on what we believe God has said about those who are to be baptized.  He ties it to faith.  We tie it to the covenant.  In the Old Covenant the sign was circumcision.  In the New Testament the sign is baptism.  We say the application of the sign is the same (though now woman are to be baptized now).  We are consistent with our understanding of the Scriptures.  I suppose he is consistent with his understanding of the Scriptures.  But it seems quite unfair to accuse us of inconsistency when the problem is we are inconsistent with HIS theology & practice, not in our theology & practice.  Does that make sense? 

 He’s comparing one theology to another with the assumption that his is correct and the standard by which others are measured (judging us by his theology, not Scripture).  The issue ought to be: whose theology & practice most closely resembles the Word.  He doesn’t seem to be doing this in his claims concerning those he loves.

In speaking of Colossians he says: “Further, the NT does not draw a connection between physical circumcision and baptism, but spiritual circumcision and baptism (Col. 2:11-12). There is not complete continuity between the Sinai covenant and the new covenant.”

Isn’t physical circumcision a picture of spiritual circumcision?  What the physical circumcision pointed to (the cutting of the heart) physical baptism now points to.  So this argument would appear to fall apart in my estimation.

Reformed people do not say there is complete continuity between the covenants.  We agree with him that there are areas of discontinuity.  But he establishes a strawman to win his argument, which frankly seems quite unfair.  You must argue against a position that is actually held, not a mythological position held by no one. 

This does not prove that Dr. Schreiner is wrong in his theology- only that he has not argued his position well or fairly.  I don’t want to be ‘guilty’ of the same lapse in logic/argumentation.

Read Full Post »