David Tong posted this on facebook:
Paedobaptism, Yes
Credocommunion, Yes
Credobaptism, No
Paedocommunion, No.
I obviously would agree with the first three. But I haven't dealt deep enough with Paedocommunion, and thus it interests me. It may not be something popular among the Reformed. But google search gives me one name:
The Reformed theologian Wolfgang Musculus (d. 1563) is a primary example of a historical Reformed advocate for paedocommunion, which is the practice of allowing children to participate in the Lord's Supper. While many Reformed thinkers historically opposed it, Musculus based his support on a covenantal understanding of the church and the identity of children within the body of Christ, although he did not advocate for its reintroduction in his own time. More recently, scholars and theologians such as James B. Jordan, Peter Leithart, and Douglas Wilson are also noted as supporters of the practice.
And this reddit discussion seems beneficial. I will post the raw data in the comment in case it gets removed.
From the Reddit link, in case the link no longer works:
7 yr. ago
Mega_Mack
Paedocommunion
r/Reformed icon
Go to Reformed
r/Reformed •
PCA
So recently I have been studying paedocommunion and the issues surrounding it. I think right now I am more convinced of paedocommunion than I am or credocommunion for a multitude of reasons. My only real issue is that I am worried about how that will effect my ordination later on. I would prefer to go into a NAPARC esque denomination. So my questions for y'all are:
Do you Know of any non-FV denominations that allow paedocommunion?
For you fellow paedocommunionists what was the main argument that convinced you and do u have any resourcees I should checkout?
For you credocommunionists what is your biggest hold up with paedocommunion?
Archived post. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Share
u/PluralLabs avatar PluralLabs • Promoted
Unified Kubernetes Workspace
Unified Kubernetes Workspace
Unified Kubernetes Workspace
Unified Kubernetes Workspace
plural.sh
Learn More
u/BirdieNZ avatar
• 7y ago
Not actually Baptist, but actually bearded.
For you credocommunionists what is your biggest hold up with paedocommunion?
The three major theological holdups I have are, in no particular order:
The physical nature of the sign.
The active nature of the sacrament.
The language of Scripture surrounding the doctrine and practice.
The physical nature of the sign is such that the very young infants are physically incapable of partaking in the sign. Bread and wine are not food fit for unweaned infants, and God gives appropriate signs for our use that are practical and feasable to carry out. If infants were to partake in communion, a sign that they were capable of partaking in would have been chosen.
The active nature of the sacrament, as opposed to the passive nature of baptism shows us a distinction that prevents a one-to-one analogy of the participants of the sacraments. "Take, eat" is the command, as we actively feed on Christ, rather than passively receiving baptism. "This do in remembrance of me", yet what remembrance can an un-comprehending infant have of Christ and the cross? The infant is simply not capable of the active elements of the Supper. The infant cannot take, nor eat, nor drink, nor remember.
Tied to the second point, Scripture tells us to "examine ourselves", to "take, eat", "remember", "proclaim the Lord's death till He come". These active commands are not possible for infants to carry out, nor can they allow a passive participation in the Supper.
Reply reply Share
• 7y ago
PCA
For #1. I want to point out that no Reformed paedocommunionist are advocating shoviny the elements down infants throats. Just giving the meal to weaned infants just like they did in the Old Testament with the Covenant meals
For #2 I think you make an interesting point I might half to chew on a bit more before I can give a response.
For #3 this objection has been dealt with countless times by paedocommunionist. I suggest you look at the paedocommunionist interpretation of 1 Cor. 10-11
Reply reply Share
u/BirdieNZ avatar
• 7y ago
Not actually Baptist, but actually bearded.
For #1. I want to point out that no Reformed paedocommunionist are advocating shoviny the elements down infants throats. Just giving the meal to weaned infants just like they did in the Old Testament with the Covenant meals
Historically as well as with some modern paedocommunionists, they do indeed "shove the elements down infants throats". It is entirely inconsistent to first say that you desire infants to partake of the Supper and then deny them the very sign you say is their right, by mere merit of their inability to take it. If the sign belongs to all infants, then it must be given to all infants. This is the substance of my first point: if God intended for infants to take the sign, God would either have made infants capable of ingesting wine and bread, or else used a different sign that they were capable of partaking in. Certainly baptism is able to be applied to people of all ages, which is why the same argument cannot be used by credobaptists against paedobaptists.
For #3 this objection has been dealt with countless times by paedocommunionist. I suggest you look at the paedocommunionist interpretation of 1 Cor. 10-11
I have seen the paedocommunionist arguments, but am unconvinced.
Reply reply Share More replies
• 7y ago
Most Truly Reformed™ User
Scripture also says that if anyone shall not work, he shall not eat.
Reply reply Share
u/srm038 avatar
• 7y ago
Lent Madness
On #2:
We dont think that the language there is "remembrance." We aren't being called to remember. The word is better translated (we think) as "memorialize." Jesus is saying "when you do this, you memorialize this (to God), just like the rainbow memorializes his promise." So God is the one that needs a covenant reminder (or desires it, rather, since ultimately he can't forget.)
When we memorialize the Death of Christ, God reaffirms the promises he's made based on that sacrifice.
Since the action is to remind God, and not us (if we needed reminding we wouldnt have communion!) this objection is answered (at least as long as you consider it the fullness of the Memorial Offering)
Reply reply Share More replies
u/LuckyTxGuy avatar
• 7y ago
CREC
We’re part of a paedocommunion church (CREC) and it’s really a wonderful thing for our children to be able to come to the table. I truly believe my 3 year old loves the Lord his God with all his heart and understanding. I can see no reason for him to not eat with us. (He’s been partaking since he was eating solid foods). I come from a lifetime of SBC roots but once I saw the light of paedobaptism, communion seems to be the next logical step.
Reply reply Share
• 7y ago
PCA
What had ur experience been like in CREC?
Reply reply Share
u/LuckyTxGuy avatar
• 7y ago
CREC
It’s been the most wonderful thing that’s ever happened to my family and I wouldn’t trade it for anything. I spent over 35 years in the SBC (not bashing my roots) but a few years after my eyes were opened to reformed theology I knew I couldn’t stay in our church. With no reformed Baptist churches around our rural area we were really struggling with what to do. I was convinced I didn’t want to raise my kids (then 5 and one on the way) in an unreformed church. Fast forward through much prayer, reading, discussions with baptists friends both reformed and unreformed, discussions with Reformed presbyterians, with CREC church members and elders, more reading, digging and struggling than I’ve ever done in my life and the long story short is, I made one of the best decisions I’ve ever made and now several years later we couldn’t be happier and my whole life has changed for the better. I know that sounds over the top but getting out of the easy-believism, quasi-Gnosticism and the emotion based theology that we were being immersed in has been a blessing to every part of my life and my family’s life
Reply reply Share
• 7y ago
PCA
So what what do you make of the FV influence in CREC?
Reply reply Share
u/LuckyTxGuy avatar
• 7y ago
CREC
I honestly believe the FV’s (at least the lite version) influence in the CREC is greatly overblown. Honestly, in my church it’s a non-issue, never mentioned, never discussed, no nothing. It was a scary red flag for me before our move but after a full year of research, reading, probing questions, prayer and struggles I believe the FV (at least version Doug Wilson is/was), is just a non-issue for me. I’ve been under the best preaching and teaching I’ve ever heard and trust me, my scary FV radar was tuned up as high as it could go and besides the paedocommunion beliefs, the scary FV monster just doesn’t exist in our church.
I spent countless and I do mean countless hours with the pastor, elders and some deacons one on one asking every question I could and trying to find the FV danger that I knew would rear it’s head. I never found it. I found writings and comments on the FV that I absolutely disagree with and that I think are flat wrong and dangerous. I brought those concerns to the session and they wholeheartedly agreed with me that they would not and could not condone those statements either.
I finally spoke with a very trusted Reformed apologist who some people here would know if I named his name. He was a friend of a friend and I knew he was very familiar with the FV and I called in a favor to speak with him. He told me he had major issues with the FV and considers it very dangerous and while he is against paedocommunion, he honestly believes the Wilson style of FV is orthodox and mostly a misunderstanding based on word usage and a few minor points that aren’t worth separating over. He said he would not advise me staying in an un-Reformed church vs going to a CREC church that I desired to go to. He did say there were some FV “dark” (as opposed to lite) pastors that he couldn’t advise me to sit under but that wasn’t an option or consideration where I live anyway.
I’ve never heard the words FV mentioned by anyone in our church, ever. Period. It’s not a thing like outsiders seem to think it is. Sunday after Sunday, Wednesday after Wednesday, I do not hear anything being taught that would ruffle the feathers of any Reformed Presbyterian brother. Heck even my reformed Baptist brothers have great respect for our pastor and his preaching and teaching.
At the end of the day, say what you want, but my family is blessed beyond measure to part of this body of believers and under the preaching and teaching of our pastor.
Reply reply Share
• 7y ago
PCA
What is the difference between FV lite and FV dark?
Reply reply Share
u/LuckyTxGuy avatar
• 7y ago
CREC
Doug Wilson considered himself an amber ale I believe. Here it is in his own words and description when he announced he was no longer identifying with the FV.
https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html
Reply reply Share More replies More replies More replies More replies More replies
• 7y ago
He said non-FV 🙂
Reply reply Share More replies
u/AFI-ai avatar AFI-ai • Promoted
Afi.ai is a modern Microsoft 365 backup with 2-3x faster performance, AAD, Okta integrations, admin roles, user self-service, customer-managed encryption, full Teams support (private channels, 1-1 chats) & other cool features
Thumbnail image: Afi.ai is a modern Microsoft 365 backup with 2-3x faster performance, AAD, Okta integrations, admin roles, user self-service, customer-managed encryption, full Teams support (private channels, 1-1 chats) & other cool features
u/mattb93 avatar
• 7y ago
EPC
Do you Know of any non-FV denominations that allow paedocommunion?
For Presbyterians, EPC or ECO would allow it. Though I always hear rumors of paedocommunion in the PCA. The OPC had an interesting majority report on paedocommunion but their general assembly went with the minority reports.
For you credocommunionists what is your biggest hold up with paedocommunion?
I really struggle on this topic. Paedocommunion seemingly fits well with Reformed theology due to our understanding of the covenant and of baptism. But the Westminster Standards speak directly against it. So for me the biggest hangup is the lack of support from our tradition.
Reply reply Share
• 7y ago
PCA
I have also heard similar things about the PCA but have yet to find anything concrete besides some rumors. I know about the ECO and EPC but those dont really work for me bc I am not chill with the idea of female elders/ministers.
Reply reply Share
u/Cledus_Snow avatar
• 7y ago
PCA
There’s plenty of EPC congregations that are also not chill with female elders. Might be tough finding one who’s not chill with female elders and chill with paedocommunion.
I have no basis for this, but doubt there’s a PCA presbytery that would be totally cool with you unequivocally affirming paedocommunion from the outset.
Reply reply Share More replies More replies
u/fhar2357 avatar
• 7y ago
Here's the PCA position paper on paedocommunion. Especially of interest is the minority report.
Depending on the presbytery you can take exception to LC 177 and still get ordained, but nowhere are you actually allowed to teach or practice the doctrine as far as I'm aware.
http://pcahistory.org/pca/2-498.html
Reply reply Share
u/fhar2357 avatar
• 7y ago
Here is the MO Presbytery report on FV. See the section on sacraments to see how they deal with paedocommunion. This is only applicable to that presbytery though. You have to read and agree to this to be ordained in that presbytery.
http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/mopres.pdf
Reply reply Share More replies
u/uniqlo_official avatar uniqlo_official • Promoted
From perfect-fit tees to lightweight outerwear, UNIQLO delivers timeless style without the markup.
Women's Crew Neck T-Shirt | Black | Medium | 100% Cotton | UNIQLO US Crafted from compact 100% cotton, this women’s T-shirt from the Uniqlo U Collection offers a smooth, refined texture that feels as good as it looks. It’s a timeless wardrobe essential that’s perfect for layering or wearing on its own. The Uniqlo U collection is the realization of a dedicated and skilled team of international designers based at our Paris Research and Development Center led by Artistic Director Christophe Lemaire.- Made of compact 100% cotton.- Perfect for wearing layering or wearing on its own.- Timeless Silhouette: A clean, effortless look for everyday wear.- The images shown may include colors that are not available. | Women's Crew Neck T-Shirt | Black | Medium | 100% Cotton | UNIQLO US
Shop Now
Thumbnail image: From perfect-fit tees to lightweight outerwear, UNIQLO delivers timeless style without the markup.
• 7y ago
For you credocommunionists what is your biggest hold up with paedocommunion?
I haven't listened to the Paedocommunion arguments enough to see if there is a consistent logic behind each person that holds the view. I think it's a peculiar thing as usually the reformed are steeped in deep biblical thinking.
(1 Co 11:27–30) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died
When we look at the sacrament we really should be using the time before it for self reflection. We should be looking at ourselves in light of Christ and ensuring we aren't partaking in an unworthy manner. Paedocommunion allows a person who is incapable of self examination to partake. Prior to communion would be a good time for personal repentance prior to taking the sacrament.
To the individuals that Paul was writing this to they had the obvious external sin which profaned the table which was the separation of the rich and poor while some feasted and others did not. The people that were profaning the table didn't at any point realize that they were in error. They didn't pay enough mind to what they had learned up to that point to even see this as an issue. The unworthy manner isn't limited to this one external action and being able to examine oneself in order to determine if you are partaking in an unworthy manner requires personal faculties that are developed enough to examine oneself in light of scripture.
Infants, toddlers, and some small children are not capable of this. Verses 29 and 30 should serve as a warning that those that partake incorrectly are seemingly in some serious trouble here. What I don't see in Paul's text is a list of exclusions or exemptions to these rules.
Baptism replaces circumcision so to me paedobaptism is clear. We even have examples that we can point to for Paedobaptism with household baptisms. Now there may be questions, concerns, and debate there but at least we have a solid text with no real prohibition that I can think of.
The individual observing paedocommunion hits a road block here because Paul does indeed set parameters. Likewise if there would have been potential questions to this or probable exemptions I would imagine he would have included them. Paul is good at telegraphing his readers and covering potential questions that may arise (ie. Romans).
The other issue here is that if Paedocommunion is restricted by concepts found in v27 and 28 than the parent allowing it would face judgement for allowing one to be put in danger by partaking in an unworthy manner v29 and 30. It seems that you could be subjecting your children to something they would otherwise avoid.
Objections to this usually are steeped in emotionalism because it's a parent arguing pertaining to the spiritual state of their own child and usually, from what i have encountered, they are unwilling to see that there could be a problem because "innocent child" and "loving God", etc etc.
From a reformed perspective I am not sure how it's possible, nor have I seen 1 Cor adequately addressed.
Reply reply Share
• 7y ago
One of my nieces is definitely capable of self reflection, and she just turned 3.
Kids can be smarter than you think!
That being said, I don't really think the primary thing we are supposed to be doing is navel gazing before partaking of the Supper anyways.
Reply reply Share
• 7y ago
PCA
I suggest you look into some paedocommunionist exegesis of 1 Cor. 10-11. https://paedocommunion.com/ this website has some great articles.
Reply reply Share
u/srm038 avatar
• 7y ago
Lent Madness
What is always interesting to me is that verse is used by both sides as the crux of the argument. To the credo, you must have knowledge of the meaning of the Table to be allowed to come. To the paedo, you must be sure you're not dividing the Table on the basis of anything but baptism.
Reply reply Share More replies More replies
u/rev_run_d avatar
• 7y ago
The Hype Dr (Hon) Rev Idiot, <3 DMI jr, WOW,Endracht maakt Rekt
Do you Know of any non-FV denominations that allow paedocommunion?
CRCNA and RCA permit it.
For you fellow paedocommunionists what was the main argument that convinced you.
https://www.garynorth.com/public/2568.cfm
Reply reply Share
• 7y ago
Reformed Catholic
The CRCNA allows early communion, not paedocommunion. Children are sdmitedto the table on the basis of their faith, not on the basis of their baptism. It may interest u/Mega_Mack that a few PCA churches have the same practice. My parent's PCA church communes children practically as soon they can say "I love Jesus." That's much earlier than any CRC church I have known.
Reply reply Share
u/rev_run_d avatar
• 7y ago
The Hype Dr (Hon) Rev Idiot, <3 DMI jr, WOW,Endracht maakt Rekt
Til
Reply reply Share More replies
• 7y ago
PCA
Great article!
I already knew about the CRC and RCA but I am a wee bit to conservative to fit in either as I am really not chill with women serving in the office of Elder/minister. But thx anyway fam!
Reply reply Share
u/rev_run_d avatar
• 7y ago
The Hype Dr (Hon) Rev Idiot, <3 DMI jr, WOW,Endracht maakt Rekt
You’re welcome but you just asked what non fv denominations allow paedocommunion.
Reply reply Share
u/lkcm10 avatar
• 7y ago
CRC
The CRCNA does not force churches to adopt women in office and maintains that both interpretations are faithful to the gospel. The decision is ultimately left to the church and/or classis. The church I belong to only allows women as deacons. There are other CRCNA churches in my area which do not allow women in any office.
Reply reply Share
u/rev_run_d avatar
• 7y ago
The Hype Dr (Hon) Rev Idiot, <3 DMI jr, WOW,Endracht maakt Rekt
CRCNA effectively has a complimentaian classis which is not necessarily geographic.
Reply reply Share
• 7y ago
PCA
what classis is this?
Reply reply Share
u/rev_run_d avatar
• 7y ago
The Hype Dr (Hon) Rev Idiot, <3 DMI jr, WOW,Endracht maakt Rekt
I'm not sure. paging u/lostwoodssword u/nukesforgary u/davidjricardo
Reply reply Share
u/NukesForGary avatar
• 7y ago
Kuyper not Piper
Classis Minnkota functions as the complimentarian non-geographic classis, and Classis Holland functions as the egalitarian non-geographic classis.
Reply reply Share
u/rev_run_d avatar
• 7y ago
The Hype Dr (Hon) Rev Idiot, <3 DMI jr, WOW,Endracht maakt Rekt
u/davidjricardo u/megamack
Reply reply Share More replies
• 7y ago
Reformed Catholic
I'm not quite sure to what you are referring. I don't believe the CRC has any "non-geographic" classes - that doesn't really work with their polity - but it does have some overlapping classes for langauge/culture reasons.
One thing you might be thinking about is that a church was transferred from classis Wisconsin to classis Minnkota a few years ago, by request of the church and both classes. The issue was that the church desired to be in a classis that did not seat women delegates. However, that was a move to a neighboring classis, not a far flung one. Requests by churches in Michigan to transfer to Minnkota have been denied in the past, so I don't think it's quite right to call it an affinity classis.
I may be misinformed, but the way I understand it is that in the CRC each church has the authority to decide for itself whether or not to have female deacons, elders, and ministers. Further, each classis can decide whether to seat female delegates. So, you can have a church that does not ordains women in a classis that has women delegates to classis from other churches, which can create conflict. You can have the reverse as well: a church may ordain women, but they may not be eligible to attend classis because their classis does not sit female deligates.
u/Mega_Mack
Reply reply Share
u/NukesForGary avatar
• 7y ago
Kuyper not Piper
Those churches in Michigan were eventually allowed to transfer to Minnkota.
Check out the news from synod this year.
Reply reply Share More replies More replies More replies More replies More replies More replies More replies
u/OpenAI avatar OpenAI • Official • Promoted
From bunnies in bucket hats to robots on Mars - ChatGPT turns imagination into images. Try it for free today ⬇️
Thumbnail image: From bunnies in bucket hats to robots on Mars - ChatGPT turns imagination into images. Try it for free today ⬇️
u/Eversapling avatar
• 7y ago • Edited 7y ago
Prayerbook and Confessional Presby
https://paedocommunion.com/churches/
Douglas Wilson and Gary North
Reply reply Share
u/cicerokirk avatar
• 7y ago
URC
Which should hopefully scare anyone curious away.
Reply reply Share More replies
u/srm038 avatar
• 7y ago
Lent Madness
I always believed paedocommunion, but the main thing that keeps me convinced was Paul's insistence that the Body must not be divided. Hence, all who are in the Body must be allowed to come. If children are baptized, then they are grafted into the Body and therefore allowed to come. In this way, credobaptists, I think, are being much more consistent - if children are not capable of choosing baptism, then the issue is settled. It makes no sense (from my perspective) to allow one sacrament but not the other. You've just kicked the extrabiblical requirement down the road.
In addition, the medieval gnosticism that insists that we must reach a certain intellectual understanding before dining with Jesus is, quite honestly, offensive to me. I try to be civil but this issue is so dear to my heart that it gets me pretty worked up.
I feed my babies because they need it to live - I don't wait for them to understand that food is converted to energy through metabolic processes. They are part of my family, and therefore I feed them.
Reply reply Share
• 7y ago
If a child isn't allowed to the Table at any age, then why allow someone with dementia or severe brain damage?
It's not at all in line with Christ's ministry.
Like, why make children listen to Scripture or hymns, cuz they aren't gonna really understand that fully either.
Guess what--even as adults we don't understand fully, we are all disciples and always will be.
Reply reply Share
u/srm038 avatar
• 7y ago
Lent Madness
Exactly. I have varying success with the brain damage angle, depending on how hard-line the person is. What about someone who is admitted, but then gets into a car accident and is reduced to the mental state of an infant? If intellectual understanding is what's required, then who shall stand?
Reply reply Share More replies
• 7y ago
PCA
What had your experience been like in CREC?
Reply reply Share
u/srm038 avatar
• 7y ago
Lent Madness
It's possible there are some credocommunion churches in the CREC (we have a really wide net), but all the ones I've been in and around are all baptocommunion. If you're baptized and not currently under discipline, you're welcome to the Table.
I've noticed as a consequence a rich theology and concentration on infants and children in general. But I think the abundance of kids has more to do with other factors, since we all know of credo churches with lots of kids.
It's always sad poetic justice to see a pastor strongly fencing the Table against children in a church with no one under 55. But like I said I hesitate to draw too close a connection.
Reply reply Share More replies More replies
Promoted
sidebar promoted post thumbnail
Reddit RulesPrivacy PolicyUser AgreementAccessibilityReddit, Inc. © 2025. All rights reserved.
Viewed using Just Read
Report an error