The Proverbs tell us, “as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” This verse needs to always be handy when it comes to battles within the church. To take a stand on anything, means that there will be conflict. In the midst of that conflict, sparks will fly, just as iron sharpens irons, unless of course, you belong to one of the denominations in which heated discussions are looked down upon under the guise of improper decorum.
The doctrine of paedocommunion—the teaching that since children are members of the covenant through baptism, they should be and are admitted to the Lord’s supper—has become a hot-button issue recently. This is especially true since the PCA General Assembly ruled that those who hold to this doctrine can no longer take an exception to the Westminster Confession and be accepted as pastors. They declared that paedocommunion strikes at the vitals of the faith.
In conversations with those who fully agree with that decision, the reasoning offered is often the same as that given by Baptists for why they will not baptize their infants: “What if the child who partook grew up and left the faith? Then what?”
Baptists make the same argument when it comes to baptism, and both groups want a person to be able to make a credible profession of faith before being admitted to their particular sacrament.
The problem with this is that both groups are focusing on the subjective natures of the sacraments instead of the more important objective nature. The objective nature focuses on what God is doing, both in baptism and the LORD’s Supper. In other words, He is marking us as His own through baptism, and feeding us spiritually through the LORD’s Supper. It is His work. Not ours.
The subjective nature focuses on man. Whenever we do that, we are failing miserably.
At least the baptist are consistent in their views. The child cannot come to the table, until he has been baptized, and cannot be baptized, until he is makes a profession of faith. In Reform circles, we baptize and then divide the body up in two tiers, those who can come to the table and those who cannot. We divide the loaf. We divide the body of Christ. (The very thing Paul was warning the Corinthians agains).
Those who defend the PCA’s position will continue to bar the children of their congregations from the table. They are raising a bar that should not be raised. This is the same thing the Roman Catholics did before the Reformation. They only allowed clergy to partake. Both groups are making the same argument, with the difference being where they place the bar.
Jesus had something like this happen to Him during His earthly ministry.
13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 And after laying His hands on them, He departed from there (Matthew 19:13-15 LSB).
Here we have the principle laid before us: Children are a part of the kingdom of heaven, therefore, being members of the visible church, and being baptized, they too are to come to the table and feast, knowing that the LORD is good.
Yet some cannot have this because they feel that a child must make a profession of faith. Why? Do they not believe in the baptism given? Can we not just trust the Spirit to move when and where He pleases? Must we erect a test for those who should not be tested at all? They were born into the covenant and should have all the privileges of the covenant. Yes, they should be taught and catechized. But let us trust the Lord to move in them in His timing. Otherwise, we are starving the very children who need nourishment.
This view fails to meet the pattern we are given in Scripture. The same arguments that all good Reformed Christians make in baptizing our children, are the same arguments that should be made in allowing them to come to the table. They are members of the covenant, therefore, they should dine at the table of their King. As He has told us, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
There is a lot more to be said, but this will have to suffice for now.
As a Southern Baptist I have often wondered at the contradictions you’ve mentioned. My own mother and grandmother were not as rigid with the Lords Supper as they allowed me to join. I feel they too must have had some unspoken opinions on the subject and were never called out thankfully. I have to believe they wanted to encourage me to want to belong. Enjoyed your post very much. It gave me food for thought.
You are welcome. Glad I could help.