9. Intersection of Other Doctrines with Communion

The difficulty of convincing others of the significance of this subject — not all see the logical consequences of theological moves

The movie Searching for Bobby Fischer is a fascinating story about a prodigy chess player by the name of Josh Waitzkin. His instructor taught him two principles that I believe have a bearing on the subject of this chapter: 1) He taught Josh to begin with the end game rather than memorizing and improving the openings. 2) He taught Josh to think several moves ahead and to figure out the trajectory of a move before he played it. At one point in a championship game his opponent seemed confident that he was about to beat Josh. Josh studied the board for a long time, and when he finally saw the negative implications of his opponent’s last move, rather than playing, he put out his hand and generously offered his opponent a draw where they would both share the championship. The opponent thought he was crazy and refused. So they quickly played out their moves, and Josh won the game.

In theology it is important to 1) have a Biblical endgame in mind and 2) to see the logical and exegetical consequences of bad theological moves. Though there are far more serious implications that can arise from a doctrine like Full Preterism,³²⁵ even minor errors in theology can impact other doctrines. I see both paedo-communion and adult-communion as having negative implications longterm if (and only if) they follow the trajectory of these teachings in a rigorous and logical fashion. I praise God that many of us are blessedly inconsistent, but I believe consistency with at least the following views could lead to problems.

Potential implications of at least some paedo-communion statements

For each paedo-communion assertion that I list below, I will give what I consider to be the logically necessary impact upon other doctrines.³²⁶ Hear me clearly: not all paedo-communionists hold to the following statements. If this chapter does nothing more than to make paedo-communionists avoid the worst of their arguments, I will consider it worth writing.

1. Assuming that baptism ushers us into a “real relationship with Jesus Christ” that equals, produces, is treated as the guarantee of, profession of, or entrance into any of the following: election,³²⁷ regeneration, or justification,³²⁸ will necessitate an explanation of how such baptized children can later apostatize and become atheists. I have read many attempted explanations that have led away from the Reformed faith. Some have adopted a Lutheran-type explanation of falling away from regeneration, while I have heard others adopt full-on Federal Vision theology as a result of this conundrum. I have heard at least a couple of testimonies by converts to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy that their journey started by affirming that baptism itself produced these graces in their children. However this conundrum is answered, it has huge implications for soteriology in general, the five points of Calvinism in particular (especially perseverance of the saints), ecclesiology, eschatology, and the covenant. The Practical Theology implications could (but don’t necessarily) lead to carelessness about drawing our children continually to Christ and the Gospel. Why lead the children to God’s grace if they “already have every grace imparted to them in Baptism” (as one friend worded it)? I have also seen subsequent generations of children who never profess faith lead their local churches to all the problems that happened in the Halfway Covenant controversy.
2. Since all paedo-communionists believe that there is absolutely no need for infants to fulfill the conditions for worthy participation that are laid out in Scripture, they are de facto making two quite different approaches to the table: An approach with no conditions for one group and an approach with several conditions for the mature audience. This produces the very bifurcation within the body that they accuse adult-communionists of. On the other hand, those who have avoided examining covenant children when they become adults (they are after all “in the covenant” and have not shown outward rebellion, even though there is no faith or signs of regeneration) see some adults with no spiritual life still partaking of communion. Again, the problems in the original Halfway Covenant controversy need to be addressed. Our denomination solved this by requiring covenant children to profess faith and take covenant vows by adulthood (age 20) or be cut off from the church. Not all communions have this provision.
3. The assertion that “There are to be no ‘spiritual’ or ‘social’ superiors/inferiors at the table” (see Gallant) could logically lead to egalitarianism (something I have also witnessed within at least some paedo-communion circles).
4. Downplaying the progress that has been made in Historical Theology (i.e., the undisputed unanimity of over 50 Reformed creeds and no paedo-communion views in previous creeds) could easily lead to downplaying respect for the creeds on other doctrines. While this is not a necessary trajectory, it is a natural one. If the creeds play zero role in determining our practice in the Lord’s Supper, why would they have a role in other doctrines?
5. If womb communion gives automatic grace or baptized-infant communion gives automatic grace apart from understanding, it is but a small step to the Roman Catholic ideas of ex opere operato views of the sacraments.³²⁹ While not a heresy, there is a trajectory to this that is dangerous.
6. If communion can edify without understanding (whether given to a comatose adult or to an infant) then it impacts our view not only of the sacraments but of all the means of grace. For the connection of understanding to edification see 1 Cor. 14:3-5,12,17,26.
7. Viewing the sacraments as being family-centric can (but does not necessarily) lead to wrong views of ecclesiology. Indeed, many paedo-communionists have followed this trajectory and deny the need for church officers or the institutional church to administer baptism or the Lord’s Supper. For hints of how this trajectory happens, see my last presupposition in chapter 7.
8. In their rigorous attempt to oppose what they consider to be “rationalism” I have seen at least some paedo-communionists confuse rationalism with rationality (logical consistency). This is clearly unconfessional (see the discussion of logic in the Westmisnter Confession in chapter 4), and has the danger of leading to irrationalism. Neither rationalism nor irrationalism are biblical.
9. Hyper-objectification of the covenant (in overreaction to hyper-revivalistic-subjectivism) can lead to problems in discipline, ecumenicism (treating Roman Catholics as “brothers”), faulty views of covenant theology, a denial of perseverance of the saints, and faulty views of election, justification, and regeneration. It has also caused at least some paedo-communionists to dismiss the clearly individualistic passages (see discussion of the sacramental passages of Revelation in chapter 2) in favor of the corporate. The individual is thus swallowed up in the corporate rather than seeing both as being addressed.
10. Seeing baptism as the only profession of faith that is needed (see Sutton and Jordan), can easily lead to the very nominalism they speak against.
11. Seeing law-keeping as the only confirmation of faith that is needed following baptism can also lead to the very nominalism they speak against.
12. Dividing between privilege and responsibility (see Sutton) can lead to the presumption that John the Baptist speaks against — “bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’” (Luke 3:8).
13. Denying the confessional distinction between the visible and invisible church can lead to disastrous consequences. The logical trajectory could be Federal Vision over-objectification of the covenant, faulty views of ecclesiology, discipline, covenant, soteriology, etc.
14. We have already seen the impact that paedo-communion has had upon the Regulative Principle of worship in chapter 4.

Mild consequences of two errors held to by some in both camps

I will add two positions that are often held to by both paedo-communionists and adult-communionists. These do not have any necessary logical consequence that is negative. I list them because many who hold to these two beliefs have been lulled into complacency through them.

1. Presupposed regeneration. This common paedo-communion presupposition is perhaps the least problematic (and is actually shared by a lot of adult-communion adherents). I have occasionally witnessed people from both groups having a lackadaisical attitude toward their children’s need for the Holy Spirit’s supernatural power and a downplaying of the need to preach the Gospel to their children.
2. Presupposed faith. Though this is also a shared presupposition of many paedo-communionists and adult-communionists, it too has led some to fail to daily move their children to have an ongoing faith in Christ.

Potential implications of at least some adult-communion statements

If the following adult-communion assertions are held to (and hear me clearly — not all adult-communionists hold to them), here are some sample areas of theology that could conceivably be impacted:

1. Rejecting any authoritative relationship between the Old Testament sacramental meals and the Lord’s Supper means that we have deprived ourselves of an enormous body of helpful laws and promises. It can lead to a New-Testament-only type of Christianity. It can also negatively impact ecclesiology and the doctrine of the covenant.
2. Tying the Lord’s Supper to the Day of Atonement and to the sacrifices (as opposed to tying it to the peace meals that followed the sacrifices) can logically impact soteriology negatively (Roman Catholic view of sacrifices) and end up logically barring women from communion as well.
3. To hold that the Old Testament does not inform the qualifications for participants of the Lord’s Table leads logically to a denial of the sufficiency of the Old Testament in proving New Testament doctrine (contrary to Acts 26:22; 17:11; etc.).
4. If federal heads alone partook of the sacramental meals in Old Testament times (many adult-communionists say that the Old Testament prohibited women and children from coming to the meal), then logically women should be barred from communion today (especially since Galatians 3:28 has to do with baptism, not communion).
5. If the Talmud is used to promote a bar mitzvah age for coming to the Table (age 13), then there is both 1) an implicit denial of the sufficiency of Scripture to define terms and 2) an opening of the door to legalism. This could negatively affect every doctrine.
6. If the bar mitzvah rules are used to exclude children from wine, then both the antinomianism and legalism of the Pharisees could logically be introduced in other doctrines.
7. We have already seen the impact that adult-communion has had upon the Regulative Principle of worship in chapter 4.

Thankfully, neither paedo-communionists nor adult-communionists are always perfectly consistent, and therefore many would deny the trajectory that I believe is present. I present these things as part of my presuppositional framework that affects my interpretation to some degree.