Introduction: In All Things Charity

Why historical theology might give us charity among the brethren

In our denomination, the Covenant Presbyterian Church (CPC), congregations are allowed to take exception to the Westminster Standards on the issue of paedo-communion.1 This concession may seem strange, given the emotion and vitriol with which proponents of both paedo-communion and credo-communion have sometimes debated,2 but the CPC has had a peaceful coexistence of both kinds of churches for a long time. While this book takes a decided stand in favor of young credo-communion, I want to acknowledge my deep respect for my brothers who disagree and either hold to automatic paedo-communion (infant-communion) or mature-communion (a degree of holiness, maturity, and doctrinal awareness, and often a minimum age of 10, 12, or even 20).

There is some historical precedent for this kind of charity because various viewpoints and practices have been held throughout church history. This has been a difficult subject and one that the church has debated as far back as Augustine (354-430)3 and possibly as far back as Cyprian (writing around AD 250).4 Thus, I do not believe that either paedo-communion or credo-communion has been able to exclusively claim to be the ancient ‘catholic’ faith since neither side of the debate has all three qualifications for being considered “catholic”: 1) antiquity, 2) consent of the church, and 3) universality of practice.5 While I believe that credo-communion has a more ancient pedigree than paedo-communion does (see next section), the date of AD 250 certainly speaks of a degree of antiquity as well. When it comes to consent of the church and universality of practice, neither view has a rock-solid case, and church fathers have sometimes been twisted by both sides of the debate.6 Given the historical differences that have existed for at least 1500 years, there should be some patience on doctrines that show two or more divergent streams of interpretation in Historical Theology.

Our denomination has practiced that charity by allowing each local congregation to make that determination for its session and its own congregants. In writing this book, it is not my intention to be divisive. I believe that this presuppositional study has the potential of helping some of us stop talking past one another, but it was primarily written to help members of our local congregation to understand the Biblical basis for our views.

Evidence from the earliest fathers for credo-communion

Some paedo-communionists have overstated their case and have uncharitably claimed that credo-communion has no support from church history whatsoever and that it is outside the scope of the “catholic” or universal faith. In the spirit of expecting that a similar charity be extended to credo-communionists, I offer a few of the many examples of clear credo-communion testimonies that are earlier than any paedo-communion statements:

Justyn Martyr (AD 100-165) said:

We call this food the Eucharist, of which only he can partake who has acknowledged the truth of our teachings, who has been cleansed by baptism for the remission of his sins and for his regeneration, and who regulates his life upon the principles laid down by Christ.7

The words, “only he,” preclude any exceptions to the rule, and the rest of the statement shows that there are conditions that all participants must exhibit before partaking. This is clearly a credo-communion statement.

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) states that the Lord’s Supper “is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.”8 Apart from faith he denied any benefit. While he acknowledged that converts could partake of the Lord’s Supper as soon as they were baptized, infants could not. He based this conclusion on Paul’s statements that the sacramental broma (βρῶμα) food of 1 Corinthians 10:3 was said by Paul to be inappropriate for either napios (νηπίοις) children or for unspiritual church members (3:1-3).9 That is as explicit a rejection of paedo-communion as he could give. He also spoke of the absolute imperative of self-examination before partaking of the Lord’s Table:

Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to custom, enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One’s own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. “So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives.10

Tertullian (AD 155-240), the only church father to speak (theoretically) against the practice of infant baptism never once mentions infant communion. Surely consistency would have made him oppose both if both were practiced.

Although Cyprian (AD 210-258) may have held to paedo-communion, he insisted that “the Eucharist is to be received with fear and honour.”11

Alleged documents that include references to paedo-communion in the early Eastern church have been proven to be pseudepigraphal and of much later composition.

As will be seen in chapter 8, Historical Theology is a helpful check and balance to Exegetical Theology. I believe huge forward progress was made by the Reformers who studied this hot issue. This progress in the development of theology was not done without considering other viewpoints. The Reformers were aware that Augustine advocated paedo-communion. They were also aware that the Hussites practiced paedo-communion and had eloquent advocates for it. Paedo-communionists sought to plead their case as late as the 1700s.12 Ultimately the paedo-communion position was rejected by every Reformed Creed (over 50 creeds in all).13 I mention this to point out that the Reformers did not adopt credo-communion without a great deal of prayerful study and exegetical debate. This is not a new issue. This progress in historical theology should at least be given due consideration before judging credo-communionists harshly (see chapter 8).

My own personal pilgrimage has been from paedo-communion to young credo-communion

Personal testimony: While I held to paedo-communion for six years (1981-1987), I was forced by the evidence to eventually take a moderating position between automatic infant-communion on the one end of the spectrum and mature-communion on the other. The position being advocated in this book takes the best arguments of both paedo-communion and adult-communion without the exegetical problems inherent in either view. I define my view as “young credo-communion” — that people are admitted to the table upon a credible profession of faith, with an absolute minimum age of three, but with no automatic age of admission. It is very close to the official view of the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but does not necessarily coincide with every congregation’s practice in those denominations.

A later chapter will seek to show that all three positions have very strong exegetical evidence in their favor, but only the young credo-communion position can adequately account for the strongest points of both paedo-communion and mature-communion. I respectfully submit this book as supplying my own reasons for having changed my position, not as an exhaustive exegetical treatment of the subject. Many have asked me for a reason for our practice. This book gives that reason, even though it is still very introductory in nature.

My pilgrimage relates to presuppositions, a subject that undergirds the rest of the book. Over time I have gradually become aware of how powerfully our presuppositions impact our exegetical conclusions. This has made me realize that people can sincerely (though wrongly) interpret the same facts that I am interpreting and come to different conclusions. It is my hope that by lovingly talking at the presuppositional level, brothers who disagree can at least understand where each one is coming from. By explicitly laying out my own presuppositions, I have made myself vulnerable to critique — and I want to be open to challenge. If I can be shown to be wrong on my presuppositions, it will automatically modify some of the conclusions. Likewise, if the reader sees some of his own presuppositions not standing up in the light of scrutiny, then he too can humbly grow. Therefore, I will hasten to say that though this book contains my current conclusions, critiques by others are certainly welcome as we seek to grow in our understanding of the whole counsel of God.

Books and articles consulted in this study

In case the reader is curious about which articles and books I have consulted over the years, I offer the following bibliography. This is by no means complete. Nor do I recommend all of the following titles as being the best representatives. I welcome any suggested articles that may have been overlooked. And sadly, I am forced to bifurcate these readings into two groups, rather than the fourteen I outline in chapter 2.

Pro Paedo-communion (in alphabetical order)

  1. Bliek, Ken. unpublished letter.
  2. Brouwer, Kamp, Lunshof, Polman: Committee to Study Clarification of Public Profession of Faith for Covenant Children, “Report B” to Synod 1995 (CRC)
  3. Community Presbyterian Church. “Covenant Communion: Defining the Issue.” Paper giving the official position of Community Presbyterian Church, Louisville, KY in 2006. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52ed7849e4b00e157ba 533f7/t/54241b34e4b0bfeb02063d0f/1411652404050/ Covenant-Communion.pdf
  4. Elliott, Michael. “Admission to the Lord’s Table.” (Unpublished paper, nd).
  5. Faith Formation Committee, “Children at the Table: Toward a Guiding Principle for Biblically Faithful Celebrations of the Lord’s Supper” at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.562.2879&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  6. Fodor, Rev Fr Patrick S. “Should Baptized Infants Be Communed?” Available at https://www.scribd.com/doc/18759332/A-Case-for-Infant-Communion-in-the-Lutheran-Church-Missouri-Synod
  7. Futrell, Richard. “Does Our Lord Invite Baptized Infants to His Supper?” Available at https://kimberlinglutheran.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Infant-and-Early-Communion-with-Appendix.pdf
  8. Gallant, Tim. Paedocommunion Debate (vs Steve Schlissel) Available at http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=1027
  9. Gallant, Tim. “Brief Theses on Communion and Covenant Children” Available at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_brief_theses.php
  10. Gallant, Tim. “Covenant Communion” (MP3 format download)
  11. Gallant, Tim. “Discerning the Body: 1 Corinthians 11:29 & Paedocommunion” Available at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/ gallant_discerning_the_body.php
  12. Gallant, Tim. “Examination and Remembrance” Available at https://paedocommunion.com/articles/gallant_examination_and_remembrance.php
  13. Gallant, Tim. “Paedocommunion & the Church Fathers: A Catena of Quotations” Available at https://paedocommunion.com/ articles/fathers_quotations.php
  14. Gallant, Tim. Feed My Lambs (Grand Prairie, AL, Canada: Pactum Reformanda Publishing, 2002)
  15. Gehlbach, Rev Gary V. “The Discontinuance of the Practice of Communing Infants in the Western Church” Available at http://wctc.net/~gehlbach/IC/Papers/infant%20comm%20-%2096%20paper.htm
  16. Graveling, Rev. James. “Paedocommunion and Women and Children’s Participation Under the New Covenant.” Unpublished paper.
  17. Hielema, Syd. “A Precious Feast, A Tangled Web: A Case for Welcoming Children at the Table” Available at https://worship. calvin.edu/resources/resource-library/a-precious-feast-a-tangled-web- a-case-for-welcoming-children-at-the-table
  18. Horne, Mark. “A Brief Response to Rev. Richard Bacon’s Opposition to Paedocommunion” Available at http://hornes.org/ theologia/mark-horne/a-brief-response-to-rev-richard-bacons- opposition-to-paedocommunion
  19. Horne, Mark. “A Response to Rev. Bacon’s Argument that Manna was not a Sacrament” http://hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/a-response-to-rev-bacons-argument-that-manna-was-not-a-sacrament
  20. Horne, Mark. “John Calvin and Paedocommunion” Available at http://hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/john-calvin-paedocommunion
  21. Horne, Mark. “You and Your Son and Daughter: Christ’s Communion with Young Children” http://hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/you-and-your-son-and-daughter
  22. Jordan, James. “Theses on Paedocommunion,” in The Geneva Papers (Tyler, TX: Geneva Divinity School, 1982)
  23. Jordan, James. The Sociology of the Church. (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries 1986), p. 246ff.
  24. Keidel, Christian L. “Is the Lord’s Supper for Children?” WTJ 37 (1975)
  25. Lee, Tommy. “Appendix: The Theology of Paedocommunion”
  26. Lee, Tommy. “The History of Paedocommunion: From the Early Church Until 1500.”
  27. Leithart, Peter J. “Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated?” Available here — https://theopolisinstitute.com/daddy-why-was-i-excommunicated/
  28. Leithart, Peter J. “Paedocommunion, the Gospel, and the Church, I”
  29. Leithart, Peter. “Response to George Knight on Paedocommunion.” In E. Calvin Beisner, ed., The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Knox Seminary Press, 2004)
  30. Lusk, Rich. “For the Children’s Sake: An Alternative Angle on the Paedocommunion Debate”
  31. Lusk, Rich. Paedofaith. Montroe, Louisiana: Athanasius Press, 2005.
  32. Meyers, Jeffrey. “Presbyterian, Examine Thyself”
  33. Miscellaneous. Debate on Capo.org between paedocommunionists, adult-communionists, and young credocommunionists. This site no longer exists.
  34. Musuclus, Wolfgang. (1497-1563) was a leading reformer in the cities of Augsburg and Berne. Some translation of his Latin writing favoring paedocommunion can be found here https://paedocommunion.com/articles/musculus_common_places.php
  35. North, Gary. A fictional dialogue between Ronald Reagan’s legal guardian and a Presbyterian Pastor — https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/paedocommunion-excommunication-ronald-reagan.23350/
  36. Numerous other magazine, privately written, and email articles by various authors.
  37. Pearcy, David L. “Infant Communion Part I: The Historical Practice,” Currents in Theology and Mission 7 (1980):43-47
  38. Pierce, James. An Essay in Favor of Paedocommunion a reprint of a 1728 publication (Present Reign Publications, 2016).
  39. Purcell, Blake. “The Testimony of the Ancient Church,” in The Case for Covenant Communion, ed. Gregg Strawbridge, (Monroe, AL: Athanasius Press, 2006), 131-45. Also, I had the privilege of reading his unpublised masters thesis that delved into this in much more depth. I consider his master’s thesis to be the best overview of paedocommunion in the early church, though I believe he has overstated the case with a few fathers.
  40. Purcell, Blake. The Holy Eucharist (St. Petersburg, Russia: 2006), at https://www.scribd.com/document/245712493/Self-Suspension-and-the-Holy-Eucharist
  41. Rayburn, Robert S. “Studies in Exodus (No. 13): Exodus 12:1–49”
  42. Rayburn, Robert S. “Our Historic Practice is Invisible in the Bible”
  43. Rayburn, Robert S. “PCA Minority Report” (Both the majority and minority reports are available at the PCA website). Also see his sermon on Passover and Paedocommunion at https://jeffreyjmeyers.blogspot.com/2008/01/passover-paedocommunion.html
  44. Simmons, Ray. “Ray’s Notes on Phil Kayser’s Communion Debate Book. Note: Dr. Kayser’s Book is Only Draft At This Point” (a very respectful interaction from a godly intern)
  45. Strawbridge, Gregg. “Eucharist Participants in the Early Centuries: Biblical and Historical Evidence for Paedocommunion.”
  46. Strawbridge, Gregg, ed. “The Case for Covenant Communion” (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2006)
  47. Sutton, Ray. “Household Communion,” Covenant Renewal, vol. 11, #9.
  48. Sutton, Ray. “Presuppositions of Paedocommunion,” in The Geneva Papers, 1982 Special Edition. Available here https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/geneva/82s2.pdf
  49. Wandel, Bryan. (Aug. 21, 2015 paper)
  50. Williamson, G. I., et al, “OPC Majority Report”
  51. Wilson, Douglas, Peter Leithart, et al, “That Wonderful Cup” in Credenda Agenda 18-1.

Various forms of anti-paedo-communion (in alphabetical order)

  1. Allison, Peter. “Covenant Communion or Credo-Communion? A Question of Authority.” Unpublished paper (2014).
  2. Allister, Donald. “Admitting Children to Holy Communion,” Churchman 113 (1999): 295-306. Available here: http://archive.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_113_4_Allister.pdf. This is not strongly pro, but examining some of the problems in the debate within the Anglican Church.
  3. Bacon, Richard. “What Mean Ye by this Service?” Web paper published in 1996.
  4. Bass, David A. “Paedocommunion: A Return to or Departure from Biblical Practice” http://www.newgenecaopc.org/pb.asp
  5. Beckwith, Roger T. “The Age of Admission to the Lord’s Supper,” WTJ 38 (1976): 123-151. Also available at https:// churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/085/Cman_085_1_Beckwith.pdf
  6. CAPO. Debate on Capo.org between paedocommunionists, adult-communionists, and young credocommunionists. This site no longer exists.
  7. Coppes, Leonard. “OPC Minority Report (#1)” Available at https://opc.org/GA/paedocommunion.html#minority1
  8. Coppes, Leonard. Daddy, May I Take Communion (Thornton, CO: Leonardy Coppes, 1988)
  9. Deddens, Dr. K. “May Children Partake of the Lord’s Supper?” Available http://www.spindleworks.com/library/deddens/ paedo.htm
  10. Gordon, T. David. “Paedocommunion.” Word document available at http://www.tdgordon.net/theology/ecclesiology_worship_polity/paedocommunion.doc.
  11. Gunn, Grover. Unpublished letter defending young credocommunion.
  12. Johnson, Gregory. “Why Paedocommunion is a Bad Idea: Expanding a Blessing or Bringing Down a Curse?” Unpublished paper.
  13. Keister, Lane. “Exceptions Required to be Taken by Paedo-Communion Adherents” (2009). Available at https://greenbaggins. wordpress.com/2009/06/16/exceptions-required-to-be-taken -by-paedo-communion-adherents/
  14. Lachman, David. Study Committee on Paedocommunion: Minority Report. Philadelphia Presbytery, May 1986.
  15. Lee, Francis Nigel. “Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism: How Trendy Theologizers Have Retreated from the Reformation (A Short History of the Modern Quasi-Protestant Paedocommunion Novelty).” Available at http://www.dr-fnlee.org/paedocommunionism-versus-protestantism/.
  16. Lee, Francis Nigel. “Summary Against Paedocommunion.” Available at http://www.dr-fnlee.org/summary-against-paidocommunion/.
  17. Lefebvre, Michael. ‘Communion: Who Participates? A Working Position-Paper on the Question of Paedocommunion (2005)’, www.mlefebvre.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/communion.pdf.
  18. Lillback, Dr Peter A. “OPC Minority Report (#2)” Available https://opc.org/GA/paedocommunion.html#minority2.
  19. Pipa, Joey. “Paedocommunion: A Wrong View of Membership and Sacrament.” Available at https://byfaithonline.com/paedocommunion-a-wrong-view-of-membership-a-wrong-view-of-the-sacrament/.
  20. Reformed Church of the United States, Committee to Investigate the Situation at Westminster Seminary in Regard to Infant Communion
  21. Schlissel, Steve versus Tim Gallant, Paedocommunion Debate — Available at http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=1027 He argues for the age of puberty.
  22. Schwertley, Rev. Brian M. Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination at http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/ PAEDOCOMMUNION-Schwertley.htm.
  23. Venema, Cornelis P. Children at the Lord’s Table? (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009). Also see his 2015 article, “Old Testament Evidence regarding Paedocommunon,” https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/old-testament-evidence-regarding-paedocommunion. Also see, “The New Testament Evidence Regarding Paedocommunion,” https://www.reformedfellowship.net/the-new-testament-evidence-regarding-paedocommunion-part-one.
  24. Waters, Guy and Ligon Duncan, eds., Children and the Lord’s Supper (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2011).

Up next

1. Presuppositions Do Affect Exegesis