5. Presuppositions of Various Paedo-Communionists

As can be seen from chapter 2, paedo-communionists are not united in their arguments any more than other viewpoints are. This means that not every paedo-communionist would agree with every presupposition articulated in this chapter. In order to be as fair as I could, I have tried to cover the presuppositions I have run across from the most famous adherents of this position. Future editions of this book may highlight presuppositions that I have missed from other paedo-communion defenses. If you are a paedo-communionist who believes that I have missed key presuppositions that need to be addressed, let me know.

Presuppositions given by Tim Gallant

Tim Gallant is probably one of the most famous and most widely read of all the paedo-communionists. His gracious tone and willingness to engage the Scripture with skeptics have made him very popular. I think his books should be read by all who are wrestling through the question of worthy participation. For the reader’s convenience, the introduction of my book has listed his and other paedo-communion writings that I have studied.

Tim Gallant has very conveniently summarized the whole of his system of paedo-communion in eleven “theses” that stand at the heart of his defense of paedo-communion.¹⁸⁷ If one or more of these presuppositions can be shown to be wrong, then it brings his system into question. If all of his presuppositions are in error, then the entire foundation for his version of paedo-communion collapses. Let’s examine each one:

Gallant’s first thesis

The children of believers are saints (1 Cor. 7:14), possessors of the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 19:13-14), and therefore members of Christ’s Church.¹⁸⁸

This complex thesis has three faulty assumptions or presuppositions. I will deal with one presupposition at a time:

First, if the word “holy” in 1 Corinthians 7:14 makes children “saints,” then it also makes the unbelieving spouse a “saint” since he/she is also said to be “holy” or “set apart.” The meaning and implications that we attribute to the word “holy” in the first part of the sentence must be consistent with the meaning and implications of the same word in the second part of the sentence. The text is variously translated as, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified (ἁγιάζω — or “set apart” or “made holy”) by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified (ἁγιάζω — or “set apart” or “made holy”) by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are sanctified (ἅγιος — or “set apart” or “made holy”).” The same root word for holiness, sanctification, or set-apartness is used of both the child and the unbeliever.

This completely undermines the implications that Gallant wants to draw from this verse. Earlier in the book he claims that “Their status as saints means that they must be regarded as fit participants in the sacrament [of the Lord’s table.]”¹⁸⁹ If wearing the title of “saint” (or holy or sanctified) makes the child worthy of the table, then since the unbelieving spouse wears the title “saint” (or holy or sanctified), he/she too must be admitted to the table. It is clear that his argument proves too much, which shows that his deduction is not an example of “good and necessary consequence.” Either his definition of ἅγιος is wrong, or the implications he seeks to deduce from it are not legitimate deductions.

It is helpful to give a bit more precision to the term ἅγιος and the verbal form ἁγιάζω. The basic meaning of the word is to be “set apart,” and the Bible speaks of two different ways of being set apart: 1) It can apply to inward holiness of those who are regenerate and whose spirits have been set apart to God (1 Thess. 3:13). 2) It can apply to outward holiness of things or people who have been outwardly set apart to God’s presence (Matt. 24:15).

If we take the first option, it refers to regeneration and inward holiness. This seems to be the way that Gallant uses the term elsewhere.¹⁹⁰ Based on the above discussion we know that the word “holy” cannot possibly mean that the child is saved (or even presumed to be saved), since this would mean that the “holy” unbelieving spouse is also saved, something contradicted by verse 16. Paul commands the believer to not divorce the unbeliever, “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” Obviously being “holy” does not make that unbelieving spouse saved. If we are to be consistent with Paul’s usage of the term, we would have to say that Paul did not intend for it to mean that the child is saved either. (He may be or may not be, but that is not Paul’s point.)

The other option is that the term ἅγιος and the verbal form ἁγιάζω means to be outwardly set apart. This is a very common meaning of the term. In the Old Testament, the closer to God’s Shekinah Glory Cloud Presence that you traveled, the more holy the people and things were outwardly considered to be. So Israel was the holy land (Zech. 2:12), and within Israel Jerusalem was the holy city (Neh. 11:1,18; Isa. 52:1; Dan. 9:24), and within Jerusalem the temple mount was the holy mountain (Isa. 27:13; Ezek. 20:40), and on the mount there was a separation of “the holy district” from “the city’s property” (Ezek. 45:7). Then there was the holy temple (Ps. 5:7), the holy place (Ex. 26:33; 29:31; etc.), and the Holy of Holies, which was otherwise called the “Most Holy Place” (Ex. 26:33-34; 1 Kings 6:16; 7:50; etc.). There were walls “to separate the holy areas from the common” (Ezek. 42:20). Certain fields could be holy (Jer. 31:4), as could garments (Ezek. 42:14; 44:19), animals (Lev. 27:9), and even pots and pans (Ex. 40:9-10).

Which kind of holiness is meant in 1 Corinthians 7:14? Since we have already shown that the context (v. 16) rules out the inward holiness, the only option left is an outward setting apart of people to the Lord’s presence. In effect, Paul is stating that the moment an adult comes to Christ, God’s kingdom invades that family and God’s angels begin to be at work in that entire family.¹⁹¹ That entire family is set apart to kingdom influence. As Geoffrey Bromiley summarizes it:

…in virtue of the other’s faith he or she is separated to God…and comes into the sphere of evangelical action and promise with a hope of future conversion. The same is true of the children. (How much more so, one might suppose, when both the parents are confessing Christians.)¹⁹²

This outward setting apart is totally consistent with an outward cleansing that the child receives in 1 Corinthians 7:14. I agree with Gallant that the term “unclean” is used as a synonym for “unbaptized” in the Bible,¹⁹³ so that 1 Corinthians 7:14 could be paraphrased, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unbaptized, but now they are sanctified.” Or as Gallant words it, “our children are not unclean…Their bodies have been washed with the pure water of baptism” (cf. Heb. 10:22). Though I disagree with his conclusion in the next phrase, “so that they may partake of the feast of the Lord.”¹⁹⁴

Just as with being “set apart,” there are two ways that the word “(un)clean” is used in the Bible: There is outward (covenantal) cleansing such as “the purifying (καθαρος n) of the flesh” by ritual baptisms (Heb. 9:13),¹⁹⁵ and there is inward cleansing spoken of as the “purifying (καθαρος v) of their hearts” by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:9). Since verse 16 has already denied the legitimacy of assuming regeneration, the implication of being clean versus unclean must refer to baptism, since baptism is the only New Testament ritual that is said to purify the flesh. All of this completely undermines Gallant’s first presupposition that is embedded into his first thesis.

What about his second presupposition — that Jesus made the children of believers “possessors of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:13-14)”? Again, there are two ways that people can possess the kingdom. They can be outwardly in the kingdom as church members (something I also affirm) or they can be inwardly in the kingdom as the elect (something that may be true, but is not true of every situation). “They are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). Failure to clearly make the confessional distinctions between the visible and invisible church and the visible and invisible kingdom can easily lead to confusion in the conclusions.

Technically Matthew 19:13-14 does not say that all children of believers possess the kingdom of heaven — something explicitly contradicted by the stories of Ishmael (Gal. 4:21-31; Rom. 9:6-10) and Esau (Rom. 9:10-13), and contradicted by Paul’s conclusion that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham” (Rom. 9:6-7). It is clear in Romans 9 that election cuts down through the covenant and differentiates between “the children of the flesh” and “the children of God” and says that the children of the flesh “are not the children of God” (Rom. 9:8).

Instead of assuming that children are automatically united to Christ, Christ tells us to let the children come to Him for “of such (τοιούτων) is the kingdom of heaven.” First, “of such” does indeed imply that at least some infants are in the kingdom. Additionally, the “of such” implies that some are not in the kingdom.

Second, it is especially significant that Jesus says about the covenant children who were already outwardly in the kingdom that they should be urged to come to Him. If they are already possessors of the kingdom of heaven in every sense of that term, why are they further urged to “come to Me”? Would that not be a superfluous commandment if all of the children were already united to Jesus by grace? The reason Jesus urges the parents to let those covenant children come to Him is that Scripture is replete with examples of covenant children who are not regenerate and who do not believe (as was the case with Ishmael and Esau). There is no guarantee that all children will be like Isaac, or we would not have apostate churches like Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, or liberal Protestant churches. Apostate denominations seem to have arisen precisely because of such presumption.

Obviously the kingdom of heaven has children in it, but Ishmael and Esau stand as warnings that we must not assume anything about their heart condition. As mentioned already, Galatians 3-4 makes a big difference between being an heir of the covenant promises and being a son who possesses those promises. Being an heir comes by baptism into the visible church and being a possessor comes by being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the invisible church.

If he had left the previous two premises out, I could have agreed with his conclusion — “and therefore members of Christ’s Church.” We don’t need to presume the first two premises to come to the conclusion that children are included in the church by baptism. Genesis 17 very clearly affirmed that the sign of the covenant must be applied to our children, whether they are regenerate (like Isaac) or unregenerate (like Ishmael and perhaps some slaves). We don’t need to assume that baptism replaced circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. It did (Gal. 3:26-4:2; Col. 2:11-12). We don’t need to assume that children were baptized. 1 Corinthians 7:14 affirms that the children of believers are not only set apart, but they were baptized. In other words, we don’t need the faulty first two presuppositions to conclude (his “therefore”) with his third presupposition. That presupposition stands on solid exegetical ground from other portions of Scripture.¹⁹⁶

Gallant’s second thesis

The children of believers are therefore rightly baptized, to signify and seal their real relationship with Jesus Christ, even as infants were circumcised under the old covenant (Gen. 17:10-14; cf. Col. 2:11-12).¹⁹⁷

This too has muddled reasoning. The “therefore” refers back to the faulty assumptions in the first thesis. Depending upon what he means by a “real relationship with Jesus Christ,” there may be another faulty assumption imported here. Obviously God claims our children as “My children” (Ezek. 16:21) whom God has placed under parents as “stewards” (Gal. 4:1-2) who have a duty to lead them to faith (Gal. 4:1-7). So there is a relationship there. We must distinguish between a covenantal relationship and a living relationship. Both are “real” relationships, but only the latter is saving.

Just to illustrate, God said of the firstborn, “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine” (Ex. 13:2). There is a difference between saying that every firstborn child is consecrated to God, and saying that every firstborn child is regenerate, something explicitly contradicted by many Scriptures. He said, “the Levites shall be Mine” (Num. 3:12), but that was no guarantee that all Levites were regenerate. Israel was declared to belong to God, but “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). These passages all illustrate two types of real relationship — an outward covenantal one and an inward living one.

If by that phrase “real relationship” he means that the stewards of the covenant (Gal. 4:2) are constantly calling those circumcised/baptized members of the church to believe in Christ and submit to Christ, then yes, there is an outward covenantal relationship.

If by “real relationship” he means that they are in the invisible church or are spiritually united to Christ, then I would say, No. This is also illustrated by the very chapter that Gallant appeals to in Genesis. God had already told Abraham that He would not establish His covenant with Ishmael (Gen. 17:18-21), but God made Abraham apply the sign of the covenant to Ishmael anyway (Gen. 17:10-13,23-27). He got the sign of the covenant without actually possessing the covenant. Paul calls Ishmael unregenerate (Gal. 4:21-31). So obviously circumcision did not sign and seal a real inward relationship with God. It signed and sealed the claim of God’s law and the promise of the Gospel to all who believe. It showed he was outwardly in the covenant and in the visible church, but God had already shown that he had no real union with Him. Once he reached adulthood without embracing the faith personally, he was cast out of the visible church (Gen. 21:10,12-21; Gal. 4:30).

Likewise, God hated Esau long before he was born (Mal. 1:3; Rom. 9:13), yet God made it clear that Isaac was still required to apply the sign of the Abrahamic covenant to Esau. If God hated Esau in the womb, it is obvious that Esau did not have a “real relationship with Jesus Christ” in the inward sense even though he was outwardly in the covenant and responsible to its laws. Indeed, Genesis 17 says that all Abraham’s slaves were circumcised (all 318 of them — see Gen. 14:14), yet there is no indication that all were in real union with Christ or that all even remained faithful to the covenant in later chapters. It has been popular in recent years to jettison the Westminster Confession’s important distinction between the visible and invisible church, but a rejection of this distinction leads to muddying the difference between Isaacs and Ishmaels.

Gallant’s third thesis

Those who are baptized into Christ possess full inheritance rights in the new covenant (Gal. 3:27), and are therefore included in all its privileges (Gal. 3:26-29).¹⁹⁸

There are two problems with this thesis. The first is that Gallant fails to distinguish between being an “heir” of the Abrahamic promises and “possessing full inheritance rights.” Galatians 4:1 denies this presupposition’s accuracy when it states that “the heir, as long as he is a little child¹⁹⁹ does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.” He is an heir of the inheritance, but not yet a possessor of the inheritance.

The logic of Galatians 3:26-4:7 is as follows: adult Gentiles enter the Abrahamic covenant by faith (3:26) and baptism (3:27), after which they are treated as “Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (3:29). Just as in the Abrahamic covenant, the infants of those believers are also heirs of the promises (4:1). Paul’s logic is clear that “the heir, as long as he is a little child [literally a “not yet speaking child” (νήπιος)] does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we…were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:2-5). The law’s purpose within the covenant is to be “our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. After faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal. 3:24-25). In other words, though our children are heirs of the promises, they do not get to exercise all of the covenant’s privileges as long as they are napios children. What is the significance of the napios stage of childhood? It cannot express its faith. Why would that matter, since we have at least two examples of faith in the womb? Well, it appears that the next rights of membership after baptism include the need for adults to hear expressions of faith.

Contrary to the assumptions of adult-communion, if faith alone ushers us into the privileges of sonship (3:26; 4:5-7), then children quite young should be able to be seen as sons. We do see children expressing faith as early as age three. This was the pattern set in 2 Chronicles 31:15-19, which allowed sacramental food to be distributed to those who were “three years old and up” if and only if they met the six conditions mentioned earlier in this book, one of which shows a Godward faith. This was the pattern set in Isaac who was not allowed to the feast until a later age (estimated by some to be between 3 and 5).²⁰⁰ In the same way, the two-year-old napios child of Galatians 4:1-2 was not allowed to have full sonship privileges until he had gone past the napios stage, even if he was regenerate.

The next faulty presupposition is that if the child possesses full inheritance rights, he should be “therefore included in all its privileges.” There are many privileges of the covenant that children obviously cannot immediately enter. Marriage is “by covenant” (Mal. 2:14), yet a young child is physically incapable of taking on the covenant privileges of marriage. Though it is good for all covenant members to emulate the characteristics of officers, such as being “temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior”, etc. (see 1 Tim. 3:1-13), children are not included in the covenant offices of elder or deacon. Though voting for your covenant representatives is a covenant privilege, it is a privilege only allowed for males 20 years old or above to actually practice.²⁰¹ Though teaching is a covenant privilege, Scripture says, “Let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). Scripture distinguishes between those in the church who are able to only drink milk and those who are able to eat solid food. Both “milk” and “solid” food are obviously covenant privileges (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2). “But solid food belongs to those who are mature, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:14).

Therefore, to say that all children of believers are included in all covenant privileges is definitely overstating the case. Many covenant privileges require ability. If there are exceptions to infants possessing “all” covenant privileges, then we should look to the Scriptures for explicit proof that children younger than three can partake of the Lord’s Table — especially when both the Old and New Testaments explicitly set forth conditions for worthy partaking.

Gallant’s fourth thesis

The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is one of these privileges which belong to the baptized body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-17; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13).²⁰²

Gallant’s thesis makes initial sense if there is no distinction between the visible and invisible church. See our discussion of his second thesis on the “real relationship” to Christ.

Gallant’s thesis also makes sense if we ignore Paul’s distinction between heirs and sons in Galatians 3-4. Esau was a circumcised heir, but not a son of faith. Jacob was an heir and a son through faith.

Gallant’s thesis also makes sense if we ignore the numerous conditions for worthy participation that Paul lays out in 1 Corinthians 10-11. Those verses must be interpreted within a context. Since chapter 2 demonstrated that the conditions Paul gave for worthy participation in 1 Corinthians 10-11 are true for “every” communion participant, then we should not admit those who can’t meet those conditions unless we have explicit warrant from Scripture. Even if we were to concede the previous two paragraphs, we could then ask, “When does each baptized person enter into his privileges?” The answer would be, “When he meets God’s conditions for worthy participation.”

Gallant’s fifth thesis

Sacraments are signs and seals which depict spiritual realities, and are not meant to be severed from those realities (cf. Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 10:16).²⁰³

Agreed, those signs and seals must continually point to what they sign and seal. There is an equal danger in confusing the sign with the reality to which it points. Consider the following things that the Scripture explicitly says that circumcision and baptism sign and seal, and ask if all (or even a majority) of the children so signed and sealed actually had the reality:

Justification by faith is signed and sealed by circumcision (Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 2:25-29; Phil 3:3) and baptism (Acts 8:37; 2:38). God sovereignly granted justification to Isaac and Jacob but did not grant justification (the spiritual reality) to Ishmael or Esau. “For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?” (Rom. 3:3). Paul’s conclusion is “No.” Paul did not confuse the sign with the reality. Instead, he pressed the claims of the sign and seal upon the people who were outwardly in the covenant. He was acting as a steward and tutor to lead them to Christ.

Cleansing from defilement is signed and sealed by circumcision (Jer. 4:4; Lev. 26:14) and baptism (1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 7:14). Did all of Israel get cleansed in heart? No. That does not nullify the “profit of circumcision” (Rom. 3:1) which was beneficial in many ways (Rom. 3:2ff).

Both circumcision (Ezra 9:2; Isa. 6:13; Mal. 2:15) and baptism (1 Cor. 7:14) signed and sealed being set apart to God. But paedocommunionists should not assume it is an inward setting apart (i.e., inward sanctifation) since in context even the unbelieving spouse is set apart to God in some sense: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband” (v. 14). Yet verse 16 makes clear that they are not yet saved. It is better to understand these passages as saying that God’s kingdom invades a family the moment one member becomes a believer because that saved person has the Spirit of God, has angelic ministers, and experiences the powers of the age to come. All of this makes the whole family outwardly sanctified (set apart) and all of this gives hope of the salvation of the whole household. But as verse 16 makes clear, such salvation is not automatic. We are called to lead those family members to Christ.

Both circumcision (Josh. 5:9 with verses 2-9) and baptism (Rom. 6:3-4) signed and sealed death to the world (“Egypt”) and entrance into new life. The history of the church shows that there are no guarantees. We must constantly be pressing our children into the duty of “improving our baptism” by faith.²⁰⁴

Both circumcision (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Gal. 3:16,29; Gen. 17:7-8; Col. 2:11) and baptism (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1-8) signed and sealed union with God. Ishmael neglected those promises and Esau hated his birthright. God explicitly said that Ishmael did not possess the spiritual reality (see Gen. 17:17-21) of the sacrament of circumcision that was administered to him (Gen. 17:23-27).

Both circumcision (Rom. 2:28-29; Jer. 4:4; Deut. 10:16; 30:6) and baptism (1 Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:11-12) signed and sealed the necessity of an inner experience, namely the spiritual circumcision of the heart and the spiritual baptism of the Spirit. This is our hope for all of our children, and in the New Covenant there is far greater expectation that this will happen, but the record of both the Old and New Testaments makes it clear that we should not bank our hope on the sign itself, and that the sign is not sufficient to make worthy partakers of the Lord’s Table.

Both circumcision (Gen. 17:10,23-27) and baptism (Acts 16:15,33; 1 Cor. 1:16) signed and sealed that God’s covenant grace moves in generations and embraces households. Those household individuals must look to what the sign points to and believe.

Gallant’s sixth thesis

Therefore, the whole baptized Church is in principle given authority to partake of the Lord’s table, since the bread and the body are coextensive (1 Cor. 10:16-17). Biblically, barring from the table is an administration of discipline (excommunication), to declare on Christ’s authority that the barred person is under the judgment of the kingdom (1 Cor. 5:1-8; Matt. 18:15-20).²⁰⁵

There are a number of faulty presuppositions here:

First, since the “therefore” refers back to the earlier faulty presuppositions, there is no valid conclusion that can be inferred. The earlier faulty presuppositions will automatically lead to faulty conclusions.

Second, it is not accurate to say that “the bread and the body are coextensive” or there would be no basis for the Biblical steps of discipline known as 1) definite suspension of a “brother” from the table, 2) indefinite suspension of a “brother” from the table, or 3) shunning. Consider the following points:

1. Suspension does not remove the offender’s membership or office, but temporarily removes the privileges of such membership and/or office. This is illustrated in 1 Corinthians 5, where a man in the Corinthian church was guilty of heinous sin (vv. 1-2,9,11). This man was not yet excommunicated since he was still “among you” (1 Cor. 5:1), was still “inside” the church (v. 12), had not yet been delivered over to Satan (v. 5), had not been purged out (v. 7), was not yet in the world (v. 10) and was still “named a brother” by the church (v. 11). Shunning is a stage prior to excommunication where the whole church shuns a brother who is still a member of that church, and they do so to bring him to shame and repentance. Once excommunication happens, the person is no longer acknowledged as a “brother” who is “inside” the church (vv. 9-13) but is considered “outside” and part of the world (5:12-13). In a previous letter, Paul had instructed the Corinthians to shun immoral people in the church as a stage of discipline (v. 9). But the Corinthians had misunderstood Paul. They thought he was telling them to shun those outside the church as well. So in 1 Corinthians, Paul clarifies that shunning is only for those “named a brother”, those still within the church (vv. 10-11). Paul then instructs the Corinthians to excommunicate the immoral man and cast him out of the church. (v. 13). Once a person is cast out of the church, you can relate to them as anyone else in the world — some you might avoid, and some you might eat with just like Jesus did. When suspension has happened, no one may eat fellowship meals with the person (“not even to eat with such a person” – v. 11), even though they are still members. So suspension is not identical with excommunication.
2. The optional shunning portion of suspension deserves more treatment. It is not the same as excommunication and can be more extensive than simply suspension from the Lord’s Table. Jonathan Edwards makes an error in his exegesis when he claims that believers should never have anything whatsoever to do with those who are excommunicated. He arrives at this conclusion by mistakenly applying the shunning of 1 Corinthians 5 to all excommunicates. As has already been demonstrated in the previous point, the person in 1 Corinthians 5 has not yet been excommunicated and is still a member. While shunning some excommunicated people is wise, especially if the excommunicated person is particularly vile or a dangerous teacher, Jay Adams demonstrates²⁰⁶ that this is not a requirement for all excommunicated people. Edwards’ chief exegetical error is to apply verses that are clearly being applied to members (see previous point) and misapplying them to non-members. Consider the following contrasts between full excommunication and shunning: A) Matthew 18:17-19 deals with those cast out of the church while 1 Corinthians 5 deals with those who have not yet been cast out (see previous point). B) Matthew 18:17 treats the disciplined person as a heathen and publican, while 1 Corinthians 5 explicitly tells us not to treat the shunned person as we would those who are already in the world (vv. 11-13), but only to shun a person who is still being “named a brother” (v. 11). Christ explicitly forbids us from naming excommunicates as brothers. C) Third, how did Jesus treat heathens and tax collectors? He ate with them (Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30), preached the Gospel to them calling upon them to repent (Matt. 21:32f; Mark 2:15f; Luke 19:2ff), called them to follow Him (Luke 5:27) and was a friend to them (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34). In other words, He did not shun them. Paul admonishes us “not to keep company” with the person being shunned (vv. 9,11) and “not even to eat with such a person” (v. 11). D) There is no longer a need to judge an excommunicated person since they are already handed over to Satan and are already experiencing God’s heavy hand of judgment (1 Cor. 5:12-13), but we are commanded to keep judging the person being shunned (1 Cor. 5:12) until the point when he is “put away” in excommunication (v. 13). So on every level, the shunning/suspension being discussed is clearly distinguished from excommunication.

Third, not all absence from the table is church discipline. We must distinguish between 1) being barred from the table via discipline, 2) being excused from the table because of incapacity or other biblical excuses, and 3) not yet being eligible for the table. Those are three quite distinct categories that are mentioned in the Bible. It is irresponsible exegesis to say that non-communicant members are excommunicated non-members.

Who were excused from the table in the Old Testament? Women and children. Only men were mandated to come (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16). This was not an excommunication of women and children. It was a concession or an excusing of women and children, though they were obviously welcome (Luke 2:42). Because Old Covenant people had to travel far, it might be impossible for the women who were pregnant to travel. Likewise, they might have had a new baby to care for, had sick ones at home, etc. They were permitted by the law to be excused from the sacramental meals.

In addition to being excused because of inconvenience, there were also conditions that would keep a person from being qualified for partaking. A leper from birth might have been regenerate, but he would not have been qualified to partake. A woman who was in the midst of her menstrual period was likewise not qualified to partake. There were plenty of reasons why only the men were required to attend. Jesus was in Egypt for two years and unable to come to the feasts (Matt. 2:13-23). Was he excommunicated? No.

The main issue that is frequently troubling to paedo-communionists (and rightly so) is that children are being cut off from the means of grace. However, Reformed Christians have never seen Baptism and the Lord’s Table as the exclusive means of grace. Consider the rich privileges that our covenant children have apart from the Lord’s Table:

1. Their first means of grace, baptism, continues to exert a wonderful call upon their lives.
2. Being in the community of Christ (“holy”) automatically makes the child the subject of the Holy Spirit’s working.
3. The covenant as a whole gives a protective banner which a truly excommunicated person would be taken out from under. A child who is not communing is still under the protective canopy of the covenant and is not “handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (1Cor. 5:5). The Holy Spirit doesn’t stop working simply because Christians aren’t coming to the table.
4. Being under the preaching of the Word is to live within the sphere of the Spirit’s working.
5. Family devotions is another clear means of grace.
6. Being under a believing father and mother’s nurture is a great privilege.
7. Prayer is obviously a covenant privilege that our children are not denied.
8. The Aaronic blessing every Sunday is another means of grace that brings blessing to our children.

I understand that Calvin didn’t even baptize one of his children who died in infancy. He believed that children must be baptized in the congregation, but his Institutes make clear that baptism, while a means of grace, is not the only means of grace. God can save babies (and does save babies – as witness David’s son) without the sacraments. To put such emphasis upon the Lord’s Table does not even comport with the fact that Old Testament saints frequently could not partake of communion for more than three times a year because of distance. Yet they had access to other means of grace in their synagogues.

Gallant’s seventh thesis

The calling for remembrance and self-examination in 1 Corinthians 11 stands in the pattern of the character of the sacraments of the old covenant (e.g. Ex. 12:14; Isa. 1:10-20).²⁰⁷

The apparent implication of this thesis can be summarized in the following syllogism:

1. Premise one: Israel was required to engage in the same self-examination and remembrance that Paul called for in 1 Corinthians 11.
2. Premise two: Exodus 12 admitted infants who were incapable of such self-examination and remembrance.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, calls to remembrance and self-examination do not apply to infants and should only be applied to older children in accordance with their capacity.

Premise two is precisely what is being contested. Unless there is clear admittance of infants to the sacrament, we are not authorized to admit them. The Regulative Principle of Worship prohibits adding to or subtracting from the Biblical laws. Assumptions are not allowed. Nowhere in Exodus 12 or anywhere else in the Old Testament are infants said to partake of the sacrament. We have already provided evidence that they were excluded.

This being the case, the calls to remember and to engage in self-examination prior to eating must be obeyed by all who partake. Gallant admits that the Passover was called a “memorial” (Ex. 12:14) just as much as the Lord’s Supper is (1 Cor. 11:24-25). He also admits that Isaiah bars people who refuse to engage in self-examination at the sacrament (Isa. 1:10-12) just as much as Paul does for the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:27-32). I do not in any way deny that “children” partook of the sacramental meals in Isaiah 1, but they too were judged by God as “children who are corrupters” (v. 4) and they too were expected to examine themselves since those children had “provoked to anger the Holy One of Israel” (v. 4). Interestingly, the word for “children” is the generic banim (בָּנִ֖ים) and does not specify an age. The only children mentioned are children who were able to remember and engage in self-examination and were held accountable by God for failing to do so. The Scriptures he cites prove the opposite of what Gallant intended.

Gallant’s eighth thesis

These old covenant sacraments admitted children into participation (e.g. Dt. 16:11, 14).²⁰⁸

This has already been admitted by me. Unlike adult-communion advocates, I follow the mandate of including children in the sacrament of communion. We have already shown that these children met the conditions of worthy participation. Even the passage he cites calls for remembrance (Deut. 16:3,12) and putting away the leaven of sin (vv. 4,12). There is no mention of infants partaking in that passage — only “your son and your daughter” (v. 11). Our position clearly admits sons and daughters if they are able to meet the conditions laid out for the Old and New Testament sacrament of communion.

Gallant’s ninth thesis

Therefore, the requirements of 1 Corinthians 11 may not be employed to bar covenant children from the sacrament, since similar requirements in the old covenant did not bar them.²⁰⁹

The word “children” is a broad term covering 19 years of life, and Gallant is trying to import into his conclusion a different category of “children” than can be exegetically supported in his previous theses. The question that needs to be proved in thesis eight is that infants (or even slightly older children incapable of meeting the clear conditions laid out in the Old and New Testaments) were permitted to partake. That evidence is lacking. In any case, there is both a logical and a Scriptural problem with this argument:

Gallant’s logic can be summed up in a syllogism: 1. Premise one: The command to discern before partaking in 1 Corinthians 11 is no different than the command to discern before partaking in the Old Testament (his seventh thesis).
2. Premise two: Despite the conditions found in the previous premise, children were admitted into participation (his eighth premise)
3. Conclusion: The command to discern does not apply to children.

The problems in the logic may escape the reader if he is not careful to see what Gallant is doing with his terms. Gallant must realize that he cannot use the term “infants” or “toddlers” in premise two (thesis eight) since the Bible nowhere explicitly admits infants or toddlers, so he sticks to the generic term “children.” Nowhere in this syllogism has he proved that the “children” referred to are “all children” or “children incapable of obeying the command.”

If “infant” or “toddler” replaces the word “children” in premise two, it is clearly false. There is strong exegetical support to prove that “children” were admitted, but as chapter 3 has shown, that is a very broad term with at least eight clear stages of childhood. I also demonstrated that the first three stages of childhood are never mentioned in Scripture as participating in communion, though they are mentioned as participating in circumcision and baptism. It has been the contention of this book that every category of “children” that partook of the Old Testament sacramental meals were children who were capable of meeting the conditions for partaking.

If “infant” is only inserted into the conclusion, then it would be an invalid formulation of the argument since a different term (infant) than is in the premise (children) is being used. There is a huge difference in the Hebrew between children and infants. To ignore the repeated mandates for worthy participation without crystal clear Biblical evidence for doing so is a clear violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship (the previous chapter).

Third, his statement, “since similar requirements in the old covenant did not bar them,” is false. We have proved in chapters 2-3 that there are numerous statements in the Old Testament that explicitly excluded infants. The children who partook of the sacrament in Nehemiah 8 were only children “who could hear with understanding” (v. 2). Yes there were “little ones” who partook in 2 Chronicles 31, but they were qualified to partake “for in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18), and the minimum age of three was specified in verse 16. I won’t repeat all the proofs that I gave in the earlier chapters, but there is no indication that anyone in the Old Covenant was allowed to ignore the commandments for worthy participation.

Gallant’s tenth thesis

When Paul gives the requirement of self-examination (1 Cor. 11:28), in context, his purpose is to prevent Christians from coming to the table of the Lord in a divisive manner. The barring of covenant children from the table, however, is itself a divisive practice: it divides children from ‘mature’ members and implicitly makes them second-class citizens in the kingdom of heaven (directly contrary to Christ’s assessment in Mt. 19:13-14).²¹⁰

If the previous presuppositions are faulty, this is a house of cards that does not hold up. Let me ask a few questions to clarify the poor logic involved:

1. When Paul commands, “let a man examine himself, and so (οὕτως) let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup” (v. 28), is Paul being divisive by prohibiting those without self-examination from partaking? No. He is simply giving conditions for partaking “for the better” rather than “for the worse” (v. 17). It is love for a child that makes him wait until he/she can partake “for the better.” Lepers in the Old Testament were not second-class citizens. They just didn’t meet the qualifications for communion.
2. Is Scripture dividing between the body (being divisive) when it only allows males who are twenty and above to vote? No. It sees that covenantal duty as a duty that has qualifications. The fact that infants can’t vote does not make them second-class citizens. It is simply a recognition that these precious ones need to mature more.
3. Is Scripture being divisive when it says, “let not many of you become teachers” (James 3:1)? I have heard people claim that they are “second-class citizens” if they are not allowed to teach. It is better to interpret James’ warning as a kindness that is seeking to spare the average Christian from the higher judgment that teachers receive (3:1b).
4. Is the Scripture being divisive when it recognizes that not all are able to eat solid food but are only capable of drinking milk (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2)? Obviously not. Several church fathers applied these passages to explain why children could not partake of communion until their senses were exercised to discern good and evil.

All of these qualifications are given to help the whole body grow and develop in maturity. Not all are ready for marriage, voting, teaching, or the Lord’s Supper, but that does not make them any less precious. This is not to deny that children are members of the visible church. I fully affirm that they are. By analogy, it is similar to citizenship in the United States of America. Our children are citizens by birth, but there are certain privileges that they must grow into, such as voting, driving a car, drinking, etc. Or to use another analogy, lambs are in the flock, but they are initially restricted to mother’s milk until their stomachs mature sufficiently to digest grass.

The really frightening trajectory of Gallant’s reasoning is radical egalitarianism. On his website he states:

The irony of the appeal to 1 Corinthians 11, in service to an argument against paedo-communion, is severely profound. In this chapter — and indeed in this epistle — Paul is fighting for the unity of the Church. There are to be no ‘spiritual’ or ‘social’ superiors/inferiors at the table, for all are one body in Christ. And yet the anti-paedo-communionist appropriation of this text institutionalizes precisely such disunity.²¹¹

While I agree that we are all spiritually equal and all have equal access to the Father, it is simply not true to say that there are no social superiors/inferiors at the Table. If that were the case, why was it that only Levites could serve Passover (2 Chron. 30:15,17; 35:11,18)? Why is it that only elders can admit to the table or bar from the table?²¹² That automatically implies that there are (as Larger Catechism 118, 124-130, 151 words it) superiors and inferiors.

Was not a denial of God’s authority structure and over-application of the universal priesthood of believers the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in Numbers 16? They told Moses, Aaron, and the Levites, “You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?” (v. 3). Why did Christ distribute the sacrament rather than letting each apostle take it themselves? In the single unit bringing reformation to Corinth’s worship (chapters 10-14), why does Paul make distinctions of who can talk and who cannot, specifically excluding women from speaking in church:

34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Women were observing preaching, but could not preach. Does that make them second-class citizens? Biblically the answer is, “No.” But logically, Paul is violating Gallant’s rule of conduct when Paul admonishes women to silently learn rather than to participate in teaching. Why does Paul explicitly make distinctions between children and adults, saying, “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (1 Cor. 13:11)? That is making a clear distinction between a νήπιος toddler²¹³ and the rest of the church — and that distinction occurs in a chapter on love that unites! You can still be spiritually united without denying social differences. Indeed, in the very heart of Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Table is his discussion of long hair, short hair, coverings for women, and men being uncovered. That section is very relevant to the Lord’s Table, yet it is full of distinctions. Indeed, it highlights the social distinctions of inferior/superior while upholding the spiritual equality of all. Paul says,

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor. 11:3)

Paul makes that totally consistent with spiritual equality when he says,

11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. (1 Cor. 11:11-12)

If Gallant’s thesis is correct, then it applies equally to Paul as it does to us.

Gallant’s eleventh thesis

The ancient Church admitted the children of believers to the Lord’s Supper (see Cyprian, On the Lapsed, ch. 9, 25-26). This practice was essentially abandoned around the twelfth century in the Western (Roman Catholic) Church, largely due to superstitious views concerning the Mass. This discontinuance of ancient practice was an error, and ought to be reversed in biblically reformed churches.²¹⁴

This is an exceedingly generous reading of the history of paedo-communion. (See the Introduction for a different reading of the church fathers.) It is more accurate to say that credo-communion precedes paedo-communion by at least a hundred years, and it may very well have been superstitious views of an ex opere operato nature that made people believe that infants could benefit from partaking.

Presuppositions of the Faith Formulation Committee of the CRC

The Faith Formulation Committee of the CRC has considered allowing both paedo-communion and credo-communion within the CRC. They formulated several presuppositions that they believe call for reevaluating the CRC’s stance and allowing paedo-communion.

FFC’s first presupposition

All baptized persons, regardless of age, are members of the church. Church membership comes not upon profession of faith but upon baptism.

I agree with this presupposition.

FFC’s second presupposition

We are invited to the table out of sheer grace as members of God’s covenant people and not because of our profession of faith or our level of comprehension.

Obviously the whole Christian life is of “sheer grace.” Even good works that a Christian performs are “sheer grace,” as Galatians 3 makes clear.²¹⁵ Since we have already seen in this chapter that there can be graceless people who have been circumcised/baptized (like Ishmael and Esau), it is no denial of grace to give tests of whether people possess “sheer grace.” Paul is not engaging in works righteousness when he commands,

Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you are disqualified. (2 Cor. 13:5)

Laying out conditions from 1 Corinthians 11 and other communion passages is in no way a denial of sheer grace. Those conditions give evidence of the presence of grace.

Second, we have clearly proved that grace is not required in the heart of a child before he was circumcised/baptized (see for example, Gen. 17:20-27 with Gal. 4:23,29-31). Without such explicit proof we would be required to practice credo-baptism. We have already demonstrated that there was clear proof for infants being circumcised and there is clear proof for infants being baptized. There is no such clear proof for infants partaking of communion. On the contrary, in chapters 2-3 we proved the opposite. The only “children” or “little ones” who partook of the Old Testament sacramental meals were children who also met the conditions laid out in 1 Corinthians 10-11. Likewise we gave exposition of Revelation’s discussion of the Lord’s Table and saw that only those that were known to be regenerate, possessed spiritual discernment, and who possessed an overcoming faith had the right to the sacramental meals. As Revelation 22:14 summarizes, “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life.” Not everyone in the churches addressed by John in Revelation had the right to eat.

Third, what needs to be proved is that there are no conditions for worthily coming to the Lord’s Table for certain segments of the body. Everyone admits that at least adults were required to have certain conditions before they partook. I dealt with this adequately in chapter 2. If they were required to have conditions, then this presupposition is automatically falsified: “We are invited to the table out of sheer grace as members of God’s covenant people and not because of our profession of faith or our level of comprehension.” If that statement is not true of adults (see the conditions in chapters 2-3), then what makes it a cogent argument for infants? If God adds conditions to give evidence of grace, then we should abide by those conditions. The whole of 1 Corinthians 11 proves that this presupposition is false. The only children who partook of the sacrament in Nehemiah 8 were children “who could hear with understanding” (v. 2). The only “little ones” who partook in 2 Chronicles 31, are explicitly said to have been “little ones” who met six qualifications, including “for in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18). We young-credo-communionists admit all such “little ones.”

At a minimum, this presupposition assumes what needs to be proved rather than merely being asserted. Gallant at least tried to prove it. We have refuted his attempts above.

FFC’s third presupposition

When we are invited, each participant is called to age- and ability-appropriate obedience of biblical commands about participation at the Lord’s Supper.

The committee appears to be saying that Paul’s “commands about participation in the Lord’s Supper” are commands for those already partaking rather than being conditions for partaking. While technically true, it is missing the point that Paul makes worthy participation (v. 29) conditional upon testing of the genuineness²¹⁶ of their qualifications. Paul says, “let a man examine himself, and so (οὕτως) let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.” The grammar indicates that examination must precede eating.²¹⁷ Granted, this preceding examination must be done every time a person partakes, but the point is that it is a condition that always must precede partaking. As Ellingworth points out, “the so is emphatic, implying ‘and only when he has examined himself.’”²¹⁸ Or as Winter words it, “All must test or examine themselves before they participate.”²¹⁹ The NIV renders it, “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.” The Amplified Bible has, “Let a man [thoroughly] examine himself, and [only when he has done] so should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”

This also misses the point that both the Old and the New Testaments give the qualifications for worthy participation and apply it to every age group. This has been handled adequately in chapters 2-3.

FFC’s fourth presupposition

We must learn to see the commands about participation in the Lord’s Supper as life-giving gifts, not onerous burdens.

Agreed. This must be exegetically proved, not simply assumed. In chapters 2-3 I have sought to give proof that “little ones” and children as young as three years of age participated on occasion. We demonstrated that these children met the conditions for coming to the table. This would not be possible if the conditions were as onerous as some churches require: specifically, memorization of the entire catechism and the ability to sustain a difficult theological examination in front of an august assembly of elders without having an emotional meltdown. The feast days were calls to rejoice (Deut. 12:7,18; 14:26; 27:7) “before the LORD with great gladness” (1 Chron. 29:22; cf. Neh. 8:10,12). So I can appreciate the sentiment of not putting burdens upon our children that children were not designed to bear. I believe the Biblical conditions are conditions that little ones can indeed bear, if we handle those conditions responsibly.

FFC’s fifth presupposition

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is an especially significant text for understanding faithful participation in the Lord’s Supper, inhospitality, and calls for greater unity in the body of Christ. The text is not primarily concerned with children’s participation but rather focuses on unrepentant or inhospitable adults. At the same time, the text has implications for all participants at the table.

I agree with most of what is said here. However, I would dispute that there were participants that Paul did not have in mind. I have already given extensive evidence that Paul’s universal language means that every condition was expected to be applied to every participant without exception.

FFC’s sixth presupposition

The elders of a congregation have responsibility for cultivating both the gracious invitation to the table and obedient participation at the table.

Agreed.

FFC’s seventh presupposition

At times, discussions about the Lord’s Supper have slipped into one of two opposing errors: (a) focusing too much on achieving a level of cognitive understanding prior to participation, and (b) minimizing the importance of theological reflection and learning about deeper participation. Calling for “age- and ability-appropriate participation” addresses both problems at once, resisting the idea that children need to arrive at a certain level of comprehension before partaking and resisting the kind of unthinking participation that can set in over time for any worshiper.

My own approach resolves the tension by making clear that the conditions for partaking are not onerous for children (at least the specific ages of children that the Scripture admits). Consider the following conditions:

1. Faith/repentance

   We have already demonstrated that an active faith is required. Seed faith is not enough. For example, Jesus said, “If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” Opening the door requires an active faith.

   Does God require strong faith? No. Repeatedly he told the disciples that they had weak faith, yet he admitted them. Indeed, He tells us,

   Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become like little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.” (Matt. 18:3-5)

   These παιδίον children were obviously under the age of puberty but still old enough to be able to express faith.²²⁰ The disciples did not have a clear understanding of what Christ meant in John 6 when He told them they could have no life unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood. He accepted them nonetheless because they confessed in that chapter a simple faith “we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

2. Understanding the basics of the Gospel and the meaning of the sacrament

   We have already seen that the Larger Catechism calls for understanding and bars the ignorant. This is not calling for a mature understanding of the faith since “one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation” and one who is “weak” may partake of the Lord’s Supper if there is a desire to cleave to Christ (LC 174). It is ignorance of the simplicity of the Gospel that bars from the Table. The little ones of Nehemiah 8 “could hear with understanding” (vv. 2,8).

   Does God require great knowledge? No. Repeatedly Christ called His disciples fools because they were slow to grasp doctrine. Yet He admitted them to the table because they were able to understand that He was the Christ, and they clung to Him in their weakness. They didn’t understand what He meant when He told them they needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood, but then most adult Christians today are confused on that subject too. Yet Christ accepted them to the Lord’s table because they had a basic understanding of their salvation. In the same chapter (John 6) they said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:68-69).

3. Ongoing lifestyle of faith and repentance (self-examination)

   The third condition is an ongoing lifestyle of faith and repentance that is involved in self-examination. It is obvious from chapter 2 that some degree of obedience/sanctification was required as evidence of faith. To those who were not regenerate God said, “your appointed feasts My soul hates…Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil” (Isa. 1:14,16-17 — see whole context).

   What kind of self-examination does God require? How holy does He expect us to become? He wants us to confess all known sin and to confess that we are weak on our own. As He told His disciples, “without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Samuel obviously had a long ways to mature when he came to his first communion in 1 Samuel 1, but that very willingness to grow was a good qualification. As the text says, “Samuel grew in stature, and in favor both with the LORD and men” (1 Sam. 2:26). We may not favor everything the children do when they first partake, but we should ask, “Is there growth?” Without self-examination & repentance (all of which shows a desire to grow in holiness), there can be no growth in favor with God and man. This requirement is what the Old Testament repeatedly referred to when it called upon people to “sanctify themselves to the Lord in holiness.”

FFC’s eighth presupposition

Requiring a public profession of faith before participation in the Lord’s Supper is a wise pastoral practice in some circumstances, but it is not a biblically mandated or confessionally required practice. Each church council should promote age- and ability-appropriate obedience at the table, as described in the Bible and in the Reformed confessions, and may choose to require public profession of faith if appropriate.

Requiring that the profession of faith be made in a public way is not necessary, but requiring a formal profession of faith before participating has already been demonstrated to be necessary. There are many passages that we have already dealt with. Isaiah 44:1-5 clearly shows a very formal declaration of faith before others. Verse 1 says,

Yet hear me now, O Jacob My servant,
And Israel whom I have chosen.

There are three things that verse talks about. First, is covenant succession. Jacob was the third generation Christian. Before he was even conceived, God’s promises went to Jacob because of the faith of his parents. God’s choice preceded the parent’s choice. God initiates the covenant and we would be without hope apart from God’s choice. Verse 2 continues,

Thus says the LORD who made you
And formed you from the womb, who will help you:
“Fear not, O Jacob My servant;
And you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.

This is a pro-life verse. This verse indicates that God forms us in the womb, that we are persons in the womb, that God values babies who are in the womb, and God claims us in the womb. God promises to help us from that time forward. The sign of these covenant promises is water baptism which points to Spirit baptism. Verse 3 deals with both. He says,

For I will pour water on him who is thirsty
And floods on the dry ground;
I will pour My Spirit on your descendants,
And My blessing on your offspring;

Pouring water and God later pouring out the Holy Spirit symbolizes the fact that it is all of grace and not of works. It’s not our movement into the water, but God’s movement upon us that changes us and changes our children. We are always dependent upon God. God continues to watch over our children as they grow up, which is what verse 4 talks about:

They will spring up among the grass
Like willows by the watercourses.”

After springing up like willows (a clause that indicates some growth or maturing), there is profession of faith in verse 5.

One will say, “I am the LORD’s”;
Another will call himself by the name of Jacob;
Another will write with his hand, “The LORD’s,”
And name himself by the name of Israel.

Those are descriptions of the various ways that people would make their covenant vows when they became older. On occasion these professions of faith were written and signed. So here is a passage of Scripture that shows profession of faith being an important part of our children’s covenant growth into maturity. It contradicts the FFC’s eighth presupposition. We have already demonstrated that there are many more such passages.

FFC’s ninth presupposition

This approach commends common criteria and a complementary set of practices for welcoming children to the table. The common principle and common criteria proposed in the following report promise to help us resist congregationalism, even though our practices may vary according to culture and ministry context.²²¹

It is my contention that if the moderating position of young-credo-communion is held to, there is no need for complementary sets of practices for communion. Both paedo-communion and adult-communion seem to give different criteria for adults and those who are younger. For example, most adult-communion advocates insist that children who have grown up in the covenant must memorize the catechism prior to partaking (at the age of 12, 13, 18, or 20). They do not apply the same standard for a forty year old pagan who gets converted. He is admitted to the Lord’s Table on profession of faith rather than on memorization of the catechism.

If the bar for admission is no higher or lower than the bar that Scripture gives, both adults and young children can joyfully be admitted to the table.

Presuppositions given by Ray Sutton

In his brief essay, “Presuppositions of Paedocommunion,”²²² Ray Sutton seeks to lay out where his presuppositions differ from those who hold to credo-communion.

Sutton’s first presupposition

The effect of nominalism on the church over the centuries has been to bifurcate the two sacraments. It has been customary in Reformed circles to speak of two sacraments, but there is really one sacrament with two aspects. The Church does not have two relationships with God, nor does it have two categories of relationship. If it is one with God, then union and communion are to be viewed as established simultaneously. To separate union from communion is to distort not only any relationship, but most certainly the relationship which the Church has with God. …cleansing and eating, in both Old and New Testaments…are coalesced to the point that one rarely takes place without the other.

In order to prove his presupposition, he first appeals to Exodus 24 where a baptism by blood of the Book of the Covenant occurred followed in verses 9-11 with Moses and the elders eating and drinking before God (v. 11). What is significant is that infants did not partake of that sacramental meal, as even he will admit. That meal was witnessed by the people, but not entered into by them. More importantly, what was baptized was a book, not a person. It was not what was baptized that was admitted to the feast. This exegesis is a stretch.

Second, Sutton points out that 1 Corinthians 10:1ff says that our fathers were baptized into Moses and then they partook of eating and drinking of Christ. What he fails to mention is that the Passover took place before they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. This completely nullifies his contention that this baptism preceded communion. Furthermore, this baptism was not followed by communion for another three days (a bifurcation — to use his words). So I fail to see how this passage proves his presupposition. See my extensive discussion of this passage in chapter 2 and in chapter 10.

His next proof text is Numbers 5, where the ordeal of jealousy takes place. He claims that “holy water” represents cleansing and the woman’s meal offering represents the Lord’s Table. If Numbers 5:17 and following is read, it is clear that there is no cleansing that takes place with the “holy water.” Instead, dust is mixed with it and the woman drinks it after a curse is pronounced upon her if she is lying. The ceremony has nothing to do with either cleansing or communion. This constitutes extremely poor exegesis.

Sutton also appeals to Mark 10:38-39 where Jesus speaks of his crucifixion as being both a baptism and a cup of suffering that He drinks. He concludes, “To think of separating the Lord’s baptism from his death would have been impossible and inconceivable.” While His water baptism did indeed point in some way to His death, it was separated in time by three and a half years. I fail to see the point. If anything it proves the opposite of what he intends it to prove. His circumcision pointed to the cross (his being “cut off”), and His water baptism pointed to the cross (God’s judgment being poured out upon Him), and his Last Supper pointed to the cross (drinking the cup in judgment in place of His people). Each one of the symbols that pointed to the cross was separated by many years.

Since his proofs are shaky, his conclusion is suspect. His conclusion is:

Therefore it would be better to refer to one sacrament with two aspects — inception and communion. This brings out the unity of the sacrament and emphasizes the unbiblical nature of dividing between the two. With reference to children, it is biblically inconsistent to give a child sacramental union with Jesus, while withdrawing the perpetuation of that union through eating Jesus’ meal…It becomes important for one who has been baptized to proceed to communion. If one does not, then he has effectively been excommunicated. Children must be included, therefore, who have been baptized.

Not only is the exegetical foundation for this presupposition lacking, it is contradicted by Scripture. Samuel would have been circumcised and cleansed on day eight after birth (an invariable rule that was mandated to take place on the eighth day or be cut off — Gen. 17:14), but Samuel did not partake of communion until he was weaned (1 Sam. 1:22-28). Was he excommunicated from the body? No. He was just not eligible for one of the body’s functions. Isaac was circumcised into the covenant on day eight (Gen. 21:4), but did not participate in any feast before the Lord until years later (Gen. 21:8ff — see exposition of this passage in chapter 3). The little ones of 2 Chronicles 31 would have been circumcised and cleansed on day eight (girls being cleansed on day sixteen), yet they did not partake until six conditions were met, three of which were that 1) they had to be at least three years old (v. 16), 2) they had to have “faithfulness” (v. 18), and (3) they had to have “sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18). Clearly God bifurcates between the two sacraments and upholds the historic viewpoint that there are two sacraments, not one.

Sutton’s second presupposition

It is schizophrenic to approach one sacrament covenantally, and view the other in an individualistic way. The child is either in the covenant or not.

What this is failing to appreciate is that the covenant embraces the individual and the whole body, and to neglect either side gets us imbalanced. One should not pit the covenant against the individual. The individual was circumcised (Gen. 17), but he was circumcised into the visible church. The first Passover gave instructions for the body as a whole²²³ as well as the responsibilities of each individual.²²⁴ The same is true of the other sacramental meals scattered throughout the Old Testament. Certainly the New Testament uses intimate individualistic language with regards to the Lord’s Table (see exposition of the Revelation sacramental meals in chapter 2).

Sutton’s third presupposition

This schizophrenic approach to the sacraments has resulted from an unbiblical attempt to inject either rationalism or irrationalism into the covenant. If for example, the basis for admittance to the Table is mastery of a body of knowledge, the church is saying to its children that the essence of the covenant is knowledge. And if, on the other hand, the child must tell of a conversion experience, as is practiced by many Presbyterian churches today, the covenant is defined accordingly. There is obviously nothing wrong with knowledge or experience, but these are not the foundations of one’s relationship to God.

This is making the same error that Tim Gallant makes when Gallant insists that the covenant admits to all privileges and denial of any privilege is an attack on the covenant. See discussion under Gallant’s presuppositions.

As has already been demonstrated, there are stages of development of members within Christ’s body as they take on new responsibilities and privileges. Galatians 4:1 is quite clear that our baptized covenant children are heirs. It is just as clear that these heirs don’t have full covenantal privileges, for “an heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father” (vv. 1-2). Certainly the transition from “an heir” by right of birth and baptism (Gal. 4:1) to the privileges of sonship by faith (see the “all” in Gal. 3:26 and compare with 4:1-7) is the first of several entrances into various privileges.

Second, it makes no sense that God would not require women to partake of communion (Ex. 23:14-19; cf. 34:23) if partaking of communion was of the essence of what it means to be in covenant with God. Those women were still in covenant with God.

Third, is it rationalism for Nehemiah 8 to specify that the only children who were there at that feast were those “who could hear with understanding” (v. 2). Is it rationalism for Paul to repeatedly insist that without the church having “understanding” there is no “edification” (1 Cor. 12-14)? Is it rationalism for Paul to insist that we must “judge (διεκρίνομεν) ourselves” or we will be chastened at the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 11:31-32)? Partaking of communion is frequently tied with understanding and knowledge, as was demonstrated in chapter 2. It’s easy to use pejorative terms, but harder to prove those terms are accurate.

Sutton’s fourth presupposition

Incipient Pelagianism: Pelagius maintained that responsibility is limited by ability. Traditionally, children have been kept from the table because they are not able to examine themselves. What is really being said in this argument? Is it not saying that children are not responsible because they are not able? This appears to argue against the mind of Scripture. First, God says that one is responsible whether able or not. So to abstain from participation in the sacrament is an unlawful observance of the Supper…

Second, any argument against paedo-communion because of inability on the part of the child can be turned against paedo-baptism. The Baptist will argue that the child (infant) cannot believe, and since faith is the prerequisite for baptism it is wrong to baptize them.

There are several faulty ideas in this accusation of incipient Pelagianism.

First, for this argument to work, communion must be considered to be a moral command versus a ceremonial/liturgical command. We know that it is not a moral command for infants because women and children were exempted from attending Passover (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16), though they were obviously allowed to come when able. We know that it is not a moral commandment since those perpetually unclean (like lepers, or the woman with a flow of blood for twelve years in Matthew 9:20) were not allowed to partake (Numb. 9:6; etc.). Obviously humans must obey God on even ceremonial/liturgical issues, but this book has been arguing that there is no clear (uncontested) command for infants to partake. If there were ceremonial qualifications for even the youngest children (eg., 2 Chron. 31:18), then why would other qualifications that are clearly grounded in Scripture suddenly make us incipient Pelagians?

Second, the accusation of incipient Pelagianism is completely unwarranted if there are Biblical qualifications for obeying the command. We have demonstrated in this book that there are indeed qualifications for partaking worthily of the meal.

Third, for the sake of argument, let me point out that even paedo-communionists admit that inability can be a legitimate excuse for absence from the meal. If even one of the following illustrations is true, then his statement that “one is responsible whether able or not” cannot be applied to communion:

1. Providential hindrances might made make some women and children unable to attend Passover (due to menses, recent childbirth, a sick child, etc.). Does such inability still constitute sin and failure? Does it never relieve them of their responsibility? Scripture would seem to contradict that conclusion (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16). Based on those three Scriptures, Jewish Levites would have excused those women and children. Were they guilty of incipient Pelagianism for excusing responsibility because of inability? It appears that Sutton is overstating his thesis.
2. As documented in chapter 2, some paedo-communionists will admit that newborn infants would not have been expected to chew on lamb at the Passover, and would base their excuse on a Biblically stated inability — “But solid food belongs to those who are mature, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:14). In the opinion of these paedo-communionists, their inability to chew solid food excused them. Are they engaging in incipient Pelagianism? I would say not, unless one wants to accuse the Bible of Pelagianism.
3. As documented in chapter 2, some paedo-communionists argue from 1 Chronicles 31:16,18 that those under three years of age are excluded. In their churches, age constitutes an inability that is imposed by the session. Does such inability not relieve them of responsibility? If it does, are such paedo-communionists guilty by Sutton’s standards of incipient Pelagianism?
4. In the Old Testament, a leper was unable to meet the qualifications for partaking of communion. It was not his sin that kept him from eating; it was a ceremonial disqualification for the Old Covenant. Because it was a ceremonial inability, it places his non-participation completely outside the realm of the Pelagian controversy.
5. If the preceding inabilities (providence, ability to manducate, and age) do not involve one in incipient semi-Pelagianism, why would the other requirements given in the law? For example, the phrase applied to the little ones that partook in 1 Chronicles 31, “because in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness” (v. 18), adds qualifications that infants are not capable of. Are newborn infants capable of faithfulness, actively setting themselves apart, or holiness? It appears not. Likewise, it is no insult to infants when the only little ones partaking at the Festival of Tabernacles in Nehemiah 8 were “all who could hear with understanding” (v. 2) and “those who could understand” (v. 3). As mentioned earlier, certain covenant privileges (such as voting, marriage, teaching) only belong to certain members of the covenant. They are still covenant privileges intended only for covenant members, but not intended for all covenant members.

Fourth, Sutton is assuming what needs to be proved — that it is a responsibility for every member of the body to partake of communion even if they are unable. Responsibility requires a clear-cut command. I can find passages where young children are authorized to partake, but I have found no Scriptures where infants are authorized to partake, let alone commanded to partake. It is the law alone that can show our responsibilities and abilities/disqualifications. Scripture says, “By the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). We must be “convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9), and since all “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 2:4), and since the Biblical maxim is that “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15), that means that this whole debate of the imperative of infant communion must be settled from the law of God. Narrative passages may illustrate the law, but it is the law alone that can define any given thought, goal, motive, or action as sinful. I would urge the reader to reread the chapter on the Regulative Principle of Worship. Unless the law commands infants to partake, there is no sin in their not partaking. This book has sought to show that the law allows “children” to participate if and only if they can meet certain minimal conditions. Infants cannot meet those conditions.

Fifth, Sutton’s attempt to draw a parallel between the conditions for baptism and the conditions for the Lord’s Table is missing the point of what happened in the Old Testament. Sutton says, “The Baptist will argue that the child (infant) cannot believe, and since faith is the prerequisite for baptism it is wrong to baptize them.” While that is one of many arguments that a Baptist will use, it is hardly a Pelagian argument. So as not to delve too deeply into the baptism debate²²⁵ let’s take it back to the relationship between circumcision and communion. We have clear Biblical warrant for applying the sign of the covenant to the unregenerate since even the foundational passage does so (Gen. 17:23-27 with Gal. 4:23,25,29), but there is no such clear Biblical warrant for infants partaking of communion. Baptists and Presbyterians are both in agreement that normal Biblical exegesis shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that circumcision was applied to infants in the Old Testament. There is not the same clear (uncontested) exegetical evidence for whether infants partook of communion. Indeed, this book has sought to show a total absence of evidence that infants partook. Children yes, but it was always children who were old enough to meet the Biblical qualifications for worthy participation.

Sutton’s fifth presupposition

When the children of the covenant are not allowed to come to the table, they are being told that their relationship with God does not exist. Not that it might not exist, but that they really do not have one at all. The latter is the only way of viewing this prohibition. The irrational recommendation of a conversion experience is not the solution.

If any one of the following statements is true, then Sutton’s emotionally charged accusation falls to the ground:

1. God-fearers (uncircumcised believers) had a relationship to God even though they were outside of the covenant and unable to partake of the sacraments. Keep in mind that Sutton claims that there is no relationship with God at all if people are barred from the Table. Consider the evidence: Cornelius was a God-fearer who had a deep relationship with God since he was “a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among the nation of the Jews” (Acts 10:22) and since the angel told him, “Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God” (Acts 10:31), and since he worked righteousness (Acts 10:35) and was “accepted by Him” (Acts 10:35). The technical Greek phrase “God fearer” is used in Acts 10:2,22; 13:16,26, and defines a Gentile who was not a member of the synagogue, and yet was a believer who served God with all his heart. He could not partake of communion, but he was nevertheless treated much better than a rebel. The person “who feared God” was a synonym for a truly regenerate person (see Ex. 1:17,21; 18:21; etc.) and the term was used to describe believers outside the church in contrast to unbelievers who had no fear of God (Ps. 36:1; Rom. 3:18; etc.). It was God-fearers who were welcomed into the “court of the Gentiles” for prayer. Since the prayers and worship of the wicked are not accepted by God and indeed are treated as an abomination (2 Chron. 7:14; Prov. 15:8,29) it is clear that these God-fearers who were provided a place of worship in the temple were being treated differently by God than other non-Jews. Obviously those same God-fearers were not able to offer sacrifices or partake of communion until they were circumcised and went through the process required to “become Jews.” They were outside the visible church but not outside the circle of the elect. So while it is not good to be simply a God-fearer, and while all God-fearers should be admonished to join the church, the Bible consistently treated God-fearers as being much better in their relationship to God than most excommunicates. The centurion of Matthew 8:8-13 was not in the church, yet Jesus said that he had been exercising greater faith than anyone who was in the church. Obviously Jesus did not treat this man the same way he treated dangerous heretics like the Pharisees and the Herodians (whom he told his disciples to beware of). Every one of these God-fearers disproves Sutton’s thesis.
2. When God said, “Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord GOD” (Ex. 23:17; cf. Ex. 34:23; Deut. 16:16), was he claiming that these male adults who were mandated to attend were the only ones in real relationship with God? Obviously not.
3. God uses the analogy of a flock to describe the church in Isaiah 40:11, saying, “He will feed His flock like a shepherd; He will gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those who are with young.” They belong to the Shepherd even before they are born, and once born and branded, continue to be protected and cared for by the Shepherd. Do they eat grass right away? No. They drink milk. Are they any less part of God’s flock when they aren’t eating grass? Obviously not. In the same way, Scripture distinguishes between those in the church who are able to only drink milk and those who are able to eat solid food. Both “milk” and “solid” food are obviously covenant privileges (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2). “But solid food belongs to those who are mature, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” (Heb. 5:14) If there are two kinds of spiritual food, to give one without giving the other makes sense. Though some quote Clement to prove paedo-communion, I showed in the introduction how the section often quoted actually proves the opposite. Clement states that the milk of the word belongs to those just born while meat belongs to those who are older. He clearly likens the Lord’s Table to the meat and the Word preached to milk. Whether this is true or not, the Scripture clearly shows that lambs belong to God while in the mother’s womb, outside the womb while they are nursing, and later when they eat grass. My position is that we transition children into eating “grass” when they are capable of benefiting from it by meeting the Biblical qualifications. It is plainly wrong to say that our children have no relationship with God whatsoever.

Sutton’s sixth presupposition

Subjectivism: Rationalism and irrationalism are both subjective because one is always left asking the question “How much.”

I can appreciate this objection. Examinations of children can indeed be subject to error and can indeed be subjective. This is doubly so when children are intimidated by the elders. This is why we always try to interview children in informal settings (even over lunch) to help set the child’s mind at ease. This is also why we depend heavily upon the parents’ testimonies of what God is doing in their child’s life. Shepherds who are constantly around their sheep will see changes in the lambs. Various children come in at different ages in our church. The youngest that any have come is age three, but on occasion they are six or older. Has subjectivism kept them needlessly out? Possibly, and we seek to guard against that. The same can be said of adult professions of faith. Are people allowed in who are not regenerate? Yes. Are people kept out who have had a sincere faith in Christ? In our church that would be rare. This is definitely an area that we are seeking to grow in. I fail to see how a potential problem of subjectivism should keep us from obeying God’s clear commands.

Sutton’s seventh presupposition

Confirmationalism: Historically, many Reformed churches have taught that the faith of the child is to be confirmed during his teenage years…Actually, the child made a profession in baptism, and Biblical confirmation takes place when he obeys God’s Law. Any attempt to confirm faith by knowledge or experience must rely on an evaluation of something inside a person. Furthermore, confirmation as normally practiced, is asking God to do a second time what He has already done. So confirmation in this subjective way is not different than asking for a second blessing.

While there is usually no need for children to wait until their teen years to express a credible faith, the opposite extreme is to flatten out all development in a way that erases the Hebrew distinctions outlined in chapter 3. Consider the following examples of progression over a child’s life.

Isaiah 44:1-5 outlines God’s stages of work in our covenant children starting with election (v. 1), to His working on them in the womb (v. 2), to baptism (v. 3a), to the Spirit being poured out upon them (v. 3b), to growing up (v. 4), to making confession with the mouth in profession of faith (v. 5). We do not deny that God is at work in our children (vv. 1-4) long before they can profess faith (v. 5). Indeed, we believe the opposite — that God’s grace is always at work with the goal of moving them beyond milk/nursing to eating meat and beyond. See exposition under “FFC’s eighth presupposition” above.

Likewise Galatians 3:26-4:7 moves through entrance into the Abrahamic covenant by faith (3:26) and baptism (3:27) to the toddler children of those believers being treated as heirs (4:1) who are under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father (4:2-3), to restarting that cycle through the child’s own faith that ushers into sonship privileges (contrast v. 1 with vv. 4-7).

Contrary to Sutton who claims that “the child made a profession in baptism,” we claim that the parents made a profession in baptism. The profession is to raise this child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and as guardians and stewards (Gal. 4:2) to bring them to explicit faith in Christ (Gal. 4:1-7).

Sutton claims that “Biblical confirmation takes place when he obeys God’s Law.” It is true that obedience is the evidence of faith (James 2:18). It is an evidence that comes after justification by faith alone ushers a person into sonship privileges.²²⁶ Parents are not called to assume that justification by faith has already happened. The whole logic of Galatians 3:26-4:7 indicates that parents have a stewardship trust (Gal. 4:1-2) of leading their children to Christ in the same way that the law is a steward/tutor that leads people to Christ (Gal. 3:24). The law is not the goal of the stewardship, but the means to the goal — Christ.

When Sutton says, “confirmation as normally practiced, is asking God to do a second time what He has already done” and that it is “asking for a second blessing” seems to assume that the children are already believers or already regenerate. That may be true, but it cannot be assumed. He hastens to clarify later by saying,

Granted, it may be a false profession in the case of infants or adults; nevertheless, it is a profession of faith. Thus, a baptized infant should be treated as a believer…

The foundational passage of Genesis 17 explicitly denies that we should treat all infants as believers simply because they have received the sign of the covenant (see Ishmael) and it explicitly denies that belief is the condition for circumcision. Paul calls Ishmael unregenerate (Gal. 4:21-31), and once he reached adulthood he was cast out of the visible church (Gen. 21:10,12-21; Gal. 4:30). God still commanded him to be circumcised (Gen. 17:12, 23-27). Obviously God did not treat his circumcision as a profession of faith. Likewise, God hated Esau long before he was born (Mal. 1:3; Rom. 9:13). Yet God insisted that Esau wear the sign of the covenant. Obviously God did not treat Esau’s circumcision as a profession of faith. Sutton’s presupposition is obviously not biblical.

Sutton’s eighth presupposition

Privilege is given until irresponsibility becomes visible.

Galatians 4 denies that the baptized child²²⁷ can enter into all of his covenant privileges: “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.” We have already seen that being a child heir precedes entering the privileges of sonship.

Someone might respond that unbelieving slaves were admitted to the table (Ex. 12:44) and therefore children who have not yet professed faith should be admitted. However, Paul clarifies that it was only believing slaves who had sonship privileges (see logic of Galatians 3:26-29). There is no exception to Paul’s “all” — “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” Faith is the only way of entering into full sonship privileges. Then Paul repeats every category that came into the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek [the majority of those circumcised were Gentiles in Genesis 17], there is neither slave nor free [the majority of those circumcised were slaves in Genesis 17, yet they were brought into the covenant], there is neither male nor female [females were admitted without circumcision in Genesis 17, but were required to receive baptism under Moses]; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” It was faith that ushered into sonship privileges. There is no evidence that unbelieving slaves partook of the communion meals of the Old Testament. Will such an objector claim that adult servants (who are quite capable of fulfilling the conditions set forth for worthy participation) are not required to believe before partaking? That would require an entirely different argument than any that paedo-communionists have so far offered. It would require infants to partake if they are not capable of fulfilling the conditions and slaves to partake even if they were capable of fulfilling the conditions but chose not to. No, my conclusion is a much more Biblical conclusion.

Sutton’s ninth presupposition

At baptism, one is judicially declared right with God. To deal either with the adult or infant as though he were still guilty and in need of being proven innocent, is to deny his baptism.

Paul absolutely denies this presupposition in Romans 3-4. The fact that circumcision was not an indication of justification did not make it a useless rite. It ushered the child into the preaching of the Word (Rom. 4:2) and “many” other benefits that fall short of faith that justifies:

Rom. 3:1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar…

Being under the weekly preaching of the law is an enormous benefit to the child. We have already documented many other benefits.

To say that barring infants from communion is to treat them as “still guilty” is a misrepresentation of our position. A few may be Ishmaels, but that is not the point. The point is that God requires growth and embracing the conditions for communion.

Sutton’s tenth presupposition

First, it must be mentioned that many of the better manuscripts leave out the reference to the Lord [in 1 Cor. 11:29]. Thus, the body referred to is the church.

The fuller context of this verse states,

1 Cor. 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

The question is, “Are we ‘not discerning’ the Lord’s physical body or are we ‘not discerning’ the Lord’s spiritual body (i.e., the church)?” In one sense, it does not affect my position at all either way. Since I am a Majority Text advocate, I believe that it says, “not discerning the Lord’s body,” rather than simply “not discerning the body.” The context seems to favor the bread as Christ’s body broken for us, but I am quite willing to concede this point for the sake of the argument. Is an infant able to discern the body of the church? No.

Other miscellaneous paedo-communion presuppositions

One presupposition that seems to have afflicted the consciences of at least some paedo-communionists is whether they would be in sin to attend a credo-communion church and not be able to commune their children (whether they were at that credo-communion church for one Sunday or several years). While I would appreciate the paedo-communion view of such a visitor or sojourner, I would try to alleviate their conscience issue on this by pointing out that there is no sin if a person is providentially hindered from communion. This was certainly the case for women and children who were explicitly excused (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16). It also seems to be the case for those who have been providentially hindered by elders who hold a different view.

Gary North once asserted that the implication of our view is that “having a low IQ is worse than committing adultery, because repentance is possible for adulterers.”²²⁸ His contention was that we are treating infants and comatose adults far worse when we deny them the Lord’s Supper than we treat adulterers. This is simply not true. If it was true, then Ezekiel, Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach, Abednego, Nehemiah, Mordecai, Esther, and others should have escaped from captivity in order to partake of communion. God already made provision for being providentially hindered in His law.²²⁹ All the ancient authorities acknowledge that (though women and children were welcome), they were exempted because of the difficulties involved. Paedo-communionists who disagree with our session should at least find no sense of guilt in honoring our requirement that their non-professing children not partake with us at the table. Though they may still believe we are at fault in barring the children, at least the guilt will not be upon them for abiding by our rules.