Children and the Lord's Supper

by Guy Prentiss Waters (Editor), J. Ligon Duncan III

What age is it okay for a child to partake in the Lord's supper? This book takes a constructive look at the doctrine of paedo-communion as defined: "as the admittance of a covenant child to the Lord's Supper on the basis of his descent from at least one professing Christian parent." Looking at this doctrine, these essays will provide food for thought across the various disciplines such as Biblical, Theological, historical and pastoral. It will be a guide as you seek to explore this key pastoral issue.

Genres: Theology

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Guy Prentiss Waters (PhD, Duke University) is James M. Baird Jr. Professor of New Testament and academic dean at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson. He is the author or editor of fifteen books and numerous chapters, articles, and reviews. He is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

Reviews

[Brett · Rating 2 out of 5]

Children and the Lord's Supper, edited by Guy Waters and Ligon Duncan, is a collection of essays defending the view that young children and infants should not be allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper. When I began this book I was definitely sympathetic and partial towards the idea of paedocommunion. However, I wanted to learn the Biblical justification offered by those that oppose such a position. I would hope that if I was provided with a Biblical mandate to not allow children to the table, I would reform my views. In the last chapter, the editors Duncan and Waters conclude with the statement "we have seen that the Scripture offers no support for this practice" (pg. 181). I can not agree that this book accomplished such a bold assertion.

So much of the Biblical argument against paedocommunion is supported by five words in 1 Corinthians 11:28; "Let a person examine himself..." The argument is that these words establish "the intellectual and spiritual qualifications" (pg. 21) for participating in the Lord's Supper. "Babies cannot fulfill these apostolic requirements" (pg. 94) and therefore should not participate in the meal. What left me unsatisfied with the arguments presented in the book is that although so many of the writers used these five words to justify their position, not one of them adequately provided the necessary context for the words. When reading this book I wondered at times if I had read 1 Corinthians 11 incorrectly. The authors make it sound as if Paul had said "Let a person be capable of examining himself." Paul is clearly rebuking discerning adults who obviously have the capacity to examine themselves.

The question then is by good and necessary consequence do the words in 1 Corinthians 11 require such a prohibition. I have not been convinced that such a deduction is necessary from Paul's words. If a conservative PCA pastor were to visit a sister church and saw that the pastor was baptizing adults with great irreverence (while diving off the high dive) and those being baptized were coming to the sacrament lightly (with flippers) we would expect a rebuke. This rebuke should probably have some demand that those wanting to be baptized should "examine themselves" before coming forward. They ought to understand and consider the meaning of the covenant they are going to make with almighty God when they get baptized. I would not question my commitment to baptizing infants if I heard such a rebuke. The point is that God calls all those who are able to examine themselves before participating in the sacraments. This call for examination is not necessary for only communion but should also apply to baptism. Paul is clearly talking to adults with the ability to reason and calling them to repent of their sin. I picture one of the offenders in Corinth reading Paul's letter and looking to his neighbor and saying "so is Paul saying that our children can't participate in the Lord's Supper?" Yeah, that's probably it... not that you shouldn't get drunk at the table like you did last week.

Let's move on to the other Scripture used in the book to argue against paedocoumminion. And that's just it... after 215 pages I can say the argument against paedocommunion stands or falls with the five words in 1 Corinthians 11:28. The writers did not provide any other Biblical evidence against paedocommunion.

The authors might contend at this point that they provided an abundance of evidence showing that the reformers overwhelmingly prohibited the admittance of children to the Lord's Table. Not to mention the arguments from reformed confessions. I think it would be silly for me to try to argue against this evidence. Although there were a few outliers (Hussites and Musculus), I think it is clear that the reformers denied the paedocommunion view. Some would dismiss such an argument as superfluous being that it is an appeal to authority rather than Scripture. I disagree. Their understanding of scripture matters and should be considered today. However, with this confession I echo Waters and Duncan statement that there are "limitations of appealing to church history in support of a particular church practice" (pg. 25).

I want to give credit to the editors for including the section discussing the views on communion during the patristic era. The author of this section, Nick Needham, provides a report that doesn't "help" the cause. Needham concludes is analysis saying that from "thin" evidence in patristic sources this evidence "demonstrates an acceptance of infant communion in at least some sections of the church" (pg. 161). The feel from his analysis is that during the patristic era somewhere between some and most churches allowed infant communion. However, I find the authors use of his analysis to be fairly irresponsible. In the introduction, the editors argue that "the evidence, rather, points to a 'diversity of practice in this period" (pg. 25). The footnote for this statement is Needham's conclusion that "diversity of practice would not, I think, be an intolerable conclusion..." (pg. 161). How such a statement can be turned into "the evidence points to..." is beyond me. Even the OPC report on paedocommunion states that the "evidence indicates that shortly following the time of Augustine, the practice of paedocommunion became the established practice of the Eastern and Western Churches." I think it is fair to say that paedocommunion prevailed prior to the reformation while post-reformation was against the position.

So, why am I still partial to paedocommunion? The argument provided in the book did not satisfy. Children are covenant members through their baptism. As members of the covenant they should enjoy the blessings God offers to his children. Children need food to grow up strong and they need spiritual food to grow spiritually strong. We don't give them the meal because they know the gospel but rather so they will grow up always knowing the gospel. Keeping children from the table until some nebulous "age of accountability" where the powers that be judge how well they have crammed for the spiritual readiness test is not consistent with our covenantal view of God's people. We should not be surprised to find many of our children wondering if they really are part of God's family.

I am glad I read the book. I think the authors could have spent more time really trying to understand the arguments of those in favor of paedocommunion. Their genuine interaction with these arguments would have made a more enjoyable read. Although I disagree, such a disagreement ranks pretty low on the priority list. I do and will continue to enjoy rich fellowship with those on both sides of this debate.

[Jared Mcnabb · Rating 2 out of 5]

Authors usually did a fair job at presenting the paedocommunion position they were arguing against.

But ultimately there were no new arguments to be found here. Arguments basically boiled down to 1 Corinthians 11, and the nature and differences of the sacraments. Essays were ultimately unpersuasive.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a collection of essays on paedo-communion. It is largely successful in explaining what paedo-communion is (and is not) and in interacting with the spectrum of views that fall within the label.
In my opinion, Dr. Derek Thomas’s chapter is the strongest one in the book. He manages to show with precision why advocating for paedo-communion requires a previous commitment to the nearly identical nature of the two sacraments. It is “begging the question” because it assumes the sacraments work the same way. When his arguments are put together with those in George W. Knight’s chapter, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are shown to have more differences than it may seem at first look. Unlike baptism, communion is an active and recurring sacrament. There also appears to be a stronger link between its efficacy and the time when one partakes of it than baptism. If baptism has a close association with our ingrafting into Christ (monergistic, instantaneous, unrepeated), then communion seems to have a closer association with sanctification (synergistic and continuously progressive). The Lord’s Table also has the additional feature of foreshadowing a future fulfillment at the wedding supper of the Lamb. If all of these are granted, then one can see why the Reformed tradition has maintained different standards for admittance to the two sacraments - affirming paedo-baptism, but not paedo-communion. In this view, both sacraments place upon the recipient the obligation to personally believe, but only one would require credible evidence of that faith (and not just of covenant membership) *at the time* the sacrament is received.
The two chapters relating communion to Passover were not bad, but seemed to contradict each other in their arguments - even while reaching similar conclusions at the end. The inclusion of the chapter that showed a nearly universal acceptance of paedo-communion among paedo-baptist early church fathers was a brave move. Whatever the reader’s views, the historical evidence should cause him to think, as should the inclusion of this quote from John Murray (a strong opponent of paedo-communion): “less would be at stake in admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper than would be at stake in abandoning infant baptism.”

[Craig Hurst · Rating 3 out of 5]

Who is allowed to partake at the Lord’s Supper? This is not just a distinction between denominations as far removed from each other as Baptist and Reformed. This is also an intramural debate among those of the Reformed stripe, the majority being credocommunion and the minority being paedocommunion.

What follows is both an overview of the book as well as some concluding reflections from a Baptist perspective looking from the outside into a debate within the Reformed tradition.

REVIEW

Children and the Lord’s Supper is a compilation of chapters which weave in and out of critiquing the paedocommunion view of the Lord’s Supper and defending the credocommunion view. The book argues both angels alone biblical, theological, exegetical and historical lines while reflecting on the practical and pastoral considerations of both. Editors Ligon Duncan and Gut Waters did a good job to make sure there is great continuity among the chapters. At some points there seems to be too much repetition but overall there is a clear line from beginning to end that does not run too big.

From the Reformed perspective, the essential argument against paedocommunion is that partakers of communion who have not made a public profession of faith cannot fulfill the requirements of I Cor. 11:17-34, namely the requirement to ‘discern the body’, ‘examine oneself’ and partake in the Lord’s Supper in a ‘worthy manner.’ Further, in regards to Matt. 26:26-29, how can one who has not made a profession of faith be able to ‘show the Lord’s death until He returns?’ From the credocommunionist position, partaking in the Lord’s Supper and failing to fulfill these requirements would result in ‘eating and drinking judgment on themselves.’

Along biblical lines Bryan Estelle argues that though the OT Passover and NT Lord’s Supper are analogous this does not mean the analogy necessitates a one-for-one interpretation between the two. Thus, though paedocommunionists may argue that children were present and participants in the Passover meal (though they argue it is not clear that they were) this does not mean it is the same case for the Lord’s Supper.

Along exegetical lines George W. Knight III presents a very readable exegesis of I Cor. 11:17-34. There are no outstanding or unique remarks made but rather a clear explanation of the passage. Knight concludes that “the table is only open to those children who have made such a public profession of faith and who are able to understand and act upon Paul’s instruction (p. 95).”

Chapters five, six and seven deal with historical considerations. Cornelius Venema addresses the content and history of the Reformed Confessions in the WCF, Heidelberg Confession and the Belgic Confession. There is unanimous agreement that the confessions do not support paedocommunion. In chapter six Nick Needham looks at the practice of the Lord’s Supper in the Patristic church. At the outset Needham states that

We can hardly disentangle the two dominical sacraments from each other. Belief and practice about baptism and about the Lord’s Supper are bound up with each other, both theologically and historically. Those who reject infant baptism are unlikely (to put it mildly) to endorse infant communion (p. 146).

Needham essentially argues that there was not enough of a distinguishment within this period between the belief and practice of baptism and the Lord’s Supper in order to be able to clearly say the Patristic church practiced paedocommunion.

Concluding the historical element for the book, Joel R. Beeke summarizes the teaching of the Reformed Liturgies starting with Calvin’s catechism and liturgy in 1541 to the Westminster Directory in 1644. Beeke concludes his overview of these documents by stating, “These liturgies and directories show that ‘paedocommunion’ had no place in the beliefs or practice of the Reformers or the Westminster Divines (p. 178).”

In the final chapter Waters and Duncan present some pastoral reflections on the issue of children and the Lord’s Supper. After reiterating many of the arguments made throughout the book they conclude with some very helpful pointers for parents to help them consider as they bring their children to the point of a confession of faith and the following admittance to the Lord ’s Table. There is much in here that even a Baptist like myself can readily agree with.

SOME FRUSTRATIONS

I am a Baptist. And I have to admit it has been nothing but interesting and sometimes frustrating reading this book as a Baptist. When I posted that I had finished reading this book one of my Reformed paedocommunion friends asked me how I felt about the book as a Baptist. He asked because he felt the same frustration at one point that I do now about the Reformed position of pro paedobaptism and anti paedocommunion. In time this caused him to make a full commitment to paedocommunion.

So why am I frustrated and conflicted? On the one hand I readily agree with most if not all of the points made in the book against paedocommunion. In fact there are probably some more points I would make as a Baptist that a Reformed position might not. As mentioned earlier, Children and the Lord’s Supper is a Reformed response to paedocommunion. As such the authors are paedobaptists. It is here that I find myself teetering between agreement and frustration. As a Baptist I can get behind the arguments against paedocommunion. But as a Baptist trying as best I can to just enjoy my agreement with my Reformed brothers I found myself at the end of every chapter frustrated by the thought that I wanted to argue against their paedobaptists position with the same arguments they were using against the Reformed position of paedocommunion. Again and again I wanted to say yes! But then I followed it up with ‘but wait!’ From someone on the outside looking in I felt like saying its either all or nothing. Its either both paedobaptism and paedocommunion or neither. I just cannot wrap my mind around one and not the other for the very same reasons I would endorse the one. Aside from the historical chapters of the book it felt like it was a fight against saying we agree with paedobaptism because we see the correlation/analogy between circumcision and baptism as 60/40 (more yes than no so we do it) but the reverse for Communion (40/60 – more less than no so we don’t). At some points I felt like the arguments were betraying the writers. Ironically, this is something the writers admittedly bump up against in many of the chapters.

So in the end I am conflicted about this book. I love it as a Baptist but I feel I would be confused as a Reformed brother. This is not to say reformed theology is confusing or nonsensical. I know my Reformed brothers feel the same way about some of my Baptist beliefs. Aside from my personal struggles at this point I commend Children and the Lord’s Supper as an able defense of the credocommunion position.

[Tyler Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book, along with Strawbridge's volume for the contrary position, to help an alumni work through the issue of paedocommunion. He is rather influenced by Moscow and folks that shaped the Federal Vision movement from several years ago. I'm still firmly convinced of the Reformed practice of requiring covenant kids to make a profession of faith prior to coming to the Table.

For me the ST chapter by Derek Thomas was the definitive one. I think he helpfully exposed some of the consequences of presuming the regeneration of our kids that would be necessary for child communion to work. The exegetical chapters were good too, although it can be frustrating that the entire debate really falls on 1 Corinthians 11 alone. Needham's historical chapter was fascinating, but I think most of the primary sources he cited were far from clear- I couldn't make out if they even were talking about the Lord's Supper let alone if they had a stance on children coming to the Table.

[Zachary Spivey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some chapters are more helpful than others. Solid beginning exploration into the debate of infant communion in the Reformed tradition. The book does a fantastic job of making it clear that the Reformers were against the practice. Worth a read.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty good. A helpful introduction

[Noel Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very helpful collection of essays by Reformed pastors regarding the 'paedo' issues in both of the Biblical sacraments. Written as a response to Peter Leithart's defense of paedo-communion, the authors walk carefully through each sacrament, demonstrating why paedobaptism is a scripturally supported stance while the Lord's Supper is reserved for inspected believers.

Good theological brush-up on both sacraments.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have long been convinced that paedocommunion is not a harmless side issue within Reformed theology. This book puts to rest infant communion's arguments and presents cogent articles that point out the errant theology involved. Simply put - paedocommunion falls outside the bounds of Reformed theology. I will not vote to ordain a man who holds that position.