Yesterday I read Cornelis P. Venema's 2009 book Children at the Lord's Table?: Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion. It is very good. I am certain it will be the standard treatment of this subject for many years to come.
Dr. Venema assesses the case for paedocommunion in four distinct spheres: (1) Church History, (2) Reformed Confessions, (3) Old Testament, and (4) New Testament. Ultimately, as he demonstrates, our understanding of admission to the Supper must be based on the New Testament teaching, and that is precisely where Venema's work excels. His interpretation and application of John 6 is superb. He also thoroughly examines the text at the center of this debate: 1 Corinthians 11.
One point that persuades me to align with the traditional reformed view of admission to the Supper is summarized in this excerpt from Venema:
Furthermore, Venema distinguishes between historic federal (or covenant) theology and what has recently been termed the Federal Vision, which includes a paedocommunionist perspective:
Dr. Venema assesses the case for paedocommunion in four distinct spheres: (1) Church History, (2) Reformed Confessions, (3) Old Testament, and (4) New Testament. Ultimately, as he demonstrates, our understanding of admission to the Supper must be based on the New Testament teaching, and that is precisely where Venema's work excels. His interpretation and application of John 6 is superb. He also thoroughly examines the text at the center of this debate: 1 Corinthians 11.
One point that persuades me to align with the traditional reformed view of admission to the Supper is summarized in this excerpt from Venema:
Since [John 6] describes the manner in which believers partake of Christ's boby and blood, it is significant for the manner in which this participation takes place through the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. If the sacrament is a divinely appointed means whereby its recipients enjoy a true participation in Christ's body and blood, the description of the nature of any such participation--which is given in this discourse--is of particular significance for answering the question of who may receive Christ sacramentally at the Table of the Lord.
The implication of this passage is expressed well in the Belgic Confesson, which declares that "the manner of our partaking [of Christ by means of the Supper] is not by the mouth, but by the Spirit through faith" (Article 35). Without specifically citing John 6 as a proof text, the Belgic Confession echoes the teaching of Jesus' discourse when it insists that "we . . . receive by faith (which is the hand and mouth of our soul) the true body and blood of Christ our only Savior in our souls, for the support of our spiritual life." The point of these affirmations is to emphasize that those who commune with and partake of Christ by means of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper do so by the mouth of faith. There is no communion with Christ apart from a believing appropriation of the gospel Word that declares Him to be the Word become flesh for us and for our salvation. Unless the Father grants a believing response to the gospel in the hearts and minds of people, they will not be able to come to Christ to eat His body and drink His blood. The necessary prerequisite to any participation in Christ is this divinely worked response of faith. If this holds true for any participation in Christ, it holds true for any sacramental participation in Him and His saving work (98).
Furthermore, Venema distinguishes between historic federal (or covenant) theology and what has recently been termed the Federal Vision, which includes a paedocommunionist perspective:
Some contemporary advocates of paedocommunion claim that all covenant members without exception--believers and their children who are recipients of the covenant promise and the accompanying sacrament of covenant incorporation, baptism--enjoy a full and saving union with Christ. Though Reformed theologians traditionally have distinguished between those who are "under the administration" of the covenant of grace and those who truly enjoy the saving "communion of life" that the covenant communicates, some proponents of what is sometimes termed the "Federal [coveanant] Vision" reject any such distinction between covenant members as inappropriate.
In the traditional language of Reformed theology, a distinction has been made (using a variety of expressions) between the covenant in its historical administration, which includes all professing believers and their children, and the covenant in its fruitfulness as a saving communion of life. This distinction was drawn in order to account for the biblical teaching that not all recipients of the covenant of grace in its historical administration are "elect" according to God's sovereign purposes. Among those who are under the administration of the covenant, some are non-elect and never come to true faith so as to enjoy the saving benefits of Christ's redemptive mediation. Despite the privileges and benefits of their participation in the covenant in its outward administration, these members of the covenant community ultimately prove to be unbelieving and impenitent, and so fall under the greater judgment of God. In order to preserve the biblical teaching regarding God's sovereign and gracious election, and to account for the perplexing circumstance that not all those who are recipients of the covenant promises are "children of the promise" in the same sense (cf. Rom. 9:6), Reformed theologians ordinarily have articulated the doctrine of the covenant in a way that allows for the inclusion of non-elect people within the adminitration of the covenant (139-40).
4 comments:
You read a lot of books in one day!
I'd be interested to read this book. I heard an interview with him on Reformed Forum. See if you can help me out on this. Something I have heard with the historical argument is that paedocommunion was the historical practice in the church, since it seems the East has a long history of paedo communion and the West seems to have switched in the Middle ages when Priests were frustrated that no one was taking their conformation classes, then making them a requirement for communion. I've heard this argument, but haven't see a lot of documentation either way...Does Venema address this?
Only one book!
Venema does address the historical argument to which you've referred. He concludes:
"Though the evidence for paedobaptism in the early history of the church warrants the inference that it was the earliest practice of the church, the evidence for paedocommunion warrants only the inference that it was the practice introduced into some sectors of the church by the middle of the third century. However, there is evidence from the third century and earlier that indicates paedocommunion may have been an innovation when it was introduced" (24).
hmmm...kinda sounds like a Baptist on baptism...
Yes, but we must remember, the merit of an argument is not determined by who makes it.
Post a Comment