# Children At the Lord's Table?



## greenbaggins

Cornelis Venema has written what is only the second book-length defense of the non-paedo-communion position (Leonard Coppes wrote the first). Venema’s book is up-to-date, irenic, yet confessional. I realize that is practically a contradiction in some people’s minds. Nevertheless, Venema has achieved the impossible. I would especially encourage all paedo-communion advocates to read this book, as it is fair, detailed, without caricatures, and Biblical. I believe it will scratch a lot of people exactly where they itch on an issue like this.

I especially appreciate his argument concerning the Passover. He makes a distinction between the initiation of Passover, wherein all Israelites participated, and the subsequent celebrations of the Passover, which required only male members to celebrate. Venema’s care is evident here, for he argues not that women and children were excluded from the subsequent Passovers, but only that their participation was not required or forbidden. This makes the argument from Passover to Lord’s Supper (as paedo-communion advocates use it) ambiguous and uncertain. Venema argues strongly here:



> It is gratuitous to assume that enjoyment of the privileges of the covenant was dependent on all members of the covenant community participating to the same extent in the Feast of the Passover (p. 68).



Indeed. Venema is also careful concerning the catechetical exercise listed in Exodus 12. Many opponents of paedo-communion use this argument to say that small infants could not participate since they could not ask the question. Venema says, “The presence of this catechetical exercise in the Passover rite does not argue conclusivelyfor or against the participation of infants and younger children…the children of the household participated in the Passover rite in different ways, depending on their maturity and ages” (p. 70).


----------



## OPC'n

Wow, I didn't know that there were people here who held to paedo-communion. That seems unorthodox...unreformed....something new.


----------



## toddpedlar

sjonee said:


> Wow, I didn't know that there were people here who held to paedo-communion. That seems unorthodox...unreformed....something new.



Hm - not sure I know where you might have picked up the idea that there are any here who hold to paedocommunion. I'm not aware of any, anyway... (it's an anti-confessional position, besides)


----------



## OPC'n

toddpedlar said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I didn't know that there were people here who held to paedo-communion. That seems unorthodox...unreformed....something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hm - not sure I know where you might have picked up the idea that there are any here who hold to paedocommunion. I'm not aware of any, anyway... (it's an anti-confessional position, besides)
Click to expand...




> I would especially encourage all paedo-communion advocates to read this book,



That's where...of course Rev Lane could just be telling us to tell others who are not members here about the book....it was just my impression which very well could be wrong. I guess we'll have to ask Rev Lane what he meant.


----------



## greenbaggins

Sorry for the mixup. I have quite a few paedo-communion readers of my blog, and I just copied the review from my blog. I do not mean to suggest that there are any paedo-communion advocates on this board.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

I am sure there might be some here who are associated with a PCA (or other church) whose majority hold to paedo-communion but do not practice it per BCO.


----------



## toddpedlar

greenbaggins said:


> Sorry for the mixup. I have quite a few paedo-communion readers of my blog, and I just copied the review from my blog. I do not mean to suggest that there are any paedo-communion advocates on this board.



just what I was going to write (i.e. that this review was exactly what Lane posted on his blog, whose readership includes a lot of PC advocates)


----------



## TimV

I imagine there are a couple Reformed Anglicans or such like here who approve of the practice.


----------



## OPC'n

TimV said:


> I imagine there are a couple Reformed Anglicans or such like here who approve of the practice.



So is this an Anglican belief? I really am not familiar with Anglican.


----------



## toddpedlar

sjonee said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine there are a couple Reformed Anglicans or such like here who approve of the practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is this an Anglican belief? I really am not familiar with Anglican.
Click to expand...


It's a distinctive of some in the Reformed Episcopal Church - but by no means widespread in the Anglican communion overall, at least as far as I know.


----------



## yeutter

TimV said:


> I imagine there are a couple Reformed Anglicans or such like here who approve of the practice.


Historically the mainstream of Anglican thought and practice is to restrict communion to those who have been confirmed. High churchmen tend to view confirmation as a minor sacrament. Low churchmen tend to understand confirmation as a formal way of making profession of faith before coming to the Lords Table.

Since 1978 the Episcopal Church has formally fallen into apostacy. A new prayerbook has been adopted by the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has ordained women as deacons, presbyters and bishops. Paedo communion has become the norm in liberal Episcopal circles. 

Some Anglicans will argue for paedo communion based on the fact it is the practice of Eastern Orthodoxy. Venema gives the Biblical arguement; that should reassure Anglicans the historic western church practice of restricting communion to those who have been confirmed has merit. 

Venema's book should be of value to Anglicans just as it is to our Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed brothers.


----------

