# Paedocommunion?



## diverumve (May 27, 2009)

What are some of the arguments that Federal Visionists and Non-Federal Visionists alike use to defend paedocommunion? I'm not asking for a debate on what scripture says about this topic because it is very clear that scripture teaches that communion is for believers only, but I just want to know what their reasons are for giving communion to those who have not professed the faith.


----------



## PresbyDane (May 28, 2009)




----------



## ExGentibus (May 28, 2009)

Rev. Schwertley summarizes the arguments for paedocommunion in his essay:



> The basic arguments in favor of paedocommunion are simple, straitforward and (if one accepts the paedocommunist’s fallacious presuppositions) logical. It is the simplicity of the paedocommunionist argument coupled with a woeful lack of theological knowledge in most Reformed churches today which I believe accounts for the popularity of this doctrine.
> 
> The paedocommunionist argument is rooted in their application of covenant theology to the Lord’s supper. Regarding infant baptism, all Reformed believers are in agreement that baptism corresponds to and replaces circumcision. That is why the infants of believers are obligated to receive the sign and seal of baptism. The paedocommunists apply similar reasoning to the Lord’s supper. They point out that the Lord’s supper corresponds to and replaces the old covenant Passover. Since (we are told) whole covenant families including infants and toddlers participated in the Passover meal, should not also infants and toddlers be permitted to partake of the communion meal? The connection between Passover and the Lord’s supper is the heart of the paedocommunist doctrine. Their major argument is supported by other assertions. They argue that 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, which discusses the need for participants to discern the Lord’s body (which is a common proof text against infants and toddlers participating in communion), is directed to adults not children. While adults need to examine themselves in order to avoid the gross abuses of the Lord’s table that were occurring at Corinth, infants are incapable of examining themselves and thus the apostle’s admonition does not apply to them. Similarly, while a credible profession of faith is required of adults before baptism, it obviously is not required of covenant children. Further, an appeal is often made to church history. It is asserted (erroneously)[1] that for at least the first thousand years of its existence the new covenant church practiced paedocommunion.[2]


----------

