What? Paedocommunion?
Last week while contemplating the subject of today’s article, I came across the title of another’s article that seemed worthy of stopping to read. The title was, “Is Paedocommunion Biblical?” You may not recognize this word and it is certain you will not see it except in a theological context. You may be familiar with the term paedobaptism but far less common is to see paedocommunion. Both terms relate to the participation of children in the life of the church. The more common term for paedobaptism is infant baptism, while paedocommunion refers to the inclusion of children baptized as infants in the observance of the Lord’s Supper.
You are already much aware that we do not believe paedobaptism is biblical. Baptism is a church ordinance enacted only upon a credible, volitional profession of faith. Infants are incapable of this, although older children who have come to understanding of repentance and faith and have professed Christ may receive baptism. Since the church agreed to their baptism and admitted them into the membership of the church, they are eligible for communion.
I remember when I first became pastor of Berean, there were practices concerning baptism and communion that I believe needed correction. The first was the participation of non-members. I have said multiple times we believe in restricted communion. The Lord’s Supper should be observed only by the membership of each individual local church. We do not question the salvation of any other Christians as this practice is not a salvation issue. Membership is the qualifier.
The other problem was the participation of children without profession of faith and baptism. Member parents would pass the communion trays down their row and would allow their young children to take from the trays and if they were too young to manage the task themselves, their parents would reach in and hold the elements for them. These would be the circumstances for us to say we do not practice paedocommunion!
Who, then, uses this term and finds it necessary to argue for or against it? It would be those churches that practice infant baptism and believe the baptized infants of adult believers are members of the covenant community (their terms) and are thus members of the visible church. If you understand our doctrine, you know we do not use the term visible to distinguish the local church from the non-existent invisible church (a subject for another day). This is the rub for churches practicing infant baptism. How do you exclude from communion those you have admitted into the covenant of the church? I am thankful we need not concern ourselves with arguments over this issue since anchoring the use of both terms is baptism. If the baptism is not valid, certainly participation in communion is invalid. The reformed churches and others who practice infant baptism very well understand the distinctions Baptists make concerning this. Our practice of excluding them from our communion should not offend them since their exclusion comes from logical deduction. Both we and they agree the unbaptized are not eligible for communion.
Controversies concerning the Supper spread across the wide spectrum of Christianity. The practice of restricted communion has no shortage of detractors, although they may not find fault in any other aspect of our observance. There are arguments about the presence of Christ in the elements, whether the Supper is a sacrament or a memorial, and is communion a means of grace. If so, how so? We do not advocate for the recognition of every group as true churches of Jesus Christ. What they do and how they agree or disagree on the Supper is of no consequence to us if they are not under the headship of Christ. Paedobaptism and paedocommunion are indicators of serious theological illness. The presence of those doctrines in a church means we are not dealing with valid churches.
Pastor V. Mark Smith