Paedocommunion – One of the Most Un-Well Reasoned Things Calvin Ever Said

A tough audience.

Back in College, in the halcyon days of youth, when theology was funny and doctrine was power (if you had the luck to be the winner in an emotional debate) – oh, back then, there was an oft repeated joke. I have no idea its source, and I still think it is pretty funny:

Calvinist 1: “I’m a six-point Calvinist. T-U-L-I-P-I!”

Calvinist 2: “What does the last ‘I’ stand for?”

Calvinist 1: “Why, the Imminent return of John Calvin, of course!”

Okay, I know I wrote that in the format of clean joke books I read as a child that had been printed in the fifties. And if you are offended by the joke, then you are probably not reading from within Calvinism. This joke, to a Calvinist, doesn’t sound idolatrous, since the joker is not joking about Jesus, but is joking about Calvinist attitudes. Joking that Calvinists OVER-emphasize Calvin. And as Homer Simpson so aptly prophesies, “It’s funny, ’cause its true.”

When we tell a joke like this, we are making fun of ourselves. We recognize it, and then we all sit down and theologize some more and enjoy our affection for the man who has opened our eyes so widely.

There is much to love in the writings and passions of John Calvin. But, today, as I progress my arguments about infant inclusion in the Lord’s Supper; as I try to impress a consistent, covenantal hermeneutic upon us all; as I try to show that 1 Corinthians 11 does no damage to the natural and logical material everywhere in the Bible which begs us to take the little ones to the feast at Sinai; as I do this, I must take the words of John Calvin to task directly. Calvin writes a lengthy section about baptism, quickly listing some rather convincing reasons that he presents against the admittedly ancient practice of including the baptized children at the table. Because they are quickly convincing, and because they are now pervasive, and because Calvin has centuries of theological credit (with interest), they deserve regularly to be rebutted in print and in person.

• All of Calvin’s reasons are directly out of 1 Corinthians 11.
• All of Calvin’s reasons are the same arguments that are still made today.
• All of Calvin’s arguments are expressly wrong.

But his presentation of the arguments is so, naturally, classic to the way Reformed folks have argued the case for lo, these many years, that it outlines a simple path for dismantling the highway he constructed. I will refer to the following many times in subsequent posts. So I needed to have it here in full for reference.

I won’t comment after the quote. Between the summary post, and this concise argument from Calvin, we should have the necessary tools to start piecing our understandings of 1 Corinthians 11 back together again.

So without further ado, I present to you one of the most un-well reasoned things Calvin ever said:

Begin Quote:

Furthermore, they object that there is no more reason to administer baptism to infants than the Lord’s Supper, which is not permitted to them. As if Scripture did not mark a wide difference in every respect! This permission was indeed commonly given in the ancient church, as is clear from Cyprian and Augustine, but the custom has deservedly fallen into disuse. For if we consider the peculiar character of baptism, surely it is an entrance and a sort of initiation into the church, through which we are numbered among God’s people: a sign of our spiritual regeneration, through which we are reborn as children of God. On the other hand, the Supper is given to older persons who, having passed tender infancy, can now take solid food.

This distinction is very clearly shown in scripture. For with respect to baptism, the Lord there sets no definite age. But he does not similarly hold forth the Supper for all to partake of, but only for those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own conscience, of proclaiming the Lord’s death, and of considering its power. Do we wish anything plainer than the apostle’s teaching when he exhorts each man to prove and search himself, then to eat of this bread and drink of this cup [1 Cor 11:28]? A self-examination ought, therefore, to come first, and it is vain to expect this of infants. Again: “He who eats unworthily eats and drinks condemnation for himself, not discerning the body of the Lord” [I Cor 11.29]. If only those who know how to distinguish rightly the holiness of Christ’s body are able to participate worthily, why should we offer poison instead of life-giving food to our tender children? What is the command of the Lord: “Do this in remembrance of me” [Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:25]? What is that other command which the apostle derives from it? “As often as you eat this bread, you will proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” [I Cor 11:26]? What remembrance of this thing, I ask, shall we require of infants when they have never grasped it? What preaching of the cross of Christ, the force and benefit of which their minds have not yet comprehended? None of these things is prescribed in Baptism. Accordingly there is a very great difference between these two signs, as we have noted in like signs also under the Old Testament. Circumcision, which is known to correspond to our baptism, had been appointed for infants [Gen 17.12]. But Passover, the place of which has been taken by the Supper, did not admit all guests indiscriminately, but was duly eaten only by those who were old enough to be able to inquire into its meaning [Ex 12:26]. If these men had a particle of sound brain left, would they be blind to a thing so clear and obvious?

End Quote

-John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.30, (translated by Ford Lewis Battles)^a

YOUR HOMEWORK:

In the comments, give the best enumerated list of Calvin’s reasons young children should not take the Eucharist. Try to be really concise. I hope to use the list as written by a reader in my follow up post or posts. If someone has written a list, and you want to say it a different way, go ahead. I wish to get our brains reading and ready for the answers I give.

FOR EXTRA (calvinisticum) CREDIT:

Explain why Calvin’s list is wrong at each or at any one point.

—

P.S. Part 1 on this topic is found here: “Finally Discussing Paedocommunion For Real.”

—-

Luke Welch has a master’s degree from Covenant Seminary and preaches regularly in a conservative Anglican church in Maryland. He blogs about Bible structure at SUBTEXT. Follow him on Twitter: @lukeawelch<>купить seo копирайтинг

1. As found in McNeil’s edition, copyright 1960, W L Jenkins, published by Westminster Press, Philadelphia. See pages 1352-1353. Furthermore, I hope this citation thoroughly annoyed anyone who regularly has to write real citations. Amen.  (back)

Calvin, Paedocommunion