Thoughts on Paedocommunion, Partaking of the Lord's Supper, and the Watershed Distinguishing FV Dark from FV Light

 The following are some comments I made in a Facebook group on the subject of when covenant children should be permitted to partake of the elements/bread and wine of the Lord's Supper. In general, I think some in the Reformed camp have strayed much too far in the direction of only admitting those who are adults or nearly adults, turning communion (inadvertently, I hope) into a badge of honor for those who are considered very sanctified and have stood the test of time in the faith, so as to avoid any possible judgment from God for partaking in an unworthy manner (I Cor. 11:27-32). On the other hand, and likely in response to this error, others I believe have erred on the other side, allowing for paedo-communion, those who are not just young covenant children but covenant babies, ages two and under or so, to partake. This is unbiblical because they cannot yet partake of the bread and the wine "in remembrance of Me/Christ" as required, and which is of the essence of Communion/the Lord's Supper (I Cor. 11:23-26). The Lord's Supper is not a mere memorial but a communion with the Lord by faith and through the Spirit (I Cor. 10:16-17). I was mostly interacting with those advocating for the paedocommunion position, and while I think they make some points that are worth considering, and while I do plan eventually to read one of their author's definitive works on the subject, the articles, chapters, and snippets I have read for the position seems untenable and unbiblical, though I understand the desire and sentiment. 

I also think paedocommunion is a watershed for those who have been associated with the "Federal Vision" movement. Some have a modified/milder form of paedocommunion, the FV "lites"/former FV'ers like Doug Wilson, and work back toward Reformed Orthodoxy/Westminster Confession from there; whereas the FV "darks" such as Peter Leithart and James Jordan start with paedocommunion and work further away from Reformed Orthodoxy/Westminster Confession, particularly as it relates to worship/liturgy/understanding of sacraments. The former remains much closer to the Reformed faith, holding to a borderline unorthodox/fringe position, and can point to someone like Musculus for support of their paedocommunion, as well as the OPC report that is often mentioned. The FV darks aren't really Reformed in the same sense, though I don't think they are heretics either, just something different and frankly still developing, for better or worse. I think concerns about the FV darks are very much warranted, and cautions against paedocommunion of the FV lites as well, but one is largely Reformed while the other seems to be much further away, and POTENTIALLY could fall into actual heresy. 

With that preface and context given, here are some comments I made that I hope are helpful for you when considering these questions: 

//I think there's a big difference between a child, even a fairly young child, and an infant/newborn. If paedocommunism is for infants, I think that's really, really silly. If you are making it for a 2 or 3 year old based on the most bare profession of faith or excitement about Jesus, I still think that's missing the point, but I can understand that position much better (and by the way, based on what I listened to from Doug Wilson's CREC examination from the early 2000's, this is basically his position, which to me is more of a modified paedocommunion or VERY young child communion).

I don't know how one can say that a newborn can partake of the bread and wine "in remembrance" of Christ. That itself rules out infant communion, and in my estimating most children 2 or 3 years and younger. To "discern the Lord's body" is required, and it is somewhat irrelevant that in I Cor. 11 the specific call to discern the Lord's body is related to eating together as one body so as to avoid having factions. The principle of discerning the Lord's body is there. Again, I don't see an infant, a one year old, and most two year olds, being able to do such. The call to examine oneself, likewise, is a principle, and while I do agree that many Reformed churches have turned this all into a theological exam and have not made communion something to strengthen the faith of the weak but almost become a boast of the "strong", the solution isn't to ignore Scripture and fly too far in the other direction. A basic understand, a basic, child-like faith, is necessary. I also would argue that elders, in their spiritual care for their congregation, should examine the children before admitting them to the table. That doesn't mean they were excommunicated prior to being admitted. The covenant infant has a right to the table because the infant is in the covenant, and is part of the people/family/children of God/Christ, and therefore is rightly called, in that sense, a Christian. But the requirements of partaking require doing this in remembrance of Christ/proclaiming the Lord's death till He comes, and examining oneself.

Paedofaith is the only way you can say that an infant rightly partakes. I know that's what some Paedocommunion folks argue. But to argue that a child is regenerate and has an inclination to faith/habit of faith/seed of faith, is not the same thing as confessing faith or being able to, in a basic way, do this in remembrance of Christ and examine oneself/discern the Lord's body.

Even Peter Leithart states that Reformed folk who practice paedocommunion wait until the infant can digest solid foods before giving the elements to the child. It sure seems like a double standard to say that they aren't practicing excommunication when they do this, but those of us who require a simple, child-like faith first are. If Leithart and paedcommunion advocates in general can recognize the need to wait until the child can physically digest the elements, I really have a hard time seeing why they cannot recognize the need for the child to be able to digest the "spiritual" elements, feeding on Christ by the spiritual digestive system of faith, not just a disposition toward faith due to being a regenerate infant, but actual faith/confession.//

//I know some, maybe all, paedocommunion people resort to paedofaith. I appreciate the consistency, but I don't think that resolves the issue at all. Even if an infant is regenerated, and has the seed/habit of faith or however we want to designate it, that is not the same thing as confessing the faith. Such a child I have no doubt will be taken to heaven if he died, and no doubt has a right to the Lord's Table, but by faith. Even a regenerate newborn is unable to partake of the Lord's Supper "in remembrance" of Christ, much less examine himself.//

//I think it is hard to argue away "do this in remembrance of Me". It is of the essence of communion, it is of the essence of the Lord's Supper. In communion we are doing something. In baptism, the one being baptized is not doing anything at all, except being present. Baptism is administered once, the Lord's Supper frequently. Baptism focuses especially on initiation into the covenant, the Lord's Supper on growth in Christ. You are initiated once, but are continually growing, which is why you are baptized once and partake of communion regularly/throughout your life.

And I do want to make clear, the infants of believers DO participate in the Lord's Supper. If we actually had a table to sit around for communion, I'd bring my newborn. I wouldn't yet let him partake of the bread and wine, apparently Leithart wouldn't either, but bringing the child to the table shows that the table BELONGS to my infant/newborn, because he is part of the covenant family and has a claim to the covenant meal. But just as my newborn is with us when we have our family dinners and participates by being present, he does not yet partake of the meat/meal itself. That is not exclusion from the table, though, and it is important to recognize that. My newborn belongs at the table, he is part of my family. He will eat the meat that I as a father provide for him when he is able to partake rightly, by digesting the food. Well, the Lord's Table is spiritual, not just a physical eating, and we feed on Christ by faith, not just by physically chewing the elements.//

//I appreciate your comments [concerning "remembrance" being required in OT/ old covenant sacramental meals, but not requiring actual faith since all children partook and even incense is said to perform some sort of "remembrance"] . This, to me, fits my thesis that the FV dark take paedocommunion and go further with it to reorient a lot of things sacramentally related, while FV light take paedocommunion and steer back toward the WCF. I don't think either are heretics, but they are quite different.

But that aside, children partaking is not the issue. It is infants, and VERY young children, say 2 or 3 and under. Also, our children aren't incense/inanimate objects so that is irrelevant. The rocks and hills praise the Lord too, but I'm not going to serve them Communion haha.//

//And I think some get tripped up on the word "mature". I am not saying, and I don't think Blake is either, that before my child can have physical meat and drink wine, they have to be able to roll the wine around on their tongue, make some splendid, exquisite remark about its quality like a judge at a wine tasting competition, or consume the meat and rave about its seasonings. I am against that view of the Lord's Supper just as much as paedocommunion. My son Fletcher, when he was 5 or 6, tried some of my ribeye, and loved it. He couldn't express as fully why as I could of course, but he could taste and see that it was good. Young children who have faith can indeed taste and see that the Lord is good, is their Savior, and can have a child-like faith to express that, and indeed, to partake of the bread and wine in remembrance of their Lord and Savior. But there's a difference between a child-like faith and an regenerate infant's inclination toward faith.//

//  I think you may be right for some concerning I Cor. 11, but I don't think the particular context and particular point doesn't have broader application and principles. And the "Do this in remembrance of Me" portion really has nothing to do with the context of I Cor. 11. Paul is quoting Jesus from the institution of the Lord's Supper. The following verses, in I Cor. 11:27, says "Therefore," so Paul himself is applying the principle of the institution of the Lord's Supper from the night Jesus was betrayed, to make a specific application of that principle in I Cor. 11 with the people not eating together as one body.

It seems to me the FV and/or paedocommunion folks want to make I Cor. 11 the principle, or not even that, almost the only way one can partake in an unworthy manner, when it is actually a specific application of a broader principle concerning partaking of the Lord's Supper "in remembrance of Me". I do agree that some in the Reformed camp have turned I Cor. 11 into something it isn't as well, that you must pass an ordination exam and demonstrate you are a super sanctified and distinguished Christian saint before partaking of such a badge of honor as Communion. But I don't want to make a different error either.//

//I don't have a problem with child communion because it isn't really an age issue. In essence, it is whether or not such a covenant member can partake truly/in faith. I would be willing to consider examining a young child, as young as 4 or 5 let's say just to put a number on it. But that doesn't mean if they simply say they love Jesus that would be sufficient, nor is it to say that if the elders deemed the child "not ready" yet that they were somehow therefore excommunicated. There's a seat at the table for them, they have a right to it, and they will partake of the meal when they are able to partake in faith, in remembrance of Christ, examining himself. Maybe a 4 or 5 year old would be ready, maybe some would need to wait until 6 or 7 or 8. I think a covenant child, raised in a solid church by faithful parents, would ordinarily see their child communing sooner rather than later, certainly not later than 10 or so in normal circumstances, but quite possibly much earlier, say 5 or 6.

But again, I don't think it is about age/numbers. I think another major issue is some have so "diluted" God's promises to our covenant children who are raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord that it is hardly a promise at all. I have heard some Reformed/Presbyterian pastors whom I respect greatly on many things, say basically that young parents think their kids are going to be the EXCEPTION, by which they mean young parents are naive to think their kids will actually be saved. That is so backwards and appalling to me that it is hard to even talk about. I think the FV/CREC/paedocommunion crowd has the same revulsion to that as I do, and we are pretty much one spirit in that regard, and it is something that needs to be rooted out of Reformed churches. It is contra-Reformed. But by and large, so is paedocommunion.//

//Because I think you [those advocating infant communion] are confusing physical eating and drinking with spiritual eating and drinking, or merging them or something close to that. I don't consider the point at which a child can physically swallow meat and drink wine to be coterminous with spiritually feeding on Christ by faith, "in remembrance" of Him with a child-like examination of oneself. My 1.5 year old now eats much of the same food as my older children, and even the adults. I wouldn't give him steak though, or wine. The meat he does get is cut up smaller for him, etc. It seems this is the point where you guys would say they are ready to partake in the bread and wine of Communion. I'm saying the physical eating and drinking is symbolic of, but not identical to, when the child spiritually feeds upon Christ, by faith expressed in eating/drinking the bread/wine (so partaking of the elements is supposed to be an act/expression of saving faith in Christ). 

Certainly, turning communion into a meal for the spiritually advanced, super saints who are all adults or near to it, is a travesty and loses all the imagery and symbolism of a child-like faith, and that communion is for the weak and struggling Christian, not just the supposed strong and mighty. So I am looking for simple spiritual digestion of the bread and wine of Communion, if we want to use the word "spiritual" for it, by which I simply mean partaking in faith, doing so remembering Christ and what He has done for His people/body. Otherwise, if an infant can partake of the sacrament essentially unconsciously, I don't see how that is a blessing to the child without turning communion into something like a PHYSICAL vitamin, that grows you spiritually simply by physically eating and drinking the elements. I would argue that in one sense the elements are a SPIRITUAL "vitamin", and because of that must be digested spiritually/with faith.//

//Indeed this could be applied to adults too, that's why there is an examination by the elders for a basic understanding (at least that is what I argue for and it would seem the vast majority of the Reformed tradition), again, not comprehensive PHD holier than thou stuff. But surely if your three year old said something like, "the bread and wine is magical and just by eating/drinking it makes me super spiritually strong like when Popeye eats spinach" that would at least be concerning to you and something you'd want to correct I imagine.//

//I think the point about the blood on the doorposts is a good one, and so I do think it is wrong to say that the covenant infant does not have any participation in the covenant meal. They are in the covenant family, the covenant household, and so the blood was on the doorposts of the house, not necessarily on the child/babies' heads or lips or whatever. So when they are infants, I guess I am basically saying it is irrelevant whether they eat and drink or not. The blood of Christ covers them, it is there on the doorposts of the house, and they are in and part of that house. A newborn under the old covenant who could not physically eat of the covenant meal/passover lamb was not thereby excluded. Though even if he did eat of the meal but the father chose not to put the blood on the doorposts, I would think that firstborn male child would have still been killed. This all points/amounts, to me, to the child being covered until they can express saving faith in Christ, the lamb who was slain, and once they do so, they are "standing on their own" as some wish to put it, and should partake of the bread and wine. And I think they can and should be encouraged to express saving faith in Christ as early as possible, and as they are able, to partake in remembrance of Christ (I'm thinking of Ex. 12:26-27 where the children ask the parents concerning Passover "what does this rite of yours mean?/what mean ye by this service" and the parents tell them basically how they "do this in remembrance" of "the LORD's Passover, who passed over the houses....smote the Egyptians...delivered our houses...."), proclaiming the Lord's death and deliverance of His people.

As I think about the Passover passage in Exodus, it just dawned on me that the children, even 1 year olds or whatever, may well have eaten of the Passover lamb without participating in the "rite" of Passover. They ate the lamb as part of a family meal, but not as a sacrament. This is why they ask their parents, "What mean ye by this service?" If the objection is raised that therefore our children today should partake of the bread and wine even before they understand its spiritual significance (for the sake of symmetry with Passover) my response is that Passover was, in some sense, a "family" meal as well as a covenant/sacrament meal, whereas the Lord's Supper is not an individual family at the dinner table in their homes enjoying dinner. It indeed is a covenant meal/sacrament, but not a "family eating at home" meal. Obviously I am not intending to deny that it is the family of God eating together at His table, rather I'm trying to underscore that point.// 

//It is increasingly apparent to me that your position [saying we should admit children to the Lord's Table when they are weaned physically and begin eating solid food at home] is equating or merging the ability to eat physically with being able to spiritually feed upon Christ. Spiritual feeding requires faith/doing this in remembrance, which despite all the writing on "discerning the Lord's body", I've not really seen that very straightforward statement of Christ, which isn't bound by the context of I Cor. 11, rendered null and void.

Eating a meal at home and partaking of the covenant meal are not the same thing, so I should not bring my child to the communion table just as soon as they are able to eat mashed up meat. There's a relationship/analogy between the two, but not an identity.//

//No, you said they should not partake until they are eating solid food at home. That's not a natural restriction and certainly isn't a scriptural command. I think your argument would be far more consistent if you did give infants communion, then it would actually be paedocommunion in the same way that infant baptism is paedobaptism. As it stands, your practice of aligning the child/baby partaking with when they can chew physical food is just very confusing and muddled to me haha.

But I doubt we'll see in complete agreement just by looking at I Cor. 11 or any one particular place. This really, as you are noting here, goes to our understanding of sacraments throughout Scripture. The institution of Communion requiring a remembrance, or doing it as a reminder of Christ, is of the essence/institution of the Lord's Supper. Without this, you do not have a true/proper partaking. There is no such command in baptism to do anything. An infant may eat of the bread and drink of the wine without doing it in remembrance, just as a baby may have eaten of the Passover lamb without knowing what the ritual meant. But that was not an actual partaking by remembrance/observance of the ritual. It would only be a partaking by being present for the ritual, which does matter, for after all if the child was outside of the household the death angel would have stricken him down, whether he ate of the meal or not.

I may partake/participate in a wedding by being present, but I am not partaking in the truest sense of the essence of the marriage unless I'm saying "I do". Covenant children certainly have a pre-arranged marriage to Christ, but they don't enter into the marriage/salvific benefits of the body and blood of Christ inwardly until they have are born again/regenerate, and the outflow/evidence of that is going to be faith once one is able to express faith. I see nothing in Scripture or the Confessions to warrant presuming that all our children are born regenerate, and so therefore I have no right to presume they be admitted to the Lord's Table to partake in remembrance of Him/as a memorial until they actually exhibit a desire and basic ability to do so.

If you define sacraments as you do, and basically see the Lord's Supper as redundant of baptism, not requiring anything and the need to do this "in remembrance" meaning simply eating and drinking the physical elements, then yes, your position makes sense. If the ritual itself/words of institution alone is all that is required for each individual who eats and drinks the bread and wine to do so "in remembrance/as a reminder" then I'd grant your position. But the objectivity of the covenant and the covenant meal does not preclude the need for the subjective appropriation of Christ by faith/in remembrance of each individual covenant member. If you keep pushing, you're going to end up having to say that you are saved whether you have faith or not, whether inwardly regenerate or not.

But again, Scripture, depending on the manuscripts, doesn't say, "take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you, and simply by physically digesting the elements you are remembering Me and proclaiming the Lord's death." Scripture has two commands, to "take, eat" and to "do this [taking and eating] in remembrance of Me." But even if all you have is "do this in remembrance of Me" the indication is clearly that you are doing this "for a remembrance/reminder". It is absurd to say that because the act of eating/drinking itself is a ritual to remind/remember Christ and an act of proclaiming His death, that doing so without actually remembering Christ personally is perfectly fine and proper partaking.

Add to this the call to examine oneself when eating and drinking, to judge oneself, and it is all the more clear. You don't have to rehash the argument of I Corinthians 11 and the particular context as the paedocommunionist understands it, I hear you but am unpersuaded. The key, as I see it, is that Paul is using I Cor. 11:23-26 and the institution of the Lord's Supper as an act of taking and eating in remembering and proclaiming INWARDLY as individuals that the "Therefore" in v. 27 is there, and the following verses are given for partaking in an unworthy manner. To say that the only way one can partake unworthily is the way described in I Cor. 11 is just bad exegesis and contrary to common sense. If I partook thinking it was an indication of how holy I am and wonderful, that would be partaking in an unworthy manner. If I partook thinking that this meant that Jesus was crucified again, that would be wrong. If I partake without the body of Christ/Church gathered, thinking this is just some sweet individualistic communion time between me and my own personal Jesus, yeah that is wicked and worthy of serious judgment as well. And why is it worthy of serious judgment? Well, it would be like gathering for worship and having sex with cult prostitutes. It is incongruent, to say the least, with what worship is. Eating and drinking is intended as a memorial/remembrance of Christ. The objective reality of that ritual for the church/body of Christ should be reflected in the subjective hearts and minds of each individual of that body. To use one of Doug Wilson's egg/omelet analogies, you don't say we are going to make omelets and then proceed to stack up cuts of beef. So you don't say "this is a reminder and proclamation of Christ's atoning death" and then say it is irrelevant whether or not those involved in the ritual are living remember-ers and proclaimers of Christ's death or not. Whether they discern the Lord's body, as in the Church, or the Lord's sacrifice on the cross. Plainly to not remember personally as an individual is to partake unworthily, to not enter into the spirit of the sacrament, to partake in it in a mocking, unrighteous way, or as Scripture puts it, in an unworthy manner.

I'll gladly grant that a 1.5 year old partaking because he thinks it is just a bit of drink and bread from mommy is not really heaping up the same kind/degree of judgment talked about in I Cor. 11:27ff. Yet an uncircumcised male, through no fault of his own, was not excused simply for being an infant. So parents and elders who give infants or babies communion, essentially requiring them to partake in an unworthy manner, are not pleasing the Lord and are not doing their covenant children any favors. It is a mockery of the sacrament as I see it, and as I believe the Lord sees it as well, though I know that is not your intention whatsoever.//

//[To answer the paedocommunionist objection that I Cor. 11 says the eating and drinking itself is the remembering and proclaiming of Christ's death, therefore a covenant baby can partake because the act of digesting the elements of bread and wine is all that is needed to rightly remember and proclaim the Lord's death]  Eating and drinking is a proclaiming. But is it a worthy one if I'm not doing so likewise inwardly/spiritually/from the heart? Am I partaking in a worthy manner if all I'm thinking about while eating and drinking is the football game coming up, or what's for lunch? It may still be a proclamation because the ritual itself is a proclamation, but it wouldn't be a pleasing proclaiming/worthy one to the Lord. It would be an unworthy proclamation. To think the eating/drinking itself being a proclamation somehow negates the need to do the same in the heart is strange. What if I partook while cursing God in the heart? 

Looking at this, I think it is probably accurate that Scripture is teaching that eating and drinking the covenant meal is a ritual reminder/remembrance of Christ, and particularly that as the Church does this as His body, the Church is thereby proclaiming the Lord's death and its efficacy, to one another and to the world.

But it is the very nature of a proclamation, of a ritual remembrance of someone/something, to enter into the spirit of the thing to partake properly/worthily. It is clear from I Cor. 11 that there is a way to partake that is pleasing to the Lord, and ways to partake that are not pleasing to Him. Thus the need for examining oneself, discerning the Lord's body (whatever precise meaning we want to give that duty/command attached to the eating/drinking in the I Cor. 11 context). To say that all God requires is to eat and drink is simply not what the text is saying. To say examination is only needed for adults, or that the only examination that God requires is that you eat together as one body, is also absurd, though even that duty I do not see how a 1 year old could manage. In our nation we celebrate Memorial Day, to remember soldiers killed in the line of duty. The memorial itself calls for reflection and somberness, and actually inwardly remembering and appreciating these soldiers. Our nation celebrates Christmas, supposedly for Jesus' birth, but we know that it has just been commercialized for kids to get presents and for consumerism. Is that a worthy way to remember and honor Christ's birth, even if the pagans show up for Church in between all their shopping and spending to gratify their own lusts? Most certainly not. A remembrance, a memorial, entails a ritual but also that the people in the ritual/ceremony actually enter into the spirit of it. This is more true concerning the Lord's Supper than any other memorial known to man.// 

**I'm about tapped out with the whole debate lol. I will be discussing tomorrow in session, and have spent the vast majority of my time reading, listening, and thinking about all this in the last 72 hours or so.

I'll respond here, but probably won't get back to any more responses if you have any for a few days at least, if I know what's good for my health that is haha.

//Keep in mind, however, that the sacraments pertain to the visible, not the invisible, church. Question 66 of the Heidelberg Catechism reads:

"The sacraments are VISIBLE holy signs and seals appointed by God for this end, that by their use He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel, namely, that of free grace He grants us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross."

In my thinking, this means we are to administer the sacraments on the basis of objective covenant standing (which we can see) rather than the inward condition of the person's soul (which we cannot). I also think Jesus demonstrated this by admitting Judas to the Supper.//

I'm far less familiar with Heidelberg than I am Westminster, but it seems apparent to me that the word VISIBLE here has nothing to do with the visible/invisible church distinction, but that they are physical/seen with the eyes. I don't see any possible way this could relate to the visible church, though certainly baptism and communion are given to those in the Church, whether "visible" or "invisible". But again, a distinction is between baptism as an entrance into the covenant, and communion as spiritual growth in the covenant.

As far as Judas goes, that's pretty clearly a warning about what happens when you partake of the Lord's body and blood in an unworthy manner haha. Seriously, Jesus identified His betrayer, knew Judas was not of His people, and that judgment was going to fall on Judas. Judas is an object lesson. I would hope that if you knew of an adult covenant member in your congregation, especially someone in leadership like Judas, that was denying the faith or plotting your demise (lol), that you would call the cops, then probably bar him from the table until he repents.

//No, I think the teaching here is that the Supper is an objective memorial before God, not man. This is articulated briefly here://

I have no reason to doubt that the Supper is an objective memorial/remembrance before God. It is a sacrament after all. But worthy participation, worthy eating and drinking, requires doing something out of faith, not only actually taking and eating/drinking as a proclamation of the Lord's death, but examining oneself. If the Corinthians had examined themselves, they would have waited for one another and would have avoided coming "together for judgment" (I Cor. 11:34). There's more than one way to come together for judgment when partaking of the Lord's Supper. So I will agree that simply eating and drinking is a partaking and a "memorial", but if apart from faith it is an unworthy memorial, one that is displeasing to the Lord, and thus may invoke His judgment/chastening. The objective memorial/sacrament has attached instructions for those participating/partaking, and failure to follow those instructions, for whatever reason, is to bring dishonor on the memorial service/sacrament, and thus dishonor on Christ Himself and His body.

// Brother, that depends on who is being baptized. When it's an adult, there are clear and definite commands to repent (Acts 2:38) and believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 8:37) before one is baptized. But you and I already agree that these commands and qualifications do not apply to covenant children in the same way as they do to adults. Don't we?//

An infant baptized is commanded to repent and believe, and "remembering your baptism" entails a call to repent and believe. But in baptism whether an infant, child, or adult is being baptized, the ceremony of baptism itself, as the element of water is being poured out, does not come with any attached instructions in the recipient. The recipient is merely present, passive, not active. This is not the case in The Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper presupposes a living faith for the recipient to be a "worthy" one, hence the commands to take, eat, and do so in remembrance/as a memorial. Whereas the sacrament of baptism does not have any such commands for the recipients. The command to repent and believe before an adult may be baptized does not make repentance/faith part of the baptism. But taking and eating/drinking the elements in communion is plainly part of, the essence of, Communion.**

LATER COMMENT ON FREQUENCY OF COMMUNION: 

Reading through the comments, and having listened only to the first 10 minutes of the sermon so far (hope to listen to the rest soon), I'd like to put in my two cents.

I think communion in general, and its frequency, is something that many Reformed churches, and the Evangelical church in general, have not adequately thought about. We do what we do out of rote memory and tradition far too often. I think the FV/CREC types have woken up to this and have drawn certain conclusions, and I think they are also addressing, as I have said before/elsewhere, this idea that you have to essentially be an adult before you can partake of the sacrament as unbiblical and a harm/hindrance to the nurture of our covenant children. In this I am in full agreement with them.

I do believe paedocommunion is an error in the other direction, and its bad fruit will manifest more as time goes on. But I'd rather err on the side of early communion than adult only communion.

As far as frequency of the Supper goes, I'm wrestling with this a lot. I see arguments on both sides. But the Jordan article and the "glorified Bible study" comments and the general sentiment I get is really not good. Both in online forums and with those I have talked to in person, in PCA churches and CREC-like churches, I have seen good and bad, biblical and unbiblical, reasons for having weekly communion.

The reality that some, or perhaps most (?) in the CREC would have a hard time stomaching becoming a member of a church that doesn't practice weekly communion, or further allow paedo/baby communion, is also discouraging and I think unhealthy. I appreciate those above who have essentially said their emphases are not Reformed and Presbyterian in the narrow sense.

One last comment about weekly communion. I think if you are going to practice it, you need to do so in a way that is edifying to the congregation (obviously). I don't know how it is typically done in CREC churches, my experience being limited, but I did go to a PCA church that went to weekly communion. We still had the standard form/administration that you would have in a church that does it monthly, etc. That frankly does get stale and lose the "freshness" of the Supper. The argument that says "I want it less because it is more special that way" is an incomplete argument, but I think perhaps what is behind that is having the same exact formula for the Lord's Supper would be akin to preaching the same sermon EVERY SUNDAY. Or having the exact same prayers EVERY SUNDAY. That would be vain repetition, and would seem to place the significance of the Lord's Supper and its spiritual benefit/blessing towards simply partaking of it frequently, like a spiritual vitamin. That's wrongheaded as well. But if a church practices it weekly, with proper calls for examination, discerning, etc., and essentially had a sermonette each Sunday that was fresh/different highlighting the goodness of our communion with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I think the practice could be helpful/beneficial, or at least acceptable. Having said all that, I am not inclined to weekly communion, but am inclined toward frequent communion, and possibly alternating each week between preparing for and partaking of communion.