In this episode of A Reasoned Response, Robert Bosley evaluates the case for paedocommunion—the practice of admitting young children to the Lord’s Table on the basis of covenant membership—and explains why it ultimately fails under careful biblical scrutiny.

Bosley argues that the central issue is not whether children may one day be capable of faith, self-examination, or discernment, but whether these realities are presently evident in the heart and life of the participant. Scripture consistently ties worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper to repentance, conscious faith in Christ, and the ability to examine oneself—requirements that cannot ordinarily be demonstrated by young children.

While paedocommunion may appear attractive for emotional or covenantal reasons, Bosley explains why it does not satisfy the biblical criteria governing the Supper. This episode calls listeners to evaluate the practice not by sentiment or theological inference, but by submission to the clear teaching of Scripture.

Are you being serious or not? I don't know if he's being serious. It's got to be satire. Welcome to A Reasonable Response. I'm Robert Bosley, and the purpose of this podcast is to give a reasoned response to issues related to the Christian faith from a Reformed Baptist perspective.

Each episode contains what we call the breakdown, where I respond to a video related to whatever the topic is at hand. And today that is the issue of paedocommunion. But before we get to that, my producer, Cameron, is going to subject me to some more delightful TikTok videos. I have no earthly idea what's going on in this video. I don't know what activating my Bible means.

I don't know if he's trying to make some point, but read it. And while we're at it, can we stop making our Bibles into props for social media points that don't matter. What about the guy who doesn't have hands? Checks and open doors. Poverty is broken.

Leave the struggle in the past and follow me, baby. I promise I won't stop praying for you. In Jesus name. Your smile just makes it so much worse. So first, I'm pretty sure that's AI, and whether it is or not, it's heretical.

I'm clapping. I'm praising. I feel like I just snorted cocaine or something. I'm so excited. And I never did that before.

For the record. For the record. For the record. For the record. But I'm slapping my head.

I'm not sure I believe that. And even if it's true, what an odd, strange thing to say. And do. What is going on? Okay, so hear me out real quick.

If I put holy water into a humidifier, does that now turn the room that I put the humidifier into a gas chamber for demons? I think the math checks out. Yeah, I think that's true. I do wonder, where did the tradition of holy water come from? It's gotta be something to do with baptism, but it's weird.

Oh! Are you serious or not? I don't know if he's being serious. It's gotta be satire. I'm an Episcopal priest.

Of course we'll do your gay wedding. We're Episcopal priests. Of course we know your pronouns. I'm an Episcopal priest. Of course women can be priests.

I'm a Reformed Episcopal priest. Of course they're heretics. Yes. I like that guy. That's nice.

For the breakdown today, we're going to be looking at a video titled Pato Communion Mashed Potatoes in the CREC from the YouTube channel of Toby Sumter. Now in this video, the first half of the video is really dedicated to issues with membership of churches in the CREC that don't agree on different doctrines, particularly issues of communion. And So not even going to look at that. We're going to pick up in the video at about halfway through and look at his brief defense on paedocommunion and from a reformed Baptist perspective, evaluate does this stand up to scripture. So With that, let's begin.

Welcoming very young covenant baptized children to the Lord's table who are able to otherwise participate in worship has been admittedly a minority position in the history of the Protestant Church. For this reason, I believe those of us convinced by Scripture that we ought to practice it, ought to be extremely patient and accommodating with those who are unconvinced. This includes cheerfully submitting to elders who request that our children profess faith before communing. And if one of my people were thinking about visiting or transferring to a church that did not practice paedocommunion, that would be and has been my counsel. There's nothing quite so unbecoming as being divisive about communion.

And it really doesn't help your case to say that they started first. He's right that, as he put it, there's almost nothing more unbecoming than being divisive about communion. I mean, that's kind of in the name. It's our communion, both with Christ, but also together. And that's one of the primary critiques that the Apostle Paul had with the Corinthian Church.

You read 1 Corinthians 11 and the main complaint is that they're dividing and being factious toward one another even when they partake of the Supper. And so that's why we want to look at this to consider these divisions that are occurring about communion I appreciate his encouragement to others who move to a different church to not be divisive about if they disagree We should have that attitude of trying to reconcile and get along with one another, but we also need to ultimately ground all of our beliefs in Scripture. And so I want to look at what does Scripture actually say about the practice of paedocommunion. We do not believe that the grace of the sacraments is a magical juice, but rather the same Spirit who feeds us through the meal feeds us the same Christ through the word and prayers and fellowship. This doesn't mean communion doesn't matter, it just means it isn't the most important thing.

There is a grave danger in what might be called sacramentalism, thinking that the grace of the sacraments is so unique that children who are not communed until five or six years old, for example, are described as being starved or something. He's exactly right. The traditional view is that the supper is a unique means of grace, not a means of unique grace. In other words, what we receive in the supper is in just a different form, the same grace and benefits of Christ that we receive in baptism, prayer, preaching, all the different means of grace that God has established. So he's right.

It's important. It's vitally important. It's one of the main reasons the church gathers, but it's not the most important and it's not something unique that you're being deprived of if for whatever reason you're not able to take. Now, how you apply this understanding will change if you're on, for instance, his side as a paedocommunist wanting to bring small children to the table, compared to myself as a Baptist saying that no only believers, those who are making a credible profession, should be brought to the table. But in the broad scope of what he's saying about a means of grace, we do agree on that.

Nevertheless, there are two things that remain a great mystery to me biblically speaking. First, given the scriptural warnings about prayers and worship offered in hypocrisy or ignorance, and God's fierce warnings that he will judge and destroy those who do not pray in faith and with understanding, for example, Isaiah 1 or 1 Corinthians 14. Why are young children so often allowed, required, to join us in the rest of the worship service, listening to sermons, praying, and singing to God? Now this is where Pastor Sumter really gets into his argument against those who hold to a credo-communionist view, which is my position as a credo-Baptist. I default to credo-communion, of course.

He comes out of the gate with this counter-argument, basically accusing the credo-communion position of an inconsistency, That if we bring our children into the church to receive these other means of grace, such as listening to the preaching, participation in prayers, things like that, why would we then bar them from the Lord's table? And he justifies this by an appeal to Isaiah 1 and 1 Corinthians 14. The problem is I'm struggling to see the connection that he makes, especially the 1 Corinthians 14. I might see a little bit in Isaiah 1, but the problem in Isaiah 1 is God's judgment is coming on them, yeah, for their false worship and prayers and things like that, but not because they're ignorant like children, but because they've rejected God's law as apostates. For instance, Isaiah chapter one, verse 15 reads, when you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you.

Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear, not because you're ignorant, but your hands are full of blood. This is a nation that has rejected God's authority, rejected God's law, and therefore now, even when they go through the forms and rituals, God won't hear them. If anything, that seems to be on my side, simply going through the rituals without a heart of faith doesn't accomplish anything. The connection of 1 Corinthians 14 is even more tenuous. That's about tongues and prophecy and doing things in order.

I don't really understand his point there, but his argument really assumes that yes, because all the means of grace are means of the same grace because it's all the grace of Christ, means that they're basically interchangeable. And that's just not true from what we see in the New Testament. The Lord's Supper is different than baptism. It's different than preaching. I would hope that we would all agree.

We want unbelievers, we want the ignorant, both young and old, to come and hear the word of God preached. That doesn't mean that then we automatically baptize them all or we bring the brand new visitor who knows he's an unbeliever and tell them to go ahead and take the Lord's Supper because it's just another means of grace like the preaching. No, they're different. It's all the same grace. It's the same Christ, but they're different means of grace and they each have different requirements, which we now will get into with the next clip.

The concern among most credo-communionists is to honor 1 Corinthians 11 and the requirement that those who participate in the Lord's Supper be able to examine themselves and discern the Lord's body. I fully affirm this requirement, but I also think that it should be understood in the same vein as many other requirements in Scripture for coming to the Lord. As is often the case, the primary audience is adults. For example, repent and believe, or don't get drunk at the Lord's Supper, or no going to prostitutes, etc. But this does not exclude young children learning faith and obedience according to their maturity and capacity.

If we teach young, baptized children to pray and sing to God who do not fully understand what they are doing and do not have a mature faith, why do we not welcome them to the table? He's right that this is the main concern of those who hold to credo communion. First Corinthians 11 presents these criteria for those who come to the table, and I really do think it's an insurmountable challenge for the paedocommunist position. It's funny because a lot of what he says I agree with. We must examine and have children examine themselves in light of their maturity.

A 15 year old, a 12 year old, their examination and the calls to holiness and what that's going to look like for a older child or a young teenager is gonna look different from a man in his 30s or 40s or however old. It is gonna be different because they're in a different stage of life. So we actually agree with that. But the problem is when you push that age lower and lower as the paedo communion position does. Fundamentally his position is that because infants are baptized, they're brought into the covenant, therefore every member of the covenant receives the covenant meal, and so even these, I doubt he would say infants, they're probably not, you know, putting wine in the baby bottle.

But the youngest children who are able to take solid food and drink the smallest amount of the communion wine should be involved in this at, say, two years old or something. It's hard to see how a two-year-old at any real level can examine himself. On top of this, the fact that faith is partially intellectual, but more than that, we have to understand that the Lord's Supper is only effective for those who have saving faith. Both the London Baptist, as well as the Westminster Confession confirms this. Westminster Confession, in chapter 29 of the Lord's Supper, says that the purpose of the Supper is for the sealing of all benefits unto true believers.

So if you're knowingly giving it to small children who have not made any profession of faith and therefore you have no reason to believe they're true believers, Now this brings in the issue of presumptive regeneration, baptismal regeneration, things like that. But if you're giving the supper to children just because they were baptized as an infant, It seems like you are absolutely going to be setting up a situation where you're causing your children to eat and drink judgment to themselves because they are partaking of Christ's body and blood without faith. That's an incredibly dangerous thing to do to your children. Finally, one of the key texts for demonstrating the continuity of the covenants is 1 Corinthians 10, in which Paul argues that all of Israel was baptized in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate spiritual food and drink, and the rock that was with them was Christ, but they were destroyed in the wilderness because of unbelief. The apostle says that those things were written for us in the new covenant that we might not sin like them, but believe.

Notice that at the very least, old covenant Israel practiced paedocamunion. All of Israel, young and old, ate spiritual food and drink. All of Israel, young and old, partook of Christ in the wilderness. And Paul says that what they had, we have in the new covenant. Well, here we see a perfect example of why covenant theology is so important.

And really that's the central matter of debate when it comes to the disagreements between Presbyterians and Baptists. It's an issue of your understanding of the covenant, specifically what is the nature of the new covenant. I believe, and I believe Hebrews in particular, reinforces this, that the new covenant is truly a new and better covenant, not simply another administration of the covenant of grace. And because of that, what we have in the new covenant is connected, it's related, it's built on the foundation of what Israel had, but it's more, it's better, it's greater, it's more full and beautiful and glorious. And one of the aspects of that is it is a covenant of believers.

When Paul talks about the Lord's Table in 1 Corinthians 10, just a few verses later, it seems to make the most sense if you're coming to it with the understanding that the church is a body of believers, not simply believers and their children. For instance, he says that taking the bread and wine is communion or participation with the body and blood of Christ. We receive the body and blood in the elements, but that is really built on and founded on our first union with Christ by faith. That's what we see really in John 6. So when we come to 1 Corinthians 10, the argument again really seems to be on my side.

Why was Israel punished in the wilderness? Well because they turned to idolatry and sexual immorality and even as Pastor Sumter said, they were punished because of unbelief. So why would you then bring your unbelieving child to the table? You're just opening them up to a means not of grace, but a means of judgment. The exhortation is not to keep anyone from baptism or communion until they make some kind of public ritual, profession of faith, or pass an exam.

The exhortation is to repent of all sin from the youngest to the oldest. And if you can discipline your young child, then you believe they're capable of repenting. And if they are capable of repenting, then they are capable of believing. And if they are capable of believing, then they are worthy partakers of Christ. I actually agree with all of that, but the application again is different coming at it from a Baptist covenant theology perspective.

Just because someone is capable of repenting doesn't mean they have repented. Just because someone is capable of having faith doesn't mean they do have faith. And again, that capacity, I believe it does require a certain level of intellectual ability capacity that I don't know that we really have with small children. Regardless of whether or not they're even capable though, the question is, have they shown evidence of having done that? Have they repented?

Have they placed their faith in Christ? That is what is necessary before we admit them to the table. Not simply are they capable of it, but is it now a reality in their hearts and souls? So in conclusion, I think we can see that while the paedocommunist view may be attractive from an emotional perspective or a certain covenantal view coming from a Pato Baptist side of things, really I think we can see that it doesn't live up to the scrutiny of the scriptures. What is required of someone to come and take the Lord's Supper properly, a level of awareness, self-examination, and professed faith that we just can't see in young children, regardless of your view of their membership in the Covenant.

Well, that's all the time we have for today. If you'd like to connect with me personally, I'm on X at R. Bosley, 1689. If you'd like to learn more about church and family life, you can do so at churchandfamilylife.com. And don't forget, we have our national conference coming up in May in Ridgecrest, North Carolina on the subject of biblical manhood and womanhood We'd love to see you there.

Thanks. See you