John Calvin.
That's just one of those names. If you haven't heard of him, you might be theologically and historically illiterate. If you have heard of him, you probably love him or hate him. In my experience there are few people who are dispassionate about him and his teachings. Those who reject his ideas often label him as a heretic and a murderer, while those who adhere to his teachings recognize him as one of the foremost theologians in the history of the Church, rivaling such minds as Augustine and Aquinas.
I am decidedly in the latter camp, but such reverence does not imply any type of man worship or total adherence to his views. Honoring men of God does not require implicit faith in their teachings. As Calvin often feels free to critique the illogical or unbiblical views espoused by Augustine, who was obviously one of his favorite authors and biggest influences, so Calvin's adherents should feel free to critique his teachings, always comparing them to Scripture and respectfully disagreeing where contradictions exist.
One such issue is paedocommunion. I have written on this issue a few times before, and I'm not likely to stop anytime soon as it is an issue about which I am passionate (some might call it a hobby-horse). As I read the works of men within the Reformed tradition, men whom I respect and to whose teachings I closely adhere, I cannot help but to be overwhelmed by the logical contradictions on this issue within their hermeneutic. They are, you might say, hermeneutically schizophrenic.
Before I go any further, allow me to offer a bit of a primer to those unfamiliar with the issue and nomenclature. Paedocommunion is the practice of giving communion (otherwise known as the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist) to young children, even infants, whereas credocommunion is the view that children must profess faith before they are admitted to the Table. Most baptists (who believe that one must profess faith before being baptized) are credocommunionists, consistently withholding both of the sacraments from their children, but many paedobaptists (who baptize children because they are part of the Church by virtue of being born to Christian parents) are credocommunionists, requiring a profession of faith of those wishing to be "communicant members" (a redundancy, if ever I've heard one!).
If you actually read all that and are still with me, allow me to explain why I believe that paedobaptists are hermeneutical schizophrenics by also being credocommunionists. While I have read similar reasoning from Berkhof and others, I will use the teaching of John Calvin to illustrate my point (all quotes are from pages 1351-1353 of the 1960 McNeill edition).
In the section of his Institutes dealing with the sacraments, he spills a considerable amount of ink defending the practice of baptizing infants (again, paedobaptism), a practice I wholeheartedly support. He employs many different arguments in favor of infant baptism, focusing primarily on the fact that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of inclusion in the Covenant. When dealing with those passages used by proponents of credobaptism to argue against infant baptism, he repeatedly emphasizes the fact that those passages that require faith and/or repentance as prerequisites for baptism do not apply to infants. Regarding Mark 16:16 he says, "Is there even one syllable about infants in the whole discourse?" While adults must profess faith to be baptized, he argues, there is a separate rule for the children of believers. "For what everyone sees as applying only to grown men," he says, "they relate to infants, so as to subject this age group to a rule that had been laid down only for older persons."
It's a pretty simple argument. Peter says, "Repent and be baptized." Credobaptists say, "If you can't repent, then you can't be baptized." Paedobaptists say, "No. That only applies to those who are able to obey the command given. There is a different rule for children. They are considered covenantally." That is Calvin's argument and that is the basic argument of the Reformed tradition. It is, I believe, a Biblical argument.
Here's where the schizophrenia comes into play. After ardently defending paedobaptism, Calvin spends a few paragraphs explaining why this same logic doesn't apply to the Lord's Supper. Despite admitting that both Augustine and Cyprian provide evidence of the historicity of paedocommunion, he insists, "But he [Paul] 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." Summarizing 1 Corinthians 11, he says, "A self-examination ought, therefore, to come first, and it is vain to expect this of infants."
His argument can be fairly and succinctly summarized this way: "Baptism and the Lord's Supper are different kinds of sacraments. 1 Corinthians 11 tells us that those who eat unworthily eat condemnation to themselves. Children cannot partake worthily because they can't examine themselves."
So, let me see get this straight. Paedocommunionists say, "Children are part of the Covenant. Therefore, they may partake." Credocommunionists say, "1 Corinthians 11 says that one must examine himself before partaking. Children cannot examine themselves. Therefore, children must not partake."
Well, wait a darn minute! That sounds an awful lot like the kind of reasoning a baptist would use! Remember, baptists say that children cannot be baptized because they cannot meet the prerequisites for baptism, to which paedobaptists reply that children fall under a different rule or category. The logical deduction made by our baptist brethren, we argue, is fallacious. Children are not withheld because of inability. The Covenant doesn't work that way.
But it works that way for 1 Corinthians 11? Credocommunionists reply in the affirmative.
Why?
Well, baptism and the Lord's Supper are different, they insist.
Why?
Because 1 Corinthians 11 says so!
That, my friends, is a classic case of circular reasoning. You cannot use your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 to interpret 1 Corinthians 11. That is, like, the first rule of logic, and yet, I've heard that line of reasoning time and time again.
So my response to John Calvin's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 is, "Is there even one syllable about infants in the whole discourse?" Where does Paul mention children or imply that anyone should be withheld from the covenantal meal? If he doesn't mention children, shouldn't the paedobaptist be consistent and say that "examine yourself" doesn't apply to children? That is, after all, the argument we may regarding baptism.
Which hermeneutic are you going to employ? How are you going to interpret sacramental passages? Are children withheld because of inability or not? If so, then apply your hermeneutic consistently--children should not be baptized or partake of communion because they cannot fulfill the requirements of participation. If, however, you accept the covenantal perspective that says that children may be admitted despite their inability to meet such demands, then apply that hermeneutic consistently-baptize children and then feed them.
The bottom line is this: it is schizophrenic to interpret 1 Corinthians 11 differently than Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38. If you do not require of children the faith or repentance required in Mark and Acts, you cannot require of them the examination found in 1 Corinthians. John Calvin's argument in favor of paedobaptism is actually a very strong argument in favor of paedocommunion, if the same hermeneutic is applied to both issues.
This is one area where I believe Calvin didn't reform enough, allowing the established tradition to impact his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11. I have had so many discussions where paedobaptists, presented with the historical and Biblical support for paedocommunion, have no other recourse than to fall back on the oft-repeated interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 to maintain their view of credocommunion. They are unable to approach this passage in any fashion other than the traditional way they've heard it set forth a million times before. If you repeat something often enough, they say, people believe it without even thinking about it. I believe that is manifestly the case with the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 that uses it to prohibit paedocommunion. Many committed paedobaptists, covenantal to the core, don't realize that they're interpreting 1 Corinthians 11 in the same exact way that baptists interpret Acts 2:38!
One's own schizophrenia can be difficult to identify.
Before I go any further, allow me to offer a bit of a primer to those unfamiliar with the issue and nomenclature. Paedocommunion is the practice of giving communion (otherwise known as the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist) to young children, even infants, whereas credocommunion is the view that children must profess faith before they are admitted to the Table. Most baptists (who believe that one must profess faith before being baptized) are credocommunionists, consistently withholding both of the sacraments from their children, but many paedobaptists (who baptize children because they are part of the Church by virtue of being born to Christian parents) are credocommunionists, requiring a profession of faith of those wishing to be "communicant members" (a redundancy, if ever I've heard one!).
If you actually read all that and are still with me, allow me to explain why I believe that paedobaptists are hermeneutical schizophrenics by also being credocommunionists. While I have read similar reasoning from Berkhof and others, I will use the teaching of John Calvin to illustrate my point (all quotes are from pages 1351-1353 of the 1960 McNeill edition).
In the section of his Institutes dealing with the sacraments, he spills a considerable amount of ink defending the practice of baptizing infants (again, paedobaptism), a practice I wholeheartedly support. He employs many different arguments in favor of infant baptism, focusing primarily on the fact that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of inclusion in the Covenant. When dealing with those passages used by proponents of credobaptism to argue against infant baptism, he repeatedly emphasizes the fact that those passages that require faith and/or repentance as prerequisites for baptism do not apply to infants. Regarding Mark 16:16 he says, "Is there even one syllable about infants in the whole discourse?" While adults must profess faith to be baptized, he argues, there is a separate rule for the children of believers. "For what everyone sees as applying only to grown men," he says, "they relate to infants, so as to subject this age group to a rule that had been laid down only for older persons."
It's a pretty simple argument. Peter says, "Repent and be baptized." Credobaptists say, "If you can't repent, then you can't be baptized." Paedobaptists say, "No. That only applies to those who are able to obey the command given. There is a different rule for children. They are considered covenantally." That is Calvin's argument and that is the basic argument of the Reformed tradition. It is, I believe, a Biblical argument.
Here's where the schizophrenia comes into play. After ardently defending paedobaptism, Calvin spends a few paragraphs explaining why this same logic doesn't apply to the Lord's Supper. Despite admitting that both Augustine and Cyprian provide evidence of the historicity of paedocommunion, he insists, "But he [Paul] 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." Summarizing 1 Corinthians 11, he says, "A self-examination ought, therefore, to come first, and it is vain to expect this of infants."
His argument can be fairly and succinctly summarized this way: "Baptism and the Lord's Supper are different kinds of sacraments. 1 Corinthians 11 tells us that those who eat unworthily eat condemnation to themselves. Children cannot partake worthily because they can't examine themselves."
So, let me see get this straight. Paedocommunionists say, "Children are part of the Covenant. Therefore, they may partake." Credocommunionists say, "1 Corinthians 11 says that one must examine himself before partaking. Children cannot examine themselves. Therefore, children must not partake."
Well, wait a darn minute! That sounds an awful lot like the kind of reasoning a baptist would use! Remember, baptists say that children cannot be baptized because they cannot meet the prerequisites for baptism, to which paedobaptists reply that children fall under a different rule or category. The logical deduction made by our baptist brethren, we argue, is fallacious. Children are not withheld because of inability. The Covenant doesn't work that way.
But it works that way for 1 Corinthians 11? Credocommunionists reply in the affirmative.
Why?
Well, baptism and the Lord's Supper are different, they insist.
Why?
Because 1 Corinthians 11 says so!
That, my friends, is a classic case of circular reasoning. You cannot use your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 to interpret 1 Corinthians 11. That is, like, the first rule of logic, and yet, I've heard that line of reasoning time and time again.
So my response to John Calvin's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 is, "Is there even one syllable about infants in the whole discourse?" Where does Paul mention children or imply that anyone should be withheld from the covenantal meal? If he doesn't mention children, shouldn't the paedobaptist be consistent and say that "examine yourself" doesn't apply to children? That is, after all, the argument we may regarding baptism.
Which hermeneutic are you going to employ? How are you going to interpret sacramental passages? Are children withheld because of inability or not? If so, then apply your hermeneutic consistently--children should not be baptized or partake of communion because they cannot fulfill the requirements of participation. If, however, you accept the covenantal perspective that says that children may be admitted despite their inability to meet such demands, then apply that hermeneutic consistently-baptize children and then feed them.
The bottom line is this: it is schizophrenic to interpret 1 Corinthians 11 differently than Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38. If you do not require of children the faith or repentance required in Mark and Acts, you cannot require of them the examination found in 1 Corinthians. John Calvin's argument in favor of paedobaptism is actually a very strong argument in favor of paedocommunion, if the same hermeneutic is applied to both issues.
This is one area where I believe Calvin didn't reform enough, allowing the established tradition to impact his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11. I have had so many discussions where paedobaptists, presented with the historical and Biblical support for paedocommunion, have no other recourse than to fall back on the oft-repeated interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 to maintain their view of credocommunion. They are unable to approach this passage in any fashion other than the traditional way they've heard it set forth a million times before. If you repeat something often enough, they say, people believe it without even thinking about it. I believe that is manifestly the case with the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 that uses it to prohibit paedocommunion. Many committed paedobaptists, covenantal to the core, don't realize that they're interpreting 1 Corinthians 11 in the same exact way that baptists interpret Acts 2:38!
One's own schizophrenia can be difficult to identify.
we are only baptized once. communion is practiced continually.
ReplyDeletebaptism signifies entrance into the covenant community - the visible church, on the basis of faith, either of the one baptized or the faith of his or her parents.
communion signifies renewal of the covenant signified by union with Christ - the invisible church, on the basis of ongoing examination of oneself to remain in the faith