The main point is that the theological underpinnings of paedo-communion undermine the need for a covenant child’s conversion. That’s because the need for conversion presupposes that one is not already in actual communion with Christ, which paedo-communion denies. Therefore, and in the final analysis, paedo-communion opposes evangelical Christianity because it’s at odds with the gospel. Yet, and understandably so, there’s something sinfully alluring about leaving one’s children to the bare sacraments as opposed to pursuing the rewarding labors of covenant nurturing.

If a renegade Roman Catholic communion held to the Westminster standards, Roman Catholicism would still not be a Reformed communion. That’s because what defines Roman Catholicism is a blend of her official doctrine and the practice the magisterium permits. So it is with The Communion of Reformed and Evangelical Churches (CREC).

Although the CREC would like to identify with Reformed theology and claims to be shaped by that tradition, the communion is not Reformed in any sense of the word. Rather, the CREC is a hodgepodge of religious traditions and disciplines that include Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Federal Vision. Its leaders are at best muddled.

Contrary to the North American Presbyterian And Reformed Council (NAPARC), the CREC allows its congregations to deny the practice of infant baptism while also allowing its congregations to practice infant and toddler communion. Consequently, the CREC affords doctrinal latitude for what the Reformed consider (i) the great sin of neglecting infant baptism while allowing for (ii) infants and toddlers to eat and drink judgment to themselves at the communion table. Moreover, a CREC minister is free to differ with the Reformed tradition as it relates to (iii) images of Christ, (iv) Christian sabbath observance and (v) the regulative principle of worship. Furthermore, given that Federal Vision theology is accepted doctrine within the CREC, the Reformed distinction of (vi and vii) the visible and invisible church along with the doctrines of (viii – x) the communion of saints, perseverance of the saints, and the assurance of salvation may be obfuscated or implicitly denied by any CREC communion. Additionally, at least one CREC congregation has a minister with at least dubious ordination credentials. Such an unchecked occurrence would establish precedent for (xi) unordained servants in the CREC, which in principle would undermine the lawful administration of the sacraments in such cases. Lastly, given that the underdeveloped and minimally Reformed doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles is an acceptable confession for a CREC communion, doctrinal exceptions can be taken to chapters 3, 5 and 8 of the Westminster standards with respect to (xii) the principle of the divine decree, (xiii) God’s meticulous providence and (xiv) limited atonement. Consequently, Molinism and hypothetical universalism are permissible doctrines for a CREC communion.

It should be obvious that there is good reason the CREC cannot be associated with NAPARC. As just observed, the CREC affords room to deny many essential doctrines contained in the Westminster standards: 3:3; 5:2; 8:8; 17.1-2; 18:1-4; 21:1,8; 25:1-2; 26:1;  27:4; 28:2,4,5,7; 29:3,7

(I have not bothered to list the associated references from the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms. There are just too many.)

The CREC is in no sense Reformed and it is far too eclectic to be considered catholic. Consequently, it is manifestly false that the “CREC seeks to uphold traditional Reformed distinctive” while trying “to recover a Reformed Catholic vision.” The CREC is simply a mélange of teaching and practice that attracts many who are justifiably disgruntled within evangelicalism along with those who are rightly dissatisfied with the barren doctrinal traditions of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Moreover, the degree to which wokeness and effeminate Christianity has crept into the church – even the Reformed church – has only grown the CREC’s market, which envelops conservative ideals and a return to male leadership that need not be gospel-centric or particularly rich theologically. Even high-church formalism can be tolerated within the CREC, especially if there is fellowship over the culture wars. In short, a CREC minister needn’t be theologically astute or well trained in Reformed doctrine as long as he checks certain less consequential boxes. l’ll go so far as to say that if a minister was theologically astute or well trained in Reformed thought, he wouldn’t be associated with the CREC!

What’s not the problem:

The issue with the CREC is not its allowance of an optimistic eschatology or its understanding of the timeless relevance of the general equity of Israel’s civil law. Consequently, arguing against the CREC on those terms is both baseless and ineffective. However, that’s not to say that the position of prominence that certain less essential doctrines find within the CREC is not concerning. Indeed, it is! Notwithstanding, the real issue with the CREC is its mongrel theology. Its doctrinal latitude under the guise of catholicity cashes out as not having any church doctrine at all! It’s all too reminiscent of the shell game the leaders of the Federal Vision used to play. It’s no wonder that many Federal Vision chameleons have found refuge in the CREC.

How might we warn against the CREC?

The CREC is a deception. It poses itself as one thing yet delivers another. However, this isn’t unique to the CREC. The Davenant Institute operates similarly, but at least they aren’t posturing as a communion of churches.

Turning to paedo-communion:

With that as a backdrop, attention will be turned to the aberrant practice of paedo-communion, which is hostile to Reformed practice, yet, and not surprisingly, acceptable practice within the CREC.

What follows is not intended to be a polemic for the Reformed denial of paedo-communion, but is intended to tease out some difficulties of the practice and the tensions that are associated with it. First some theological groundwork must be laid, which can present difficulty given that the requisite terms of art are in accordance with certain subtleties of Reformed theology, which adherents to the practice of paedo-communion aren’t usually well acquainted, other than superficially and not without equivocal language. (Federal Visionists are a prime example.)

Covenant standing and promise:

1. The Covenant of Grace is established with the incarnate Christ and those chosen in him. Consequently, the promise of salvation is onlyto the elect in Christ. (Genesis 17; Romans 9; Galatians 3; WLC 31)
2. If an elect child dies in infancy, we can knowthe child, being one of promise, is regenerate and united to Christ upon death. (WCF 10.3)
3. From a Reformed perspective, although we cannot know whether any particular covenant child is elect, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children when God is pleased to take them home in infancy. (CoD, Of Divine Predestination, Article 17) In other words, godly parents should believe their deceased child is present with Lord.
4. From the standpoint of election, there’s no biblical precedent that infants stand a better chance of election if they die in infancy than if they live to years of discretion. Consequently, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and eventual conversion of their children when God determines they live pass infancy and to an age of understanding. (To think otherwise is to operate according to an age of accountability paradigm, which implicitly denies that infants are born in sin and in need of the grace of salvation, no less than those with developed wills who can understand the gospel.)
5. Because covenant children are part of the visible church, they have an interest in the outward administration of the covenant and are to receive its mark of inclusion (i.e., baptism).
6. In conjunction with covenant baptism, a faithful parent’s proper expectation is that God by the Spirit will one day effectually call, regenerate and convert the child by the ministry of the Word. In other words, Reformed thought entails that elect children who do not die in infancy will one day undergo existential union with Christ according to the Covenant of Grace.
7. Finally, the Reformed tradition, following biblical precept, teaches that it is ordinarilythe case that children of the promise will be brought forth to life by the Spirit, through the ministry of the Word, as opposed to at the font or in the womb. (Romans 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23) Consequently, it is normative that the elect become regenerate in conjunction with effectual calling, which is through the comprehended Word by the Spirit. In conversionminds are enlightened with spiritual understanding and wills are inclined to come to Christ most freely. (WCF 10:1)

Application: 

Although the principal acts of repentance and justifying faith are the immediate and reciprocal responses to effectual calling, it is indeed possible for an infant to be regenerated and granted the seed of faith (i.e., the divinely implanted propensity to believe) prior to being effectually called by the gospel. The reason being, regeneration is the monergistic work of God, whereas God’s outward and effectual call presupposes a revealed Word that must be understood and savingly believed. It is through the principal acts of receiving and resting in Christ that communion with the triune God actually begins.

Believing that one’s child is elect should always be accompanied by the godly intention to lead the anticipated child of promise to personal salvation. In accordance to biblical precept, a covenant child may be taught that God loves him and that Jesus lived, died and intercedes for him.

Although pious parents should believe their infant is elect and possibly regenerate, they should know that their child has not yet understood their sin in light of the gospel. Consequently, those who have not come to Christ in faith do not commune with Lord and his body. Indeed they cannot!

In short, a parent’s belief that his child is elect is to be accompanied by a belief that the child must close with Christ by exercising the gifts of repentance and faith. At which point, the sacraments and prayer can first begin to strengthen cognizant faith. (WCF 14.1,2)

Particularly noteworthy in this present context is something that is necessarily lacking in the theoretical experience of a regenerate person who is incapable of understanding. That something happens to be peace with God.

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:1

In other words, peace with God presupposes having exercised the gift of faith that accompanies regeneration. Moreover, the peace of God, which comes with saving faith, guards the believer’s heart and mind (or thoughts).

And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 4:7

In summing up this section we can observe that biblical redemption contemplates not just regeneration but a spiritual relationship of peace through pardon, which cannot begin to blossom apart from acknowledging guilt, repenting from sin, and volitionally embracing the love of God in Christ.

Indeed, our covenant children must close with Christ, after which time the peace of assurance, through a good conscience toward God, can be established and new life enjoyed. All of this strikes at the very heart of communion. After all, what is the Eucharist apart from cognizant thanksgiving for forgiveness of sins?! (eucharisteō) What paedo-communionists fail to grasp is communion isn’t just a sign of spiritual fellowship. Rather, communion is communion.

Read More