The ARP Synod Considers a Strengthened Position
Rev. Aaron De Boer
Over the last three decades, perhaps no controversy has assailed the confessionally Reformed churches more than the Federal Vision and its accoutrements. Since the early 2000s, related matters have prompted a flurry of Acts, declarations, and study reports by the broader assemblies, the formation of a new, quasi-federation of churches, as well as lasting challenges for the Reformed. Perhaps the fullest compendia of the controversy and various actions of the assemblies can be found on both the Federal Vision resource pages of Dr. R. Scott Clark’s Heidelblog.[1]
A corollary of these controversies, and perhaps the most lasting milieu has been ongoing, even increasing, fascination with the practice of paedo-communion. This practice, adjacent to the Reformed churches, is predicated upon the notion that all baptized children who have been weaned, are de facto qualified to participate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The view minimizes or disregards the Apostolic imperative placed upon a communicant to “examine himself,” as well as the haunting curse pronounced upon the one who communicates “unworthily” by “not discerning the body.” Anecdotally, it seems somewhat common for individuals coming from a background in Baptistic sacramentology, who begin to apprehend something of the covenantal nature of the sacrament of Baptism being applied to the children of believers, to then conflate the two ordinances and suppose that because a child is baptized, he must also be entitled to the communion meal. An accessible retaliation to the various arguments in support of this error are found in Dr. Cornelis Venema’s, Children at the Lord’s Table.[2]
The Reformed Confessions and Catechisms highlight the requirements contained in the words of institution in Holy Scripture (I Cor. 11). Presbyterians respond to the error by citing Question and Answer 177 of the Westminster Larger Catechism, emphasizing that “… the Lord’s Supper is to be administered … only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.” The Continental Reformed cite Heidelberg Catechism Question and Answers 76, 81, and 82 with the emphasis upon “a believing heart” that is evidenced by displeasure at sin, genuine repentance, trust, a profession of faith, and the seriousness of the pollution of a congregation when these things are disregarded. Certain NAPARC denominations and federations have made public their respective reasonings and pronouncements at their websites as part of the custodial record of their acta ecclesiastica (Latin term for church records, proceedings, and pronouncements).[3] This has been done as a means of strengthening and explaining how the confessional standards still speak to emerging controversies that were not specifically diagnosed in the magisterial Reformation.
One evidence that the councils of the Reformation gave no consideration to a reality that churches would one day consider communing children unable to examine themselves, discern the body, and profess saving faith, can be found in the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly. When the Assembly of Learned Divines held debate over the 177th Question and Answer of the Larger Catechism, there is no record of any disagreement with the phraseology of, “years and ability to examine themselves,” only a brief discussion as to whether another question was warranted about “persons that are to be admitted,” and a resulting resolution “That something be expressed concerning keeping of unworthy persons from the sacrament by the officers.”[4] That content is thus confessed in Question and Answer 173.
For many years, some of the ministers in the Mississippi Valley Presbytery (MVP) of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) have discussed pastoral challenges when individuals and families who, perhaps having subscribed to the viewpoints of leading paedocommunion advocates like Douglas Wilson and Peter Leithart, become convicted that they should commune their very young children prior to a profession of faith. It is worth noting that within the bounds of the MVP are both churches and refugees from the original Federal Vision fallout when the Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America was dissolved amidst years of Federal Vision and paedocommunion disturbances.
The Minister and His Work Committee of the MVP, who are charged with the shepherding and discipline of ministers, as well as the raising up and examination of candidates for the ministry, having heard of the complicated pastoral situations and even some occasional sad divisions in congregations, began to discuss the need for a stronger statement from the ARP Synod with regard to the practice of paedocommunion. It was resolved that this was very much a case where more precise Acta ecclesiastica could help church officers in drawing a hard line against a controversial and disruptive error. It should also be noted that amidst the Federal Vision controversies, the ARP Synod addressed the issue only in a general way declaring in 2009, “The “New Perspectives on Paul,” and the “Federal Vision,” are in conflict with the teaching of our Standards. The “New Perspectives on Paul,” and the “Federal Vision,” are in conflict with the teaching of Scripture and as such they are unacceptable.” The statement made no explicit reference to paedocommunion and so, the committee drafted the following memorial (overture) which the MVP passed and has sent to the 2026 Synod in the hopes of aiding minsters, sessions and the presbyteries, and also to place the ARP Church in closer theological alignment with our sister churches in NAPARC:
“The Moderator’s Minister and His Work Committee memorializes the Mississippi Valley Presbytery (MVP) of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) to memorialize the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Synod to declare that “Paedo-communion, also known as “young child communion,” is not compatible with Holy Scripture and the Confessional Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, particularly Question and Answer 177 of the Westminster Larger Catechism. Ordained officers in the ARP may not hold to, teach, or practice paedo-communion/young child communion.””
[1] https://heidelblog.net/tag/federal-vision/
https://heidelblog.net/tag/paedocommunion/
[2] Venema, Cornelis P. Children at the Lord’s Table: Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009).
[3] https://opc.org/GA/paedocommunion.html
https://www.urcna.org/urcna/StudyCommittees/FederalVision/Federal_Vision_Study_Committee_Report.pdf
https://rcus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/RCUS-Position-Federal-Vision-2006f.pdf
[4] Van Dixhoorn, Chad, ed., The Minutes and Paper of The Westminster Assembly 1643-1652 Volume IV. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012), 592-593.