Matthew 26:27

“And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you’” (Matthew 26:27).

Federal Visionists love this verse. They think that it is okay for a twenty-first century pastor to repeat Jesus’ line about “Drink from it, all of you.” This is because Federal Visionists are all about being inclusive with regards to the Lord’s Supper. They will let anyone who is baptized take communion, even children. Obviously, this is a radical departure from what our Lord had in mind.

The first rule of interpretation is context, context, context. At the last supper, Jesus could say, “Drink from it, all of you” because he knew that no children were present. However, for a contemporary minister to say “Drink from it, all of you” in the presence of children is outright dangerous. Every year, dozens of children spontaneously combust when the communion juice hits their lips. It’s not widely reported, but we must stop the madness.

When Jesus said, “Drink from it, all of you,” he never intended this exact phrase to be infrequently repeated year after year. This line was basically a throwaway, an off-the-cuff remark that Jesus probably wished was never recorded in Scripture.

Ultimately, Anti-Federal Visionists are not very interested in what Jesus said. We are much more interested in guessing how Jesus would fence the table today if he were a NAPARC pastor.

Thus, the mark of a truly Reformed pastor is that he does not emulate Jesus. In no sense should we ever attempt to be like Jesus and say “Drink from it, all of you” in the presence of a mixed multitude. When a modern Reformed minister administers the cup, at best, he can say, “Drink from it, some of you.”

Exodus 12:3

“Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household’” (Exodus 12:3).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that all children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration. They point out that the Lord told Moses to address “all the congregation of Israel,” and they assert that children were considered part of the congregation of Israel.

Furthermore, Federal Visionists point out that Israel was to take “a lamb for each household,” and they assert that children are part of these so-called “households.”

Federal Visionists then state that because all the children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration, so we should also include all of our children in the Lord’s Supper. In other words, Federal Visionists advocate Paedocommunion. However, this position is fraught with problems – historical, theological, and exegetical.

The Reformed faith has unanimously rejected Paedocommunion as beyond the pale of reformodoxy. All the Reformers and Puritans vehemently denounced it. Even Roman Catholics forbid it. When ecumenical blogs like the PuritanBoard do not allow members who are Paedocommunists, then one ought to think twice about adopting such a bizarre position. Yet, Federal Visionists are undeterred.

Frankly, the historical evidence carries all the weight for us. There is really no need to re-examine the exegetical or theological arguments for Paedocommunion. If Calvin rejected it, that’s good enough for us. Nevertheless, it could be helpful to have a few responses prepared.

Theologically, Paedocommunion arguments are all smoke and mirrors. Federal Visionists get a big kick out of linking Passover and the Lord’s Supper, but this is mixing Law and Gospel. Passover was part of the Old Covenant, which is the Covenant of Works. Communion is part of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Thus, under the Covenant of Works, God may have included children, but under the Covenant of Grace, God excludes our children.

Exegetically, Paedocommunion has no Scriptural support. First, the word “Paedocommunion” does not appear in the Bible. Second, no verse in the Bible ever shows the practice of Paedocommunion (admittedly, this is the same argument that Baptists use against us regarding Paedobaptism, but still). Third, Jesus instituted Communion with adults. He did not invite their children. Thus, we bar them from the table.

Furthermore, God did not intend children participate in the Passover. Although God specifies that the Passover was for “all the congregation of Israel” and for each “household,” children are not specifically mentioned. Thus, according to the Regulative Principle of Worship, children would have been excluded from Passover.

Therefore, on all fronts, Paedocommunion is an absolute train wreck. The whole point of Communion is to give the church a visible sign of the grace of God. Thus, Communion is the infrequent reminder that our children are outside of the grace of God, being only legally and not organically connected to Christ and his covenant.

Matthew 6:9

“Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name'” (Matthew 6:9).

Federal Visionists love the Lord’s Prayer and think that we ought to teach it to our children. They assert that children of believers have some sort of a relationship with God. Therefore, they argue, we should teach our children to pray. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that our children are unregenerate, and therefore, they are dead in their trespasses and sins. They have no relationship with God whatsoever. In no way are they connected to Christ. They are vipers in diapers.

Nonetheless, for some reason, modern Reformed folk still baptize their children. Yet, we insist that in no way does this baptism “save” them or “unite” them to Christ. They are just as damned and separate from Christ as are the children of the non-elect.

Until our children are regenerated, they should be treated as the unbelievers that they are. Most importantly, this means that they should be banned from the Lord’s Supper lest they be judged for failing to discern the Lord’s body, namely, that they are not part of it.

Additionally, children should not be taught to sing to the Lord, as this would be hypocritical, professing with their mouths something that is not true in their hearts.

Also, children should be prevented from tithing, as this would teach them legalism, that they could earn God’s favor through their gifts.

Finally, children should definitely not be taught to pray, as God does not hear the prayers of unbelievers. Until they have a crisis-conversion experience, our children should not be taught the Lord’s Prayer, lest they pray it in private.

It might even be preferable to keep children out of worship services altogether, since worship is for believers.

Exodus 12:24

“And you shall observe this event as an ordinance for you and your children forever” (Exodus 12:24).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that children were supposed to participate in the Passover. This ought to give credence to paedocommunion, they assert. However, both of these positions are completely heretical.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Passover was only for adults who had made a credible profession of faith, who had the requisite mental capabilities to examine themselves, and who had been rigorously interview by the elders. Only those who were approved had the privilege of eating the Passover.

Thus, children were strictly forbidden from participating. In no way were children allowed at the tables during Passover. In no way was the Passover for Israel and their children. Children were expected to starve during Passover, just like we starve them during the Lord’s Supper.

Matthew 19:14

“But Jesus said, ‘Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these’” (Matthew 19:14).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus wants children coming to him during the Lord’s Supper, i.e., paedocommunion. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Unfortunately, Federal Visionists repeatedly wrench verses out of their context to fabricate their wretched doctrines, such as paedocommunion. The Reformed faith has unanimously rejected paedocommunion as heterodox.

The first three rules of exegesis are context, context, context. A brief perusal of this passage indicates that the Lord’s Supper is nowhere in view, either in the near context or far context.

However, baptism is clearly what Jesus was referring to. We can tell this because when Jesus says, “Do not hinder them from coming to Me,” the word “coming” is an aorist infinitive, which implies a one-time action.

Thus, Jesus is saying, do not hinder them from coming to Jesus in baptism (a one-time action), but do hinder them from coming to Jesus in the Lord’s Supper (ongoing action, albeit infrequent).