The CREC, Neither Catholic Nor Reformed, Just Muddled (Special Attention Given to Paedo-communion)

By Ronald William DiGiacomo - Posted at Philosophical Theology:

Published May 31, 2025

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 practices 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 even include elements of 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

Continue here...