Paedocommunion

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ConfederateTheocrat

Puritan Board Freshman
Are you for it? Are you against it? Discuss.....

(I'm very unsure on the subject)

[Edited on 11-28-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]

[Edited on 11-28-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]
 
Interestingly enough, the Federal Vision people were moderately silent on this subject. Mark Horne wrote about the Lord's Supper but I don't remember anything firmly endorsing it (I am aware that they are pro-PC). However, it has been a while since I read that essay. All I remember him saying is that Calvin said that it had been a practice in the early church. That saying means very little, however. All Calvin could be saying is that yes, it was a factor among the early church.

For a positive view, see Leithart's Blessed are the Hungry.
For a negative, any number of Reformed Systematics on the Lord's Supper.
For a sympathetic, mediating position, see Mathison's Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
 
If I had to make a decision right now, I would probably hold to the Confessional View. I would like to read more on it, though. I bet doing a Historical and theological study on the Lord's Supper would be worthwhile.
 
It is one of the most dangerous practices seeing revival in Reformed circles. It leads to a host of errors. It has been unanimously rejected by the entire Western (both Protestant and Roman) Church. It is clearly contra-confessional. It has been discussed at length here on the board:



[url=http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5275]Praying Children: should we teach our children to pray?

Paedocommunionist denomination?

Exceptions to the Confession

Paedo question: Covenant inclusion or baptism first?

children at Lords supper

Paedo-Communion

Paedo-communion
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I used to lean strongly toward it. You can see this thread called Confirmation for some light shed on why I was persuaded to reject it.
Click to expand...

I just read it.

I can't say anything persuaded me though. I have done a good study on the issue (which is why I'm asking questions)
 
Against it for two reasons:

1. The exegesis that the Westminster divines did on the 1 Cor passage appears to me to be unnassailable. As is every other bit of their exegesis that I have seriously studied:banghead:

2. My daughter, who has shown fruit of regeneration since she was about 2ish, is only right now (8yrs) showing the ability to examine herself in a way that would fulfill Paul's requirements as I (and my denomination) understand them.

Chuck

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by twogunfighter]
 
"Baby dedication? What are you baptists gonna come up with next?... hehe"... you got me there Paul - funny retort-

it's all about ...bringing up your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord... whether their consecrated with H20 or not.
:handshake:
 
St. Augustine seems to have been for paedocommunion, or at east acknowledged it took place.

"They are infants, but they recieve His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in order to have life in themselves."

[Sermon 174.7 in Augustine, Works.]
 
Well, even if he did, that doesn't really say much, since we already know that his sacramentalism was one of his greatest flaws.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Well, even if he did, that doesn't really say much, since we already know that his sacramentalism was one of his greatest flaws.
Click to expand...
But wouldn't that show that practice was in existence around his time?
 
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Well, even if he did, that doesn't really say much, since we already know that his sacramentalism was one of his greatest flaws.
Click to expand...
But wouldn't that show that practice was in existence around his time?
Click to expand...

I can't really speak on that, since I haven't really studied much post-apostolic early Church history yet.
 
Mark,

Calvin noted in the Institutes that peadocommunion was practiced for a while and also noted that the error was stopped. Actually, there is not a whole lot of evidence that the practice was wide spread or how long it lasted.
 
Calvin was referring to the early church. The Hussites were a small sect in Bohemia and it probably wouldn't be wise to use what they may have done as a buttress for peadocommunion.
 
Originally posted by wsw201
Calvin was referring to the early church. The Hussites were a small sect in Bohemia and it probably wouldn't be wise to use what they may have done as a buttress for peadocommunion.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I always considered Huss to be a martyr for the faith, and a fine Christian to be modeled after.

If paedocommunion is heresy, then Huss was a heretic (right?).
 
Mark,

Peadocommunion is a very serious error. The admonition in 1 Cor 11 must be taken seriously. Taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner can have serious consequences. I don't know much about the practices of the Hussites, but if they did practice peadocommunion, usually one error will lead to other errors. Have you checked source documents regarding Huss's position on Peadocommunion?

Plus it is the Church through Scripture that establishes the practices of the Church not individuals (with all due respect to Calvin, Luther and Huss). As Fred has pointed out, with the exception of some micro-denominations and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (and they have more problems than you can shake a stick at), the Church has rejected peadocommunion.

Though John Huss may have been a good guy along with Calvin, Luther, Owen and the rest of the Puritans, Scripture tells us that our example or model should be Christ.
 
Originally posted by wsw201
Mark,

Peadocommunion is a very serious error.
Click to expand...

I think I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, respectfully.

The admonition in 1 Cor 11 must be taken seriously. Taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner can have serious consequences.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there, however.

I don't know much about the practices of the Hussites, but if they did practice peadocommunion, usually one error will lead to other errors.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

Can I ask you sir, if you read Luther? He believed in baptismal regeneration. I guess we should be skeptical of his theology as a whole, because "usually one error will lead to other errors".

Have you checked source documents regarding Huss's position on Peadocommunion?
Click to expand...

No, I have no access to them. I am new to theology, and am 16.

Plus it is the Church through Scripture that establishes the practices of the Church not individuals (with all due respect to Calvin, Luther and Huss).
Click to expand...

I agree, and anyone who does give their children communion, when the church says other wise, must be excommunited. I repeat, MUST be excommunicated.

As Fred has pointed out, with the exception of some micro-denominations and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (and they have more problems than you can shake a stick at), the Church has rejected peadocommunion.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Though John Huss may have been a good guy along with Calvin, Luther, Owen and the rest of the Puritans, Scripture tells us that our example or model should be Christ.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm for paedocommunion. ;)

Thanks for your response. :)
 
Originally posted by webmaster
Luther believed in baptismal regeneration
Click to expand...

Where? (Be sure you are not mixing this up with a proper view of batpism (a la the WCF).

I'd like to see the quotes.
Click to expand...
"To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever." -- Martin Luther (from The Large Catechism)

"It remains for us to speak of our two sacraments, instituted by Christ. Every Christian ought to have at least some brief, elementary instruction in them because without these no one can be a Christian ... First we shall take up Baptism through which we are first received into the Christian community. ... Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved" (pp. 80-81)

If I am misinterpreting this, please let me know. To see more, go to: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/luther/martin.htm

[Edited on 12-30-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Paedocommunion
Replies
6
Views
3K
Contra Marcion
Contra Marcion
A
  • Locked
Paedocommunion by Rayburn
2 3
Replies
71
Views
15K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
R
  • Locked
Reversal on Paedocommunion
Replies
7
Views
3K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
T
  • Locked
Age and paedocommunion
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CharlesG
C
R
  • Locked
paedocommunion- continuing reformation
Replies
15
Views
2K
rembrandt
R
Back
Top