Paedocommunion
- Thread starter Herald
- Start date
- Status
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
There are many articles against. Good starting places are this article by Leonard Coppes, and several articles here by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. Here is the first in a series of articles (the rest of which apparently are unavailable online) by Cornelis Venema on paedocommunion. He lays out the usual arguments and addresses them in subsequent articles.
The pro side is represented by http://www.paedocommunion.com
The pro side is represented by http://www.paedocommunion.com
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Ken Gentry has a view tapes against it.
Jim Jordan responds to Gentry. You decide the winner.
Keith Mathison does a very fair job in describing paedocommunion in his book, Given for you. In fact, he is one of the few people who deal with it without sounding shrill.
Jim Jordan responds to Gentry. You decide the winner.
Keith Mathison does a very fair job in describing paedocommunion in his book, Given for you. In fact, he is one of the few people who deal with it without sounding shrill.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Let me state why I, with John Calvin, oppose paidocommunion. But first, to note age thesholds, it would be helpful if the reader would study the following passages preferably in the original Hebrew or Greek: Gen. 2:17-24; 14:13-24; 17:23-27; 22:2-19; Ex. 12:3-4, 8-11, 26-27,37, 43-48; Num. 9:2-13; Prov. 22:6; Lam. 2:12; 4:4; Luke 2:40-52; 22:1-20; John 6:2-4,10,53; Acts 22:3; I Cor. 5:7-13f; 10:1-22; 11:1-10,20-34; 13:11; 14:20-37; Phil. 3:5; I Tim. 2:8-15; 6:12f; Heb. 5:12 to 6:2; I John 2:12f; and Rev. 2:20f.
I oppose all attempts to reconstruct the clearly antipaidocommunionistic teaching of our Westminster Confession 28:1 & 29:3,8 & 31:4 and our Westminster Larger Catechism QQ. 169-177. True Presbyterians and other men of like persuasion respect Calvin's views in his Commentaries on Ex. 12:24-43; Lam. 2:12; John 6:53 & Heb. 6:2; in his Sermons on Deuteronomy 16:1-8 cf. vv. 16f; and his Institutes IV:13:6 & IV:16:30 & IV:19:4f.
In summary:
1, infant baptism signifies regeneration (but not conversion);
2, one's first communion at teenage signifies conversion (not regeneration);
3, Eucharist replaces the Passover (but not circumcision);
4, the 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6's chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20);
5, no females nor any preteenagers ever partook of the Passover till it was thus deformed by Post-Christian Liberal Judaism (+/- 200 A.D.);
6, there is absolutely no trace whatsoever of paidocommunionism in patristic writings but only in pagan sources prior to 250 A.D.;
7, novel paidocommunionism is a ritualistic heterodoxy of the "Eastern Orthodox" and kindred denominations quite opposed to truly-orthodox Reformed Theology;
8, the practice of paidocommunionism abolishes the need first of catechization and then of profession of one´s faith before one´s own very first manducation at the sacrament;
9, paidocommunism ultimately leads to an uncatechized Church (which Calvin says cannot long continue without catechizing); and
10, Calvin in his Institutes (IV:16:30) accordingly concludes against the Anabaptists: "œThey object that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to Baptism than to the Lord´s Supper "“ to which, however, there are never admitted.... The Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed...infancy, are fit to bear solid food.... They cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord´s body. Why should we stretch out poison instead of vivifying food to our young children? ... Circumcision, which as is well known corresponds to our Baptism, was intended for infants. But the Passover for which the Supper is substituted...was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they thus be blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?"
Cordially in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ,
Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
Professor-Emeritus of the Queensland Presbyterian Theological College
Website: www.dr-fnlee.org
God Triune, at the beginning, created the tri-universe (cf. Gen. 1:1)
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/pvp/pvp.pdf
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=7805154616
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/PAEDOCOMMUNION-Schwertley.htm
I oppose all attempts to reconstruct the clearly antipaidocommunionistic teaching of our Westminster Confession 28:1 & 29:3,8 & 31:4 and our Westminster Larger Catechism QQ. 169-177. True Presbyterians and other men of like persuasion respect Calvin's views in his Commentaries on Ex. 12:24-43; Lam. 2:12; John 6:53 & Heb. 6:2; in his Sermons on Deuteronomy 16:1-8 cf. vv. 16f; and his Institutes IV:13:6 & IV:16:30 & IV:19:4f.
In summary:
1, infant baptism signifies regeneration (but not conversion);
2, one's first communion at teenage signifies conversion (not regeneration);
3, Eucharist replaces the Passover (but not circumcision);
4, the 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6's chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20);
5, no females nor any preteenagers ever partook of the Passover till it was thus deformed by Post-Christian Liberal Judaism (+/- 200 A.D.);
6, there is absolutely no trace whatsoever of paidocommunionism in patristic writings but only in pagan sources prior to 250 A.D.;
7, novel paidocommunionism is a ritualistic heterodoxy of the "Eastern Orthodox" and kindred denominations quite opposed to truly-orthodox Reformed Theology;
8, the practice of paidocommunionism abolishes the need first of catechization and then of profession of one´s faith before one´s own very first manducation at the sacrament;
9, paidocommunism ultimately leads to an uncatechized Church (which Calvin says cannot long continue without catechizing); and
10, Calvin in his Institutes (IV:16:30) accordingly concludes against the Anabaptists: "œThey object that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to Baptism than to the Lord´s Supper "“ to which, however, there are never admitted.... The Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed...infancy, are fit to bear solid food.... They cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord´s body. Why should we stretch out poison instead of vivifying food to our young children? ... Circumcision, which as is well known corresponds to our Baptism, was intended for infants. But the Passover for which the Supper is substituted...was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they thus be blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?"
Cordially in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ,
Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
Professor-Emeritus of the Queensland Presbyterian Theological College
Website: www.dr-fnlee.org
God Triune, at the beginning, created the tri-universe (cf. Gen. 1:1)
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/pvp/pvp.pdf
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=7805154616
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/PAEDOCOMMUNION-Schwertley.htm
To ask a question that's been brewing in my head (and if this has been discussed elsewhere, please let me know)...
I have a theory that as a group, there would be more churches that practice paedocommunion who have weekly observance of the Lord's Supper than those who have less frequent observance. Is that logical? True in practice in your experience/observations?
Note that I would be in favor of the latter (frequent observance of communion) but not the former. I'm not trying to draw cause and effect, but just wondering if my thought process was clear here.
I have a theory that as a group, there would be more churches that practice paedocommunion who have weekly observance of the Lord's Supper than those who have less frequent observance. Is that logical? True in practice in your experience/observations?
Note that I would be in favor of the latter (frequent observance of communion) but not the former. I'm not trying to draw cause and effect, but just wondering if my thought process was clear here.
Since I started this thread allow me to explain why I am having concerns.
First, all of you know that I am Baptist, Reformed but still Baptist. Our church does not question anyone who partakes of communion. It is up to the individual to search their heart to determine if they are partaking of the sacrament in a worthy manner. Secondly, we leave it up to parents to decide as to the spiritual state of their children and whether they should partake. Since our church is small it is not difficult to know people and where they stand in their spiritual maturity. At this point it is more my conscience bothering me then anything else. I have seen children partake of communion when there is a real question about whether they are in Christ.
I know you...my dear Presbyterian brothers may approach your response from a Presbyterian perspective. Not being an expert on Presbyterian polity I have little else to draw from except the scriptures.
[Edited on 4-16-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]
First, all of you know that I am Baptist, Reformed but still Baptist. Our church does not question anyone who partakes of communion. It is up to the individual to search their heart to determine if they are partaking of the sacrament in a worthy manner. Secondly, we leave it up to parents to decide as to the spiritual state of their children and whether they should partake. Since our church is small it is not difficult to know people and where they stand in their spiritual maturity. At this point it is more my conscience bothering me then anything else. I have seen children partake of communion when there is a real question about whether they are in Christ.
I know you...my dear Presbyterian brothers may approach your response from a Presbyterian perspective. Not being an expert on Presbyterian polity I have little else to draw from except the scriptures.
[Edited on 4-16-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I have noticed that, too and favor weekly communion. At best all one can say from this is the obvious. Btw, Mike Horton favors weekly communion but not paedocommunion. So there is no logical connector
BJ,
It is as simple as those who favor paedocommunion have a defective view of the nature of the sacrament, ascribing qualities to it that the Scriptures and our Confession (along with the Baptist confessions, the Arminian confession, the Methodist Confessions and even the Roman Catholic Catechism) does not. The same can, but is not necessarily true of weekly communion. If someone has a skewed view of the sacrament, it is almost inevitable that they will favor weekly communion (i.e. any opportunity in which one cannot partake of the supper - whether a week off, or as a child - is a horrific thought, viewed as almost sub-Christian).
But that does not mean that weekly communion is the cause of such; in fact, the opposite is true. I believe that there is liberty in frequency - so too do our Standards.
Ask yourself a question:
You visit a congregation that has a worship service in which once a month the Scripture is read and preached. The other 3 weeks there is singing and prayer, but no sermon or Word. Is this a church?
Now imagine a congregation in which there is preaching and reading of Scripture each week, with prayer and singing, and once a month the sacrament. Is that a church?
Now ask yourself one more question: would the paedocommunionist have the same answer to both questions?
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I've found that some Presbyterians don't always draw a clear distinction b/w infant communion and young child communion either, which can sometimes lead to confusion in discussing this if the other party in the discussion has a different definition in mind than you do.
OK, just so I know where we're at, what I mean by "paedocommunion" (some folks are now also calling it "covenant communion," I understand) is the practice of children being allowed communion simply by baptism; no profession of faith (nor age restriction) needed. My former church, years ago while independent, would have practiced this, similar to what Bill described above: that it was up to parents to decide if their children should partake.
I see an implication in Chris' question that there is another form - what shall we call it? - where any child may partake, baptism or no? I guess assuming that a child of Christian parents is automatically in the covenant.
Fred, thank you for those questions... (it reminds me of the brainteaser where you have to figure out the question to ask the truth teller and the liar to be able to tell them apart ;-))
The answers are no, yes, and no... unless you're implying something else about what paedocommunioners believe about the worship service/church...
I see an implication in Chris' question that there is another form - what shall we call it? - where any child may partake, baptism or no? I guess assuming that a child of Christian parents is automatically in the covenant.
Fred, thank you for those questions... (it reminds me of the brainteaser where you have to figure out the question to ask the truth teller and the liar to be able to tell them apart ;-))
The answers are no, yes, and no... unless you're implying something else about what paedocommunioners believe about the worship service/church...
Not always. And here is the condumrum I am facing. Paul writes:
1 Corinthians 11:27-30 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
I have to wonder how well a child is able to examine himself prior to partaking of the elements. Certainly parents can sit down with a child and discuss the state of the childs spiritual life. But this is highly impractical, especially in churches that practice the sacrament weekly. I realize I am not blazing new ground. I'm just asking.
Paedo-communion tries to work around this passage. But I do not think they can successfully do so. But they are committed to the practice on other grounds, so naturally they try to understand this passage in ways that allow them to continue their preferred practice.
Reception of the Lord's Supper is a product of its "presentation" from the elsders. Elders, then, bear a great responsibility that they take steps to insure purity of participation. They fence the table. Thus the matter of participation can never be a matter of a parent's decision. It is not their duty, right, office, responsibility, or decision.
Reception of the Lord's Supper is a product of its "presentation" from the elsders. Elders, then, bear a great responsibility that they take steps to insure purity of participation. They fence the table. Thus the matter of participation can never be a matter of a parent's decision. It is not their duty, right, office, responsibility, or decision.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Until a paedocommunionist argues successfully for such a practice that isn't riddled with Roman ex opere operato(sp?) sacramentology, I will continue to dismiss it as absurd and unBiblical. No argument given by a PC-er is put forth without an underlying appeal to such a sacramentology. Without such a presupposition, the practice wouldn't make any sense or be of any necessity or benefit to individuals within the Church.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Bruce,
This fact was the death nell for me in regards to PC.
[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
It never is a parent's decision in a PC church. It is up to the elders still, they just make a blanket decision that all baptized children, regardless of age, may participate when able.
Ditto to what Fred and Gabriel have been pressing.
The sacraments are not magic. The work itself does not effect salvation neither is the Spirit necessarily bound to the work. There is no physical efficacy in the sacraments. The effect of communion is moral or suasive in signifying and confirming the covenant to those in it by faith. As such its benefits are subjective and it does not make sense to admit those to it who cannot understand it or benefit by it.
The sacraments are not magic. The work itself does not effect salvation neither is the Spirit necessarily bound to the work. There is no physical efficacy in the sacraments. The effect of communion is moral or suasive in signifying and confirming the covenant to those in it by faith. As such its benefits are subjective and it does not make sense to admit those to it who cannot understand it or benefit by it.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Thats true Gabriel. My mistake.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Bill, I wonder what their grounds are for such a practice in a presumably Baptist church, where the historic practice was closed communion (although few Baptist churches practice it today--don't get in a huff Baptists, I'm not accusing you of Landmarkism
). Bunyan did not consider baptism (one way or another) to be a bar to communion but I think did require a profession of faith. I think Presbyterian and other paedobaptists who practice paedocommunion are way off, although I can see philosophically (although certainly not scripturally) where they're coming from. But I've never heard of this practice in a Baptist church, if the child is not at least required to confess their faith before the pastor or elders. There is an EPC church I attended for a while who has a practice similar to what you describe, where it is basically left up to the parents, and unbaptized children partake. I doubt that the pastor and elders are too keen on unbaptized children partaking, but their practice pretty much inevitably leads to some doing so. They basically urge parents to try to ensure their children know something of what communion is and what the gospel is before they partake but don't do much beyond that to fence the table.
Our church opposes paedocommunion, but practices weekly communion. I think you find more frequent observance is on the rise, without any necessary connection to Paedocommunion.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Greg Bahnsen opposed paedocommunion but practiced weekly communion.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Greg Bahnsen opposed paedocommunion but practiced weekly communion.
If I'm not mistaken, the URCNA church where Dr. Clark is assoc. pastor practices weekly communion too.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
There is also the distinction between early child communion and paedocommunion. Auburn Ave, for instance, practices the former. In the former the child appears before the elders, etc.
Is AA's practice because of PCA policy? ie what is their theory and what would they do if out of the PCA?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
To be honest, I can't say for sure. I would hate to falsely represent someone so I will keep mum.
Originally posted by Pilgrim
Bill, I wonder what their grounds are for such a practice in a presumably Baptist church, where the historic practice was closed communion (although few Baptist churches practice it today--don't get in a huff Baptists, I'm not accusing you of Landmarkism
There is an EPC church I attended for a while who has a practice similar to what you describe, where it is basically left up to the parents, and unbaptized children partake. I doubt that the pastor and elders are too keen on unbaptized children partaking, but their practice pretty much inevitably leads to some doing so. They basically urge parents to try to ensure their children know something of what communion is and what the gospel is before they partake but don't do much beyond that to fence the table.
Chris, our church is getting in touch with Spurgeonesque Baptist practices. We are a congregation that is heading more to the Reformed view than vice versa. Time will tell where we wind up in regards to communion. I'm interested in Spurgeon's view of communion. It is something I am going to research.
- Status
