Paedocommunion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chapter XXVIII.
Of Baptism.

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(a) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(b) but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,(c) of his ingrafting into Christ,(d) of regeneration,(e) of remission of sins,(f) and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.(g) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.(h)

(a) Matt. 28:19.
(b) I Cor. 12:13.
(c) Rom. 4:11 with Col. 2:11, 12.
(d) Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5.
(e) Tit. 3:5.
(f) Mark 1:4.
(g) Rom. 6:3, 4.
(h) Matt. 28:19, 20.

[Edited on 12-30-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Mark,

You are reading too much into the "literal" wording without understanding his thought. Scott, above, posted the WCf. REad it and tell me if you think they said the same thing (they were not baptismal regenerationists).
 
Mark

Matt makes a very good point. In addition, a few quotes does not a position make. You have to look at the full body of work on the subject. For example, there has been an argument going on for years that Calvin believed in unlimited atonement based on a few quotes and the fact that he never specifically used the term limited atonement or specifically addressed the issue to some folks satisfaction. But it is clear from reading Calvin's work, the Institutes, his sermons and his commentaries, he did advocate limited atonement. Plus when you read Luther you have to remember that his thought changed over time. Luther scholars sometimes compare the young Luther with the old Luther, especially his views after the Peasant Wars. For instance, Lillback argues that with Melanchton's revision to the Augsburg Confession, where he changed the wording regarding the Lord's Supper so it would be more in line with the Reformed position, and Luther did not object, Luther had changed his mind regarding consubstantiation (though later Lutherans did not accept the revised Augsburg Confession and still hold to consubstantiation and the first draft of the Augsburg Confession, which is in their Book of Concord ). So you need to dig a little deeper to establish that Luther believed in Baptismal Regeneration.
 
To Matt, Wayne and Scott, whom I greatly admire and respect:

Originally posted by webmaster
Mark,

You are reading too much into the "literal" wording without understanding his thought. Scott, above, posted the WCf. REad it and tell me if you think they said the same thing (they were not baptismal regenerationists).
Click to expand...

I read it, but the first part makes very clear that regeneration is what water baptism is a sign and seal of. It does not say that the actual act of water baptism regenerates the believer.

Luther, however, said that one cannot be a Christian without the sacraments. Is that defensible, and if I am interpreting it wrongly, what did he mean?

Wayne said:
Matt makes a very good point. In addition, a few quotes does not a position make.
Click to expand...

There are more than a few quotes:

"Hence it is well described as a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water, for through the Word Baptism receives the power to become the "washing of regeneration," as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5. ... Thus faith clings to the water and believes it to be Baptism in which there is sheer salvation and life ..." (p. 84). (Bold added.)

"'He who believes and is baptized will be saved,' that is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive the salutary, divine water profitably. ... But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God's command and ordinance, so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation" (pp. 84-85). (Bold added.)

"He always [the Christian] has enough to do to believe firmly what Baptism promises and brings -- victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God's grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts. In short the blessings of Baptism are so boundless ... Now here in Baptism there is brought free to every man's door just such a priceless medicine which swallows up death and saves the lives of all men. To appreciate and use Baptism aright, we must draw strength and comfort from it when our sins or conscience oppress us, and we must retort, "But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body." ... No greater jewel, therefore, can adorn our body and soul than Baptism, for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire" (pp. 85-86). (Bold added.)

"Thus we see what a great and excellent thing Baptism is, which snatches us from the jaws of the devil and makes God our own, overcomes and takes away sin and daily strengthens the new man, always remains until we pass from this present misery to eternal glory. ... As we have once obtained forgiveness of sins in Baptism ..." (p. 90). (Bold added.)

For example, there has been an argument going on for years that Calvin believed in unlimited atonement based on a few quotes and the fact that he never specifically used the term limited atonement or specifically addressed the issue to some folks satisfaction. But it is clear from reading Calvin's work, the Institutes, his sermons and his commentaries, he did advocate limited atonement. Plus when you read Luther you have to remember that his thought changed over time. Luther scholars sometimes compare the young Luther with the old Luther, especially his views after the Peasant Wars. For instance, Lillback argues that with Melanchton's revision to the Augsburg Confession, where he changed the wording regarding the Lord's Supper so it would be more in line with the Reformed position, and Luther did not object, Luther had changed his mind regarding consubstantiation (though later Lutherans did not accept the revised Augsburg Confession and still hold to consubstantiation and the first draft of the Augsburg Confession, which is in their Book of Concord ). So you need to dig a little deeper to establish that Luther believed in Baptismal Regeneration.
Click to expand...

Your point is well made. However, I am pretty sure most of the quotes I listed are in his catechism and Table Talk, which I am not aware he retracted. Perhaps he did. And if these quotes show he believed in baptismal regeneration, I hope he did.

My point is, Luther wasn't a heretic for his beliefs in baptismal regeneration (which seem evident to me, or at least, a form of baptismal regeneration), and neither should credocommunionists call paedocommunionists heretics for their beliefs.

I have a friend (woogiewoogie is his user name) who left Lutheranism because of baptismal regeneration. So if Luther didn't believe it, Lutherans do. All the more to your point, Wayne, as Luther retracted consubstantiation, so Lutherans hold to it still.
 
Mark,

Play with fire, and you get burned. It is not a coincidence that those who play with baptismal regeneration come to reject sola fide - even if Luther was able to hold that tension/contradiction (and I am not saying he was). Those who favor paedocommunion are headed down a bad road. It should not surprise you that NT Wright is a fervent paedocommunionist, as are most of those at RefCat.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Mark,

Play with fire, and you get burned. It is not a coincidence that those who play with baptismal regeneration come to reject sola fide - even if Luther was able to hold that tension/contradiction (and I am not saying he was). Those who favor paedocommunion are headed down a bad road. It should not surprise you that NT Wright is a fervent paedocommunionist, as are most of those at RefCat.
Click to expand...

If giving children (who are in the covenant) communion is rejecting sola fide, than we have a problem. However, I don't think R. C. Sproul Jr., James Jordan, Gary North, R. J. Rushdoony, Ray Sutton, St. Augustine, (and possibly) St. John Chrysostom, denied Sola Fide.

Neither am I altogether certain the link between paedocommunion and baptismal regeneration is just. I do know that paedocommunion is not a heresy. Paedocommunion is logical to me.

I don't know much about N.T. Wright, and what to make of Auburn Avenue theology. I just want to read Calvin and the Puritans right now.

I like to jump over fire on my skateboard.

[Edited on 12-31-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]
 
Mark,

One of the things you should look for in Luther's view of Baptism is "who is the sacrament effectual for?". That will tell you if he truly believed in Baptismal Regeneration (and I have found no evidence that Luther believed that baptism was effectual for everyone who was baptized.)

Also, you should consider the implications of peadocomunion. Peadocommunion has serious implications regarding the Covenant, which goes to what Fred has pointed out regarding some of the FV guys and Sola Fide.
 
Originally posted by wsw201
Mark,

One of the things you should look for in Luther's view of Baptism is "who is the sacrament effectual for?". That will tell you if he truly believed in Baptismal Regeneration (and I have found no evidence that Luther believed that baptism was effectual for everyone who was baptized.)
Click to expand...

No evidence? He said one could not be a Christian without the sacraments. If he did not believe it, then why did he not agree with Calvin on the subject? Then why did my friend leave Lutheranism?

Also, you should consider the implications of peadocomunion. Peadocommunion has serious implications regarding the Covenant, which goes to what Fred has pointed out regarding some of the FV guys and Sola Fide.
Click to expand...
I asked that very question a while back, I even started a thread on it. No one answered me. Giving baptism to an infant does not conflict with sola fide, neither does giving communion ot an infant.
 
Mark,


If he did not believe it, then why did he not agree with Calvin on the subject? Then why did my friend leave Lutheranism?
Click to expand...

To question 1) He did agree with Calvin, mostly. Calvin sent him his work on the sacraments after the tension died down between Luther and Zwingli. At no time in the Marburg debates did either Luther or Zwingli assert baptismal regneration. Neither did Calvin. What they did affirm is that one would never baptize someon without assuming they are Christians.

To the second question - I don't have any idea.
 
There is a major difference between the sacraments. In Baptism the thing signified is not tied to the time of administration. In the Supper it is. That is why Paul warns Christians not to "partake unworthily," something he never says with respect to baptism.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by fredtgreco
There is a major difference between the sacraments. In Baptism the thing signified is not tied to the time of administration. In the Supper it is. That is why Paul warns Christians not to "partake unworthily," something he never says with respect to baptism.
Click to expand...

:up:

right, it's a simplistic, fallacious reasoning that begets paedocommunionism (in my opinion, even though some very intelligent men hold to it, e.g., G.I. Williamson). it goes like this: "well, they're both sacrements of the covenant, therefore they must be the same." Or, "our children are members of the covenant, therefore they should receive all the benefits." That's like this: "my five year old is an American citizen, therefore he should be able to drive." Also, I want to find a paedocommunionist church which lets 4 year olds vote on congregational issues (especially a church that has a lot of young children!). Afterall, they are full members of the body and as such should be treated liek all the others. If not you are teaching them theat they are not fully church or covenant members."

"And on the ballet today, shall sunday school teachers dress up like Barney?"
Click to expand...

:up::up:
 
I always find it interesting that presbyterians will use the covenant as an argument for baptism and then say the an argument from the covenant is insufficient for paedo communion....why baptize babies? You can't say because they are in the covenant since you guys seem to think that it is insufficient to use covenant as an argument.
 
Originally posted by Goosha
I always find it interesting that presbyterians will use the covenant as an argument for baptism and then say the an argument from the covenant is insufficient for paedo communion....why baptize babies? You can't say because they are in the covenant since you guys seem to think that it is insufficient to use covenant as an argument.
Click to expand...

Jayson,
The application of the covenant as it is applied to baptism is totally different in regards to the supper. Both ideas are clearly defined in the scriptures, i.e. whom is to receive the sign and when, whom is able to sit at the table. I assume you believe that it is inconsistant in the non paedo adherant in that we see the infant worthy of the sign, yet not worthy of the table. The sign is placed in obedience. The tables requirement is [evaluation of self; the infant cannot evaluate self. This brings to light the idea however, when can a child of the covenant evaluate self properly. This is why we have the comminicant classes, to inquire.

Here are some links. in my opinion, Nigel Lee deals with this sufficiently. MY second choice would go to R. Bacon

Richard Bacon, "What Mean Ye?"

David A. Bass, "Paedocommunion: A Return to or Departure from Biblical Practice?"

Charles W. Bradley, "Pastoral Perspective on Paedo-Communion"

Buursma, Deppe, De Vries, Hettinger: Committee to Study Clarification of Public Profession of Faith for Covenant Children, Report A to Synod 1995 (CRC)

Leonard Coppes, "Consideration of the Paedocommunion Position: 'The Flesh Profits Nothing'"

Dr. K. Deddens, "May Children Partake of the Lord's Supper?"

Gary S. Flye, "Is Communion for Children? A Defense of Puritan Communion"

Grover Gunn, "A Letter on Paedocommunion"

Gregory Johnson, "Why Paedocommunion is a Bad Idea: Expanding a Blessing or Bringing Down a Curse?"

Francis Nigel Lee, "Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism: How Trendy Theologizers Have Retreated from the Reformation (A Short History of the Modern Quasi-Protestant Paedocommunion Novelty)"
Note: the above link has disappeared. If you locate it, please let us know.

Francis Nigel Lee, "Summary Against Paidocommunion"

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Commission on Theology & Church Relations: Response to "Truly Worthy & Well Prepared" [pdf]

RCUS Position Papers, Committee to Investigate the Situation at Westminster Seminary in Regard to Infant Communion (also available in PDF).

Rev. Brian M. Schwertley, Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination

Matthew Winzer, "In Meam Commemorationem, or, The Reformed Practice of Discriminate Communion"

Matthew Winzer, "The True History of Paedo-Communion"

The link for the writings can be found here:

http://www.paedocommunion.com/links/

[Edited on 1-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by Goosha
I always find it interesting that presbyterians will use the covenant as an argument for baptism and then say the an argument from the covenant is insufficient for paedo communion....why baptize babies? You can't say because they are in the covenant since you guys seem to think that it is insufficient to use covenant as an argument.
Click to expand...

The covenantal argument for paedobaptism is rooted in circumcision given to children under the Old Covenant as the covenant sign. Therefore, in order to make the covenantal argument applicable to communion as well, one would need to biblically show that all circumcised Old Covenant members partook of the Passover from their circumcision on.
 
Well...I would like to know where the bible teaches that children should be allowed to receive the Lord's supper. Any takers? Perhaps only adults should receive the Lord's supper.
 
Originally posted by Goosha
Well...I would like to know where the bible teaches that children should be allowed to receive the Lord's supper. Any takers? Perhaps only adults should receive the Lord's supper.
Click to expand...

Perhaps better would be to find the verse that allows those to partkae who are incapable of either examining themselves or discerning the Lord's body?

But then again, what do Calvin, Knox, Luther, Owen, Dabney, Hodge, Thornwell, Aquinas, Edwards, every Western Confession in existence, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, and the Romanists know?

I'm sure Calvin, Turretin and Witsius could use a refresher course in basic covenantal theology.
 
Now that I have clearly oversimplified my opponents position....I would like to know how it is that you guys think that the paedocommunion can be simplified to a simple-your in the covenant you get the sign...can you quote anyone who makes this simple of an argument for paedocommunion?

[Edited on 26-1-2005 by Goosha]
 
By the way guys....I'm not trying to be short with anyone but I'm at work and so I don't have time to really write...I'll probably continue this on the weekend...
 
Okay, coming in late here...and feeling REALLY ignorant...and I promise not to highjack the thread...but...
Could someone please explain what is meant by paedocommunion. Are you refering to infants, children, or both? When do you let a child start taking communion...and when do you let a child take it in a church that doesn't hold to Confirmation (I even had to backtrack on the thread as I couldn't remember what you called it!)?
This is something that I (and I'm sure my husabnd) would like to hear from you all on as we have young children...2 of which are believers and have shown fruit, but alas immaturity...yet as adults we also can show immaturity and misunderstand the intensity of what we participate in (I know I did as a teen and yound adult)
 
Paedocommunion is giving children the Lord's supper not on the basis of their understanding or ability to understand what they are doing but on their ability to physically eat the Lord's Supper. I think this is a fair definition since I don't agree with the idea of grinding up bread and sticking it in the kid's formula. More specifically, paedo means baby or young child. You could say that paedocommunion literally means "infant communion."

Presbyterians have traditionally been against this practice basically because of Corintians and the command to self-examine oneself. Therefore, presbyterians have two forms of membership-communing member and non-communing member. As to the ins and outs, I think these other guys can give you a load of info...I just wanted to represent the infant communion camp.
 
Originally posted by Goosha
Paedocommunion is giving children the Lord's supper not on the basis of their understanding or ability to understand what they are doing but on their ability to physically eat the Lord's Supper. I think this is a fair definition since I don't agree with the idea of grinding up bread and sticking it in the kid's formula. More specifically, paedo means baby or young child. You could say that paedocommunion literally means "infant communion."
Click to expand...

So it would then be fair to say that even on your own terms there must be a difference between baptism and communion? Because while I understand your reasoning (and the fact that you do not go to the extremes many paedocommunionists do - we haven't even touched on the "communion through the placenta" crowd, yep, that's right), you are not being covenantally "consistent" either. Because all you have done, logically, is put a shorter age barrier on communion. That is because it is in fact possible to grind up the bread and give the cup to even a 1 week old.
 
:eek:...I'm Reformed Baptist (though Pat Crockett should be on here in a week and says he's gonna work on the Baptist part) and YIKES! I think NOT!
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Goosha
Now that I have clearly oversimplified my opponents position....I would like to know how it is that you guys think that the paedocommunion can be simplified to a simple-your in the covenant you get the sign...can you quote anyone who makes this simple of an argument for paedocommunion?

[Edited on 26-1-2005 by Goosha]
Click to expand...

that's pretty much all I've seen, when the argument is boiled down. for example, since ex-communicated peoples don't get to partake then since our kids are in the covenant and we don't let them partake, Tim Gallant, for instance, writes a paper: "Daddy, Why was I excommunicated?"
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. The argument is basically a visceral, "how could I deny my child the means of grace." Of course, never mind that the infant cannot partake of the means of grace of reading the Word, or prayer, or the preaching of the Word...
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Of course, never mind that the infant cannot partake of the means of grace of reading the Word, or prayer, or the preaching of the Word...
Click to expand...

Excellent point here.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Goosha
More specifically, paedo means baby or young child. You could say that paedocommunion literally means "infant communion."
Click to expand...

wouldn't "brethos" literally mean: "infant."
Click to expand...

Yes...but I'm not trying to make this too complicated:)

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Goosha]
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Goosha
Now that I have clearly oversimplified my opponents position....I would like to know how it is that you guys think that the paedocommunion can be simplified to a simple-your in the covenant you get the sign...can you quote anyone who makes this simple of an argument for paedocommunion?

[Edited on 26-1-2005 by Goosha]
Click to expand...

that's pretty much all I've seen, when the argument is boiled down. for example, since ex-communicated peoples don't get to partake then since our kids are in the covenant and we don't let them partake, Tim Gallant, for instance, writes a paper: "Daddy, Why was I excommunicated?"
Click to expand...

Well...I have never made that argument and never will. I have never seen that argument from anybody who promotes paedocommunion. However, I have not interviewed every person who holds to paedocommunion so I can´t disprove your statement. I don't think the childs covenant relationship is irrelevant but I don't think it alone establishes the argument...I think we all agree that there are some situations where it may be good for some communing members to not take the supper. Consequently, I don´t think anyone could really make such an argument. However, I think it is interesting how the traditional view doesn´t lend itself as a continuation of the Passover practices. In fact, I would like to repeat my question and try to figure out where the non-paedo communion justify giving the Lord´s Supper to ANY children. There are no examples in the new testament"¦and since apparently the Passover that Christ partook of corresponds to a Passover that only included 12 or 13 old circumcised males and their fathers, I would like know to what the standard is for giving the table to children in general. I don't Presbyterians make children wait until they're 12 to receive communion. My argument is pretty simple-

1.) Unless we use the revelation given to us concerning children and the other Passover feasts, we end up creating our own standards for the supper since the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Goosha]

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Goosha]

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Goosha]
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Goosha

However, I think it is interesting how the traditional view doesn´t lend itself as a continuation of the Passover practices. In fact, I would like to repeat my question and try to figure out where the non-paedo communion justify giving the Lord´s Supper to ANY children. There are no examples in the new testament"¦and since apparently the Passover that Christ partook of corresponds to a Passover that only included 12 or 13 old circumcised males and their fathers, I would like know to what the standard is for giving the table to children in general. I don't Presbyterians make children wait until they're 12 to receive communion. My argument is pretty simple-

1.) Unless we use the revelation given to us concerning children and the other Passover feasts, we end up creating our own standards for the supper since the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.
Click to expand...

Goosha, it actually was not that simple of an argument;). I took the liberty of constructing your argument. You will notice some premises have letters after the number. This denotes a hidden premise in your above argument. I tried to bring them all out so it would be clearer. I attempted to make your argument valid. I attempted to make it as strong as possible, given you above info. All I want to ask you is if my reconstruction is an appropriate reconstrcution of your argument? Before we move on, that is, I'd like you to just give the okay that I have not misrepresented your argument. Or, you may look at the argument and feel that you said to much and it would be to hard to prove some premises (or some are false) and so you may wish to reformulate? Just so you know, logicaly, all the hidden premises that I posted were contained in your argument.




1a.) If the New testament doesn't give hardly any information on a doctrinal issue then we must go to the Old Testament for that information.

2.) the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.

3.) Therefore we must go to the Old Testament for how the supper relates to children (follows from 1a and 2).

4.) If we don't go to the Old Testament, though, for our ideas on how the supper relates to Children then we end up creating our own standards.

5.b) The traditional view doesn't go to the Old Testament for their ideas on how the supper relates to children.

6.) Therefore, they create thier own standards (from 4 and 5).

7c.) It is wrong to create your own standards because then you cannot objectively justify a certain practice.

8d.) The traditional view creates their own standards (from 6).

9.) Therefore the traditional view cannot objectively justify the practice of giving holy communion the any children.



[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Paul manata]
Click to expand...


LOL:bigsmile:
I would probably be more bold and suggest that there are no references to the Lord's supper and children but that assumes hermenuetic presuppositions and also my position. I think this is fair enough. I would suggest making the
1a.) All doctrines must be biblically based.
2.) The Lord's Supper and it's recipients is a doctrinal issue.
3.) The New Testaments lacks material on the Lord's Supper and its recipients etc.
 
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