Paedocommunion by Rayburn

AV1611 · #1 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 03:21 AM

What do you make of the arguments here?

Semper Fidelis · #2 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 03:31 AM

Quote:

First, the early church practiced paedocommunion and, so far as the evidence goes, practiced it from the earliest times. Reformed and other paedobaptists have always argued that the evidence for paedobaptism in the early church is a strong argument that paedobaptism was the teaching of the apostles and the practice of the apostolic church. But the early church also practiced paedocommunion. I confess that I didn’t know that – that the early church practiced paedocommunion – until years into my ministry. When I discovered that this was true, it set me to thinking new thoughts. Surely the evidence that the church’s children received the Lord’s Supper in early Christianity serves as a powerful argument that paedocommunion was the teaching of the apostles and the practice of the apostolic church. Indeed, paedocommunion was the general practice of the church until the 12th century, when superstitious ideas about the sacrament – the wine actually becoming the blood of Christ and so on – began to work against the full participation of anybody but priests in the sacrament. The children lost the Supper when everyone else lost it; they just didn’t get it back at the Reformation. Now, in the interests of fairness, I should tell you that some have tried to argue that the evidence for paedocommunion as a widespread practice in early Christianity is inconclusive, but it is important to point out that almost all opponents of the practice both during the Reformation era and in our own day have admitted that it was the practice of the early church. That, obviously, is something to consider.

Bunk. The earliest writings about "paedocommunion" are, in fact, condemnatory of the practice. Please read The True History of Paedo-Communion By Matthew Winzer in CPJ 3. You can get it here: The Confessional Presbyterian » Welcome

S. Spence · #3 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 05:21 AM

I think this article is quite helpful - I'm not sure if I agree with all of it but it has arguments against paedocommunion I had not seen before.

Reformed Answers: Anti-Paedocommunion

Daniel Ritchie · #4 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 05:44 AM

The problem with paedo-communion is that it is based on conjecture; there simply is not enough evidence to substantiate the claim that covenant children took the passover. However, we do clearly know that they received circumcision.

S. Spence · #5 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 07:21 AM

Has anyone read, 'The Case for Covenant Communion,' by Gregg Strawbridge?
I quite liked his book on infant baptism and was wondering if I should buy this book to give me a better understanding of all the arguments for paedocommunion. (By the way I agree with Daniel, it is unclear as to whether or not children partook of the Passover but I think they probably didn’t.)

Stephen · #6 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 09:30 AM

Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that. Richard Bacon wrote a great little booklet entitled What Mean Ye By This Service. He argues that there is a relationship between the Passover and The Lord's Supper and that under the O.T. economy every participant of the Passover had to be able to understand the significance of the celebration. This is the best refutation of Paedocommunion.

Stephen · #7 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 09:56 AM

Robert Rayburn has been known as advocating Paedocommunion, but does not admit children to the table until they are examined and make a public confession. This is rather strange. I have Schenck's book on Children in the Covenant and it is an excellent book. He did not advocate Paedocommunion, but did deal with the issue of the half-way covenant that was strongley opposed by Jonathan Edwards.

Robert Truelove · #8 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 10:24 AM

I find the arguments for paedocommunion to be completely unsatisfactory (I deal with them here Christ Reformed Church - Audio Messages -). I was in the paedocommunion camp for about a year as I initially found their arguments to be persuasive. I ended up holding to this faulty view for a time because I was a former Baptist who had come to see infant baptism a couple years before. Without taking the time to go further in my understanding of Reformed doctrine and the sacraments in general, I took a lot for granted and bought the general argument that if we baptize covenant children, it is inconsistent to deny them the Lord's Supper.

From my present vantage point, I find paedocommunion to be a serious error. I believe presumptive regeneration (yes, I understand that good Reformed men have held to PR) put into practice through paedocommunion (which good Reformed men have not done historically speaking) will, in time, have a devastating effect on the churches that are adopting this practice. I believe it is teaching our children to take their salvation for granted; providing a false assurance. I fear this will lead to nominalism of the worst sort.

Allow me to clarify, it is one thing to TREAT our covenant children as 'Christians'; training and nuturing them in the Scriptures and the covenant into which they were born; looking for them to come to a 'full assurance of faith' without their assuming it to be true of them because Dad and the church said so. (Understand that when I say 'assurance', I mean exactly that. I do not believe a 'crisis faith experience' is necessary for every covenant child; some, not all, are indeed regenerate from the womb. What I am speaking of is when the regenerate child of the covenant comes to a place of spiritual maturity where they acquire a biblical assurance that they are in Christ. Others come to a place where they realize they are outside of Christ, repent and believe and thus gain assurance.)

Alternatively...

It is another thing to ASSUME that the children of Christians ARE ACTUALLY regenerate and train them that this is the case. Paedocommunion is doing exactly this! By giving our very young children the Supper, we are telling them, in effect, that they are salvifically in Christ.

Lest we ever forget...

"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly [there is a covenantal standing which is merely external], nor is circumcision outward and physical [something more is needed than outward circumcision or baptism]. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter [external membership in the covenant is no ground of assurance]. His praise is not from man but from God [assurance ought to come from God alone through a heart that is embracing the Christ of the covenant, not from who your parents are, church membership, baptism, etc.]." Romans 2:28&29

fredtgreco · #9 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 11:30 AM

Paedocommunion is a classic example of trying to be "consistent" above being Biblical. It should be a warning to us all in that regard.

fredtgreco · #10 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 12:10 PM

This is a repost to fix a broken thread.

Me Died Blue · #11 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Paedocommunion is a classic example of trying to be "consistent" above being Biblical.

I've never thought about it that way before, but that's a really good way of putting it.

AV1611 · #12 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Robert Rayburn has been known as advocating Paedocommunion, but does not admit children to the table until they are examined and make a public confession. This is rather strange.

That is because of PCA rules at the moment. From the article in the OP:

"We do not practice paedocommunion here at Faith Presbyterian. We get as close to it as we can, the rules of our church being what they are, but a profession of faith is still required in the PCA for participation at the Lord’s Table. So, we take professions of faith much sooner than used to be the norm; and, happily, many, many other PCA churches are doing the same. And that is alright. If it takes some years, as it will, to convince the church that the practice of many centuries is in error, so be it."

AV1611 · #13 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S. Spence

I think this article is quite helpful - I'm not sure if I agree with all of it but it has arguments against paedocommunion I had not seen before.

Reformed Answers: Anti-Paedocommunion

What about Reformed Answers: Children at the Lord's Table

Pilgrim · #14 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 01:01 PM

Here are a few more resources:

Articles by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee against paedocommunion:

Summary Against Paedocommunion
Calvin vs. Child Communion (pdf)
Paedocommunion vs. Protestantism (pdf)

Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination by Brian Schwertly

Amazing Grace · #15 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Here are a few more resources:

Articles by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee against paedocommunion:

Summary Against Paedocommunion
Calvin vs. Child Communion (pdf)
Paedocommunion vs. Protestantism (pdf)

Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination by Brian Schwertly

Chris;

Just a quick question. When did Schwertly become the spokesman for orthodoxy? Not asking in a wise manner, just curious becasue he has a "treatiste" on everything from a-z. Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?

AV1611 · #16 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?

He is a force to be reconed with IMO. I can't agree with him on everything and his tone can be a little polemical but I still like him.

The issue of paedocommunion is important and I am thinking my way through it slowly. There is a small group within evangelicals in the CofE who are pushing for paedocommunion hence my 'interest'.

Stephen · #17 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?

He is a force to be reconed with IMO. I can't agree with him on everything and his tone can be a little polemical but I still like him.

The issue of paedocommunion is important and I am thinking my way through it slowly. There is a small group within evangelicals in the CofE who are pushing for paedocommunion hence my 'interest'.

What does CofE mean?

AV1611 · #18 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

What does CofE mean?

Apologies.... it is the abreviation for "Church of England"

Amazing Grace · #19 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?

He is a force to be reconed with IMO. I can't agree with him on everything and his tone can be a little polemical but I still like him.

The issue of paedocommunion is important and I am thinking my way through it slowly. There is a small group within evangelicals in the CofE who are pushing for paedocommunion hence my 'interest'.

He seems to fight many battles. Must be tiring after a while...

Pilgrim · #20 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Here are a few more resources:

Articles by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee against paedocommunion:

Summary Against Paedocommunion
Calvin vs. Child Communion (pdf)
Paedocommunion vs. Protestantism (pdf)

Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination by Brian Schwertly

Chris;

Just a quick question. When did Schwertly become the spokesman for orthodoxy? Not asking in a wise manner, just curious becasue he has a "treatiste" on everything from a-z. Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?

I think it's best to evaluate arguments on their own merits. Posting a link doesn't make anyone THE spokesman for orthodoxy.

Amazing Grace · #21 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Here are a few more resources:

Articles by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee against paedocommunion:

Summary Against Paedocommunion
Calvin vs. Child Communion (pdf)
Paedocommunion vs. Protestantism (pdf)

Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination by Brian Schwertly

Chris;

Just a quick question. When did Schwertly become the spokesman for orthodoxy? Not asking in a wise manner, just curious becasue he has a "treatiste" on everything from a-z. Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?

I think it's best to evaluate arguments on their own merits. Posting a link doesn't make anyone THE spokesman for orthodoxy.

I just see his name in every debate, thats all I meant Chris. I do not even think Paul faught this many fronts...LOL

A brief google provided polemics on:

Padeocommunion
Sabbath
RPW
Christmas
Charismatic movement
Auburn Ave
State Schooling
Theonomy
Arminianism
Christian Liberty
Law

Amazing how God can give ONE person so much revelation on this many topics.

Stephen · #22 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

What does CofE mean?

Apologies.... it is the abreviation for "Church of England"

I was not aware of that. Is that not strange in the Anglican tradition?

AV1611 · #23 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen