What is paedocommunion?

AV1611 · #1 (**permalink**) 12-31-2007, 02:23 PM

When people advocate paedocommunion what precisely are they advocating? Are they advocating babies partake or children in general?

Neogillist · #2 (**permalink**) 12-31-2007, 02:47 PM

In general paedo-communion intails serving the Lord's supper to children or teenagers who have not yet made a profession of faith. The practice has become largely widespread throughout many denominations including reformed ones. While the Strict and Particular Baptists in England would not be susceptible to it because they would only serve communion to bapstized believers who were always all adults, the practice may have existed in some puritan circles. Jonathan Edwards, for instance was opposed to serving communion to non-professing members, and got expelled from his congregationalist church for it. Overall, paedo-communion is not a Reformed practice, and historically-Reformed Christians have been opposed to it, pointing both to the Scriptures and their confessions for their defense. Ironically, many Calvinistic Baptists churches today that have 'open communions' practice it indirectly. Almost all Arminian churches don't have problems with paedo-communion, as they do not see any direct link between the sacrament of baptism and communion, and also probably because they hold to 'universal atonement'.

brymaes · #3 (**permalink**) 12-31-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Are they advocating babies partake or children in general?

Small children who have been baptized, but not infants who cannot eat solid food (although I hear that Rich Lusk injects communion into the womb...)

AV1611 · #4 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 01:51 PM

Where are the errors in this?

Neogillist · #5 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 08:41 PM

"Therefore, if children participated in the OT Passover, we would need ‘extremely clear Apostolic instruction’ to impose tighter restrictions.[15] At the very least, this places the burden of proof firmly on those who would bar the infant children of believers from the Lord’s Supper."
(matthewwmason - Covenant Children and Covenant Meals)

I disagree with this author's statement. The author here is trying to impose the same kind of reasoning in justifying paedo-communion as paedo-baptists use in justifying paedo-baptism; that because the Passover has replaced the Lord's Supper, and children in the OT ate of it, then it necessarily follows that children in the NT may take part to the Lord's Supper. The New Testament does not command or forbid children to be baptized, and is largely unclear as to whether believing must be a prerequisite to baptism. This lack of clarity explains the division surrounding the sacrament of baptism among Reformed theologians. The whole issue surrounding paedo-baptism actually boils down to a simple NT passage in 1 Corinthians 10:27-30:

27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be (A)guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

28But a man must (B)examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number (C)sleep.

The standard interpretation of this passage is that Paul warns the Corinthians to examine themselves when taking part to the Lord's Supper, that they should not do so hastily, irreverantly as though it were like any other meal. Rather, they should make sure that their consciences are right with God and with their fellow believers. This is clearly taught in verse 28. In verse 29, the word "body" is assumed to refer to Christ's body as in the bread of communion. The argument follows that since children are too young and immature to examine themselves, they ought to wait until they have made a profession of faith before taking part to the Lord's Supper.

The 'liberal' interpretation of this passage is the one that paedo-communionists take. In regard to verse 28, they agree more or less with the standard view outlined above. However, they believe that in verse 29, the word 'body' refers not to the body of Christ but to the church body. They point to passages like 1 Corinthians 12:27 to show that Paul sometimes use the word 'body' to refer to the church members. On this basis, they argue that Paul is simply telling the Corinthians to watch for one another and be considerate for one another's needs before taking the Lord's Supper that they should all eat at the same time lest "One goes hungry, another gets drunk." (v. 20) and end up turning the Lord's Supper into a debaucherous orgie.

I personally find this interpretation weak. If the only evil of the Corinthians was in failing to be considerate for one another, I do not see how it could be that "many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep." It would be much to harsh of a punishment on the part of God. It is more likely that 'body' in verse 29 is referring to Christ's spiritual body in the element of the bread, not only because it is last repeated in verse 28, but because a disrespect of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice by a reprobate would be indeed enough of a sacrilege to deserve death, as it was for the two sons of Aaron.

It is nonetheless likely that children were taking the Lord's Supper among the Corinthians, and the practice of paedo-communion is well documented within the early church by 400 A.D. The reason Reformed Christians have abolished it is because of the abuses that had risen among the papists and also because of our high view of the authority of Scriptures.

Next error:
"Therefore, we can conclude that, as all the baptized are priests, they should all eat of the Supper. Thus, paedobaptists should also be paedocommunionists. If we are to be consistent, we should treat them as priests, and so feed them at the Lord’s Table."

The baptism that make one a priest is not physical baptism but spiritual or Spirit-baptism, which only believers have. Only believers should take part to the Lord's Supper, since only regenerates have the Holy Spirit and are in vital union with Christ. To the others, the Lord's Supper is a condemnation. The author of that article is abusing scriptural language to support his position, just as Federal Visionists would do for the same purpose.

I hope you may make up your own mind about it. I don't think paedo-communion is a sacrilege or should divide Christians, however.

JM · #6 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 08:44 PM

If one "sacrament" is given to unbelievers/unregenerate and believers/regenerate equally in baptism, why not allow for paedocommunion, the giving of the other "sacrament" to both equally?

Have you folks seen this site: paedocommunion.com - resource center for the study of children and the Lord's Supper

j

Semper Fidelis · #7 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theologae

Quote:

Are they advocating babies partake or children in general?

Small children who have been baptized, but not infants who cannot eat solid food (although I hear that Rich Lusk injects communion into the womb...)

Pilgrim · #8 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 09:22 PM

I think technically that paedocommunion is communicating infants as soon as they are able to ingest the elements. Others would define it as communicating children without a credible profession of faith, whether made privately or publicly.

My understanding is that the various Eastern Orthodox churches follow the practice and will force alcoholic wine down the throat of the child. This has been witnessed in some so called Reformed churches as well, although generally these are either independent, micro Presbyterian or outside of the mainstream

The PCUSA, REC, RCA and CRC all practice (or at least no not condemn) paedocommunion although they may vary in how this is worked out.

Ivanhoe · #9 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by theologae

Quote:

Are they advocating babies partake or children in general?

Small children who have been baptized, but not infants who cannot eat solid food (although I hear that Rich Lusk injects communion into the womb...)

More precisely stated, the baby receives communion via the umbilical cord, I think. I wonder if they are any paedocoms on PB nowadays. There have been in the past.

Ivanhoe · #10 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I think technically that paedocommunion is communicating infants as soon as they are able to ingest the elements.

Right, and that is formally (if not practically) different from "early child communion." In the latter, as practiced by many CREC churches, the child does appear before the elders to "give a credible profession of faith." In the former, in some circles, the child begins receiving the elements at the (Federally represented) father's discretion. But it has been a while since i have read up on the matter.

danmpem · #11 (**permalink**) 01-02-2008, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogillist

Ironically, many Calvinistic Baptists churches today that have 'open communions' practice it indirectly.

The church I attend does this. But I wonder, what is the difference between this and a church which the pastor/eldar/deacon who serves communion just gives it to everyone (or at least makes it available for anyone to take)? My church does the former in the evening service and the latter in the morning.