Paedocommunion by Rayburn
- Thread starter AV1611
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Reformed Answers: Anti-Paedocommunion
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.)
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.)
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.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
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
Paedocommunion is a classic example of trying to be "consistent" above being Biblical. It should be a warning to us all in that regard.
This is a repost to fix a broken thread.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I've never thought about it that way before, but that's a really good way of putting it.
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."
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
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
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
Puritan Board Junior
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?
He is a force to be reconed with in my opinion. 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?
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
He seems to fight many battles. Must be tiring after a while...
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
I was not aware of that. Is that not strange in the Anglican tradition?How do you mean? Note the URL of this.
http://www.steds.havering.sch.uk/
Esher C of E High School - Home
I thought that Paedocommunion would be a violation of the Anglican Standards. Children have to be confirmed before they are admitted to the Lord's Supper.
You are correct however within Anglicanism our Standards are more "take it or leave it" rather than prescriptive (unfortunately).
"Admitting Children to Holy Communion" - Churchman article by Donald Allister
Dr. Cornel Venema has a tape series entitled "Daddy, May I Take Communion", which can be ordered from Mid-America Reformed Seminary's resource site:
http://midamerica.edu/resources.htm
http://midamerica.edu/resources.htm
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
I just don't see what you're on about. Anyway, if you check Dr. Lee's site you'll see that his output dwarfs Schwertley's, probably several times over. We pontificate on the PB on these topics and more all the time. If you have a problem with Schwertley then email him.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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?
He gives a lecture to his congregation every week on a topical issue; hence, he seems to have covered everything from a-z. The stuff on family issues is meant to be very good, though I have only listened to some of it.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
Why are you reacting in such a way Chris? I am not 'getting on' about anything. I just never heard of him until I joined this board. People quote Schwertly, provide links to Schwertly, point towards Schwertly.
Daniel answered my inquiery:
He gives a lecture to his congregation every week on a topical issue; hence, he seems to have covered everything from a-z. The stuff on family issues is meant to be very good, though I have only listened to some of it.
That is all I was looking for. As an aside, after pontificating 3500 posts, I would expect a better reaction from you with my honest inquiery.
Daniel,
I actually think there is substantial evidence to claim that young covenant children *did not* participate in the feast. The Third Mill site notes this fairly well. Leviticus commands the male adults to assemble for this feast and there is an obvious reason for this.
I think many people when they're reading the paedocommunionists make their arguments want to transport the OT people into their local communities as if they're showing up for Church every Sunday in their Suburbans. We all need to remember that people actually walked to the Temple.
Women and children were not prohibited from attending the Passover feast but they were very clearly optional. From this very point, the best the paedocommunion advocate could establish from the clear teaching on the Passover is that children might have been able to participate if the father happened to bring his wife and children along but what they cannot argue is that it was of the essence of the Passover to have small children present because most men did not bring their small children.
Further, it is very instructive that Christ Himself appears to have participated in the Passover for the first time when He was 12 years old. Alfred Edersheim sheds some light on this that is very instructive:
It actually seems very clear to me that the Passover, was sort of a "graduating rite" where the long trek was first made by the boy (and perhaps his Mother as well). Concurrent with the festival, a child was officially examined by the Church to determine if he had been properly catechized.
- Status
