Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 » WelcomeFirst, 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.
Paedocommunion is a classic example of trying to be "consistent" above being Biblical.
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 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
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
Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?
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?
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'.
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?
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.
What does CofE mean?
Apologies.... it is the abreviation for "Church of England"
Is that not strange in the Anglican tradition?
Is that not strange in the Anglican tradition?
How do you mean? Note the URL of this.
St Edward's C of E Comprehensive School Webite
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883
Book II
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN JORDAN
Chapter 10
IN THE HOUSE OF HIS HEAVENLY, AND IN THE HOME OF HIS EARTHLY FATHER
(St. Luke 2:41-52.)
Once only is the great silence, which lies on the history of Christ's early life, broken. It is to record what took place on His first visit to the Temple. What this meant, even to an ordinary devout Jew, may easily be imagined. Where life and religion were so intertwined, and both in such organic connection with the Temple and the people of Israel, every thoughtful Israelite must have felt as if his real life were not in what was around, but ran up into the grand unity of the people of God, and were compassed by the halo of its sanctity. To him it would be true in the deepest sense, that, so to speak, each Israelite was born in Zion, as, assuredly, all the well-springs of his life were there.1 It was, therefore, not merely the natural eagerness to see the City of their God and of their fathers, glorious Jerusalem; nor yet the lawful enthusiasm, national or religious, which would kindle at the thought of 'our feet' standing within those gates, through which priests, prophets, and kings had passed; but far deeper feelings which would make glad, when it was said: 'Let us go into the house of Jehovah.' They were not ruins to which precious memories clung, nor did the great hope seem to lie afar off, behind the evening-mist. But 'glorious things were spoken of Zion, the City of God' - in the past, and in the near future 'the thrones of David' were to be set within her walls, and amidst her palaces.2
In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence attendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called 'a son of the Commandment,' or 'of the Torah.'3 But, as a matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one.4 It was in accordance with this custom, that,5 on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year, His Parents took Him with them in the 'company' of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont6 to go up to the Temple; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance,7 Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, mentioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary.
1. Ps. ixxxvii. 5-7.
2. Ps. cxxii. 1-5.
3. Ab. v. 21.
4. Yoma 82 a.
5. Comp. also Maimonides, Hilkh. Chag. ii. The common statement, that Jesus went to the Temple because He was 'a Son of the Commandment,' is obviously erroneous. All the more remarkable, on the other hand, is St. Luke's accurate knowledge of Jewish customs, and all the more antithetic to the mythical theory the circumstance, that he places this remarkable event in the twelfth year of Jesus' life, and not when He became 'a Son of the Law.'
6. We take as the more correct reading that which puts the participle in the present tense (anabainontwn), and not in the aorist.
7. Jer Kidd. 61 c.