Skip to main content

The Historicity of Paedocommunion

Concerning Paedocommunion:


I've seen people argue that it is not "Reformed," that is, it is not in line with the historic, Reformed confessions. This point I will grant, though there certainly were some Reformers who held it. This also assumes a mythological idea of a monolithic "Reformed Church" or "Reformed view" on any given matter, but we won't go down that road.

I've seen people argue against it exegetically, arguments being mainly drawn from 1 Corinthians 11. I ardently disagree with their interpretations of that passage. In fact, I think 1 Corinthians is one of the strongest defenses of Paedocommunion. Regardless, I can understand their line of argumentation.

What I have not seen is an explanation of how Paedocommunion is anything but a valid practice of the historic catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church has literally practiced it forever. We have multiple explicit statements from the early Church that support Paedocommunion. Augustine goes so far to argue from Paedocommunion to his view of the efficacy of the Sacraments, which implies that it was the accepted practice being used to prove an idea that was less universal.

When I have mentioned this historicity in past conversations with those who oppose Paedocommunion, the only response I have received is basically a general disregard of the Fathers.

We can have different positions on the Sacraments. Church history is full of Christians holding differing views within the realm of creedal orthodoxy, especially regarding the Sacraments. We should be able to discuss these things respectfully, agreeing to disagree.

Some opponents of Paedocommunion, however, act as if it is a historic aberration. They paint it as a fringe view associated with the Federal Vision or other less-than-reformed groups. The reality is that Paedocommunion was an accepted, if not universal, view in the Early Church. They may not like it, but that is the historic reality.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...