Age and paedocommunion

[travis]

Hi, pretty new hear. What ages do you still consider a church to be participating in paedocommunion? Or is there really an age that would be the cutoff between paedo and credo? I have been to PCA churches that serve communion to children at the age of 4 or 5 as long as they have been presented to the session and have a profession of faith.

Thoughts? Flames? Links to other posts where this has already been discussed?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Generally, as I know it, paedocommunionists give their children the supper as soon as they are able to masticate it. Personally, It would be given it to my daughter after following the standards of my church; that may be when she is 5 years old and can answer reasonably to her pastor.

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[travis]

That is how I understand it as well. At my church, children are welcome to the table with a profession of faith and approval from the session.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by travis
Hi, pretty new hear. What ages do you still consider a church to be participating in paedocommunion? Or is there really an age that would be the cutoff between paedo and credo? I have been to PCA churches that serve communion to children at the age of 4 or 5 as long as they have been presented to the session and have a profession of faith.

Thoughts? Flames? Links to other posts where this has already been discussed?

I think that the label paedocommunion is potentially misleading because it can be construed to give the impression that if you aren't a "paedocommunionist" then you don't think that kids should have communion.
However, the issue isn't really age. We'll give the Lord's Supper to a child (of any age!) who can give a credible profession of faith to the Session. As far as I can tell, paedocommunionists believe that children should be allowed to partake of the elements as soon as they are old enough to physically do so, without any requirement of a profession.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by travis
Hi, pretty new hear. What ages do you still consider a church to be participating in paedocommunion? Or is there really an age that would be the cutoff between paedo and credo? I have been to PCA churches that serve communion to children at the age of 4 or 5 as long as they have been presented to the session and have a profession of faith.

Thoughts? Flames? Links to other posts where this has already been discussed?

I think that the label paedocommunion is potentially misleading because it can be construed to give the impression that if you aren't a "paedocommunionist" then you don't think that kids should have communion.
However, the issue isn't really age. We'll give the Lord's Supper to a child (of any age!) who can give a credible profession of faith to the Session. As far as I can tell, paedocommunionists believe that children should be allowed to partake of the elements as soon as they are old enough to physically do so, without any requirement of a profession.

I too think this is the essence of paedocommunion, that the child partakes as soon as he is physically able to do so.

Arguments about whether young children should be admitted to the table with an "age appropriate confession" may be related, but really aren't the same thing. However, sometimes people think of the latter when they think paedocommunion. So I've found that when discussing paedocommunion it's best to be sure what the person you're talking to means by it.

 

[ServantOfKing]

Scripture says that a person must examine himself before coming to the table. I think that as soon as a child professes faith and is capable of examining him/herself then they should be allowed to come to the table (after receiving permission from the church). I guess that would be different for every child. It seems like something that the parents of the child/ session would be able to determine best. I guess the concept that every child matures differently and at a different time would apply.
At the PCA church where I grew up, we took a communicants class and I was able to come to the table at around 8 or 9. I always remember wanting to take communion and understanding it before I took the class, but not being allowed because I wasn't old enough. Looking back, I think that if a child expresses a desire to come to the table and is mentally capable of examining hmself, then they should be allowed to come to the table... Just my ..

[Edited on 7-9-2006 by ServantOfKing]

 

[CharlesG]

Examination refers to later knowledge. Knowledge we obtain as a Christian is progressive and is a by-product of sovereign grace over time. We do not ever gain full knowledge of anything (seeing a glass darkly, etc.). The Bible states that, '...I believe that I may know'. We are also told to 'grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord..'. We act and then we learn later. If these two coincide, then great! Examination refers to the context which involves drunkedness and causing schism or division in the church. I haven't met many babies or small children that form 'clicks' and cause divisions; nor any that came drunk to the table.

Another 'biggie' is the term, 'rememberance'. This simply ties to other Covenant feasts, as the entire meal is offered to the Lord as a memorial. The act itself is the memorial or 'rememberance' of His death acted out in a dramatic format. There is no subjective introspection here, as how can we remember His death if we weren't there? Do we conjure up a movie scene or some imaginary characters at a crucifixion? What does Christ look like? I think the view of internal evaluation is the result of rationalism and individualism that has infiltrated the modern churches.

www.paedocommunion.com

Regards,

Charles

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by CharlesG]

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by CharlesG]

 

[wsw201]

Travis,

You might want to do a search on this subject. It has been discussed numerous times.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Do children have the wisdom to examine themselves? Can they discern the body and the blood? These are requirements one must meet before partaking of the Lord's Supper. I believe this is why Baptists wait until their kids are a little older.

This is really no different than when some Presbyterians deny the Table to others. If that is ok, then the Baptist view of waiting until their children are older is ok as well.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Oops. Sorry for pretty much repeating what was already said.

 

[ServantOfKing]

Charles,
I just wanted to clarify to make sure I'm reading your post correctly! Are you saying basically that the warnings given to the church about Communion are kind of like the commands in scripture to "Repent and be baptized?" Like, the whole covenant community receives the sign, but not all are actually literally capable of repenting? In the same sense, you are saying that the whole covenant community partakes of the meal, but not all can understand/ discern yet? Does the paedo-communionist see a need for internal evaluation during the taking of the meal? Thanks for answering my questions!

Originally posted by CharlesG
Examination refers to later knowledge. Knowledge we obtain as a Christian is progressive and is a by-product of sovereign grace over time. We do not ever gain full knowledge of anything (seeing a glass darkly, etc.). The Bible states that, '...I believe that I may know'. We are also told to 'grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord..'. We act and then we learn later. If these two coincide, then great! Examination refers to the context which involves drunkedness and causing schism or division in the church. I haven't met many babies or small children that form 'clicks' and cause divisions; nor any that came drunk to the table.

Another 'biggie' is the term, 'rememberance'. This simply ties to other Covenant feasts, as the entire meal is offered to the Lord as a memorial. The act itself is the memorial or 'rememberance' of His death acted out in a dramatic format. There is no subjective introspection here, as how can we remember His death if we weren't there? Do we conjure up a movie scene or some imaginary characters at a crucifixion? What does Christ look like? I think the view of internal evaluation is the result of rationalism and individualism that has infiltrated the modern churches.

www.paedocommunion.com

Regards,

Charles

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by CharlesG]

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by CharlesG]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Heidelberg Catechism Q. 81:

Q81: Who are to come to the table of the Lord?

Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the suffering and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.

In Heidelberg, in the 16th century (and in Reformed churches for centuries after) this meant that the catechism is to be memorized! Calvin seems to have expected children to do this and make profession by age 10.

rsc

 

[CharlesG]

Originally posted by ServantOfKing
Charles,
I just wanted to clarify to make sure I'm reading your post correctly! Are you saying basically that the warnings given to the church about Communion are kind of like the commands in scripture to "Repent and be baptized?" Like, the whole covenant community receives the sign, but not all are actually literally capable of repenting? In the same sense, you are saying that the whole covenant community partakes of the meal, but not all can understand/ discern yet? Does the paedo-communionist see a need for internal evaluation during the taking of the meal? Thanks for answering my questions!

Originally posted by CharlesG
Examination refers to later knowledge. Knowledge we obtain as a Christian is progressive and is a by-product of sovereign grace over time. We do not ever gain full knowledge of anything (seeing a glass darkly, etc.). The Bible states that, '...I believe that I may know'. We are also told to 'grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord..'. We act and then we learn later. If these two coincide, then great! Examination refers to the context which involves drunkedness and causing schism or division in the church. I haven't met many babies or small children that form 'clicks' and cause divisions; nor any that came drunk to the table.

Another 'biggie' is the term, 'rememberance'. This simply ties to other Covenant feasts, as the entire meal is offered to the Lord as a memorial. The act itself is the memorial or 'rememberance' of His death acted out in a dramatic format. There is no subjective introspection here, as how can we remember His death if we weren't there? Do we conjure up a movie scene or some imaginary characters at a crucifixion? What does Christ look like? I think the view of internal evaluation is the result of rationalism and individualism that has infiltrated the modern churches.

www.paedocommunion.com

Regards,

Charles

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by CharlesG]

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by CharlesG]

I believe that the position Paul takes in 1 Corinthians is mainly directed to the adults of the church. Knowledge is acquired over time. We assume our children are covenant members, thus entitled to the beneits until proven otherwise. If we assume them to be unbelievers, then we are giving them the Word, fellowship, etc. and we are not supposed to 'give unto dogs things that are holy'. We are also to 'wipe the dust from our feet' if they do not hear us. If we take this literally, then we are hypocrites if we continue to teach our children if there is no 'knowledge' or positive responses. It is very inconsistent to hold to a half-way covenant view. I think Hebrews chapter 6 clarifies the 'internal' / 'external' covenant view. Those in the 'external' covenant (partakers of the means of grace -Word, sacraments, worship, fellowship, etc., can fall away. We assume these church members to be Christians until they prove otherwise; at which time, discipline is required. We can't read hearts of children or adults. We can't even examine fruit completely. As Hume's problem of induction shows, we can't observe someone at all times their thoughts, words or deeds.

I believe the need to do internal introspection is simply to make sure we aren't coming to the table drunk or causing divisions or sects within the local body or church. That is all Paul refers to in this exhortation. I think that a secondary/larger context approach does have in mind that we make sure we aren't living a lifestyle of sin in particular areas. I don't think babies or children do such or are not aware of such (Not the Freudian consciousness schema). The early church practiced a form of concomitance. They appealed to representational formats. This means that touching wine to the lip of a baby represented the entire meal.

Regards,

Charles


[Edited on 9-9-2006 by CharlesG]

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by CharlesG]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by CharlesG

Originally posted by ServantOfKing
Charles,
I just wanted to clarify to make sure I'm reading your post correctly! Are you saying basically that the warnings given to the church about Communion are kind of like the commands in scripture to "Repent and be baptized?" Like, the whole covenant community receives the sign, but not all are actually literally capable of repenting? In the same sense, you are saying that the whole covenant community partakes of the meal, but not all can understand/ discern yet? Does the paedo-communionist see a need for internal evaluation during the taking of the meal? Thanks for answering my questions!

Originally posted by CharlesG
Examination refers to later knowledge. Knowledge we obtain as a Christian is progressive and is a by-product of sovereign grace over time. We do not ever gain full knowledge of anything (seeing a glass darkly, etc.). The Bible states that, '...I believe that I may know'. We are also told to 'grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord..'. We act and then we learn later. If these two coincide, then great! Examination refers to the context which involves drunkedness and causing schism or division in the church. I haven't met many babies or small children that form 'clicks' and cause divisions; nor any that came drunk to the table.

Another 'biggie' is the term, 'rememberance'. This simply ties to other Covenant feasts, as the entire meal is offered to the Lord as a memorial. The act itself is the memorial or 'rememberance' of His death acted out in a dramatic format. There is no subjective introspection here, as how can we remember His death if we weren't there? Do we conjure up a movie scene or some imaginary characters at a crucifixion? What does Christ look like? I think the view of internal evaluation is the result of rationalism and individualism that has infiltrated the modern churches.

www.paedocommunion.com

Regards,

Charles

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by CharlesG]

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by CharlesG]

I believe that the position Paul takes in 1 Corinthians is mainly directed to the adults of the church. Knowledge is acquired over time. We assume our children are covenant members, thus entitled to the beneits until proven otherwise. If we assume them to be unbelievers, then we are giving them the Word, fellowship, etc. and we are not supposed to 'give unto dogs things that are holy'. We are also to 'wipe the dust from our feet' if they do not hear us. If we take this literally, then we are hypocrites if we continue to teach our children if there is no 'knowledge' or positive responses. It is very inconsistent to hold to a half-way covenant view. I think Hebrews chapter 6 clarifies the 'internal' / 'external' covenant view. Those in the 'external' covenant (partakers of the means of grace -Word, sacraments, worship, fellowship, etc., can fall away. We assume these church members to be Christians until they prove otherwise; at which time, discipline is required. We can't read hearts of children or adults. We can't even examine fruit completely. As Hume's problem of induction shows, we can't observe someone at all times their thoughts, words or deeds.

Regards,

Charles

Charles,
Can you define, "mainly"? As well, given your proposition, will you consider having a 5 year old on session?

 

[CharlesG]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Heidelberg Catechism Q. 81:

Q81: Who are to come to the table of the Lord?

Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the suffering and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.

In Heidelberg, in the 16th century (and in Reformed churches for centuries after) this meant that the catechism is to be memorized! Calvin seems to have expected children to do this and make profession by age 10.

rsc

Calvin has almost become an idol or a member of the Presbyerian 'personality cult' standing. Calvin is finite, contingent and a sinner. He is capable of error and only 'saw through a glass darkly' during his writings. I think he is great in most of his writings. An evaluation of Calvin with reference to his views of paedocommunion can be found at www. paedocommunion.com. He views are mainly inferred and he did not directly discuss the subject at length.

Regards,

Charles

 

[CharlesG]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
[
Charles,
Can you define, "mainly"? As well, given your proposition, will you consider having a 5 year old on session?

That is a category fallacy to equate ruling the church with sacramental observation. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a 5 year old to support me financially, etc.

I use the term 'mainly ' when referring to the immediate context vs the larger one.

Regards,

Charles

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by CharlesG

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
[
Charles,
Can you define, "mainly"? As well, given your proposition, will you consider having a 5 year old on session?

That is a category fallacy to equate ruling the church with sacramental observation. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a 5 year old to support me financially, etc.

I use the term 'mainly ' when referring to the immediate context vs the larger one.

Regards,

Charles

I disagree that the idea is fallacious. Taking your principle to it's furthest conclusion, i.e. they are Chrisitians, hence they should receive the supper without adhering to the direct command, 'to examine', you are shooting yourself in the foot. if what you say is true, they are Christians and should receive ALL the benefits of Church membership.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I don't cite this to idolize Calvin, I agree that neo-orthodoxy has made more of Calvin's centrality to our theology and practice than we have historically done.

I cited this practice as an example of earlier Reformed approaches to this question. We've known about paedocommunion for a very long time. We've rejected it just as long.

That's why HC 81 says:

Q81: Who are to come to the table of the Lord?

Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the suffering and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Infants are not capable of this sort of self-examination and self-knowledge. Nor are the able to implicate themselves and others in a corporate covenant renewal ritual which has corporate as well as personal implications. See 1 Cor 11!

In order to fuflill our duty to our covenant children we have historically catechized them so that they can enter into this sacrament of covenant renewal intelligently.

rsc

Originally posted by CharlesG

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Heidelberg Catechism Q. 81:

Q81: Who are to come to the table of the Lord?

Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the suffering and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.

In Heidelberg, in the 16th century (and in Reformed churches for centuries after) this meant that the catechism is to be memorized! Calvin seems to have expected children to do this and make profession by age 10.

rsc

Calvin has almost become an idol or a member of the Presbyerian 'personality cult' standing. Calvin is finite, contingent and a sinner. He is capable of error and only 'saw through a glass darkly' during his writings. I think he is great in most of his writings. An evaluation of Calvin with reference to his views of paedocommunion can be found at www. paedocommunion.com. He views are mainly inferred and he did not directly discuss the subject at length.

Regards,

Charles

 

[R. Scott Clark]

There is a difference, which Baptists and paedocommunionists often seem to miss, between sacrament of covenant initiation and covenant [/i] renewal.

According to the Reformed confessions, infants are eligible for initiation but not for renewal.

rsc

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Do children have the wisdom to examine themselves? Can they discern the body and the blood? These are requirements one must meet before partaking of the Lord's Supper. I believe this is why Baptists wait until their kids are a little older.

This is really no different than when some Presbyterians deny the Table to others. If that is ok, then the Baptist view of waiting until their children are older is ok as well.

 

[CharlesG]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by CharlesG

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
[
Charles,
Can you define, "mainly"? As well, given your proposition, will you consider having a 5 year old on session?

That is a category fallacy to equate ruling the church with sacramental observation. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a 5 year old to support me financially, etc.

I use the term 'mainly ' when referring to the immediate context vs the larger one.

Regards,

Charles

I disagree that the idea is fallacious. Taking your principle to it's furthest conclusion, i.e. they are Chrisitians, hence they should receive the supper without adhering to the direct command, 'to examine', you are shooting yourself in the foot. if what you say is true, they are Christians and should receive ALL the benefits of Church membership.

This simply ties to the old covenant meals, as children were included. You can't have it as a fence sitting scenario. Either we assume the child is a Christian or not one. We are then logically left to relating to the child in either/or conditions. There is no neutral ground. You are making knowledge prerequisite to grace. Knowledge follows progressively over time. Do you know any adults that have full knowledge? Given that none do, what status of knowledge determines admittance into the means of grace? How much knowledge of the coming Seed did the old covenant members have? This view borders on gnosticism and rationalism as apriori to incusion.

Another incorrect comparison of Eldership with children is that not all church members are qualified to lead or are gifted as such. Does this mean they are excluded from the covenant meal? Do you know if all the adults are truly regenerate or not? No, you simply assume their verbal statements are correct. We know that many fall away over time, as the visible church contains true and false believers. We can't read hearts or examine fruit at all times to have this full knowledge. Similarly, we assume the adult is a Christian, but never really know for sure. You are seeking full assurance in the child prior to communion. You can't have this will anyone.

'Remeberance' in the context in the New Testament refers to a memorial service. There is no indication in that context that one is to use introspection or mentally recall the Lord's death. How can one remember something that they never experienced? We weren't there in the first century! Rather, the exhortation if to offer this communion meal as a memoral to the Lord. Paul states that the supper 'shows forth' this truth to us and onlookers. God is the God of the physical as well as the spiritual realm. The supper offers a physical lesson primarily.

Regards,

CharlesG

[Edited on 9-10-2006 by CharlesG]

[Edited on 9-10-2006 by CharlesG]

[Edited on 9-10-2006 by CharlesG]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Exodus 12:24-28 24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. 25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. 26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? 27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. 28 And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.

For more on the above, see:

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm

In regards to my question on session, 86 that and address voting.........

[Edited on 9-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[CharlesG]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Exodus 12:24-28 24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. 25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. 26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? 27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. 28 And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.

For more on the above, see:

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm

In regards to my question on session, 86 that and address voting.........

[Edited on 9-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]

Nowhere do these passages require that children 'ask' the meaning of the service. Parents are simply told to explain it to them if they ask about it. It is an argument from silence to assume that asking the partents is required of children.

Regards,

CharlesG

[Edited on 9-10-2006 by CharlesG]

 

[CharlesG]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Do children have the wisdom to examine themselves? Can they discern the body and the blood? These are requirements one must meet before partaking of the Lord's Supper. I believe this is why Baptists wait until their kids are a little older.

This is really no different than when some Presbyterians deny the Table to others. If that is ok, then the Baptist view of waiting until their children are older is ok as well.

In the passages Paul is using, reference is to 'body' alone, not 'blood'. When body is used alone, it is mostly always in reference to the body of Christ or the church assembly. The immediate context brings this out. One is not to partake if they are causing divisions and being drunk at the supper.

Regard,

CharlesG

 

[CharlesG]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
I don't cite this to idolize Calvin, I agree that neo-orthodoxy has made more of Calvin's centrality to our theology and practice than we have historically done.

I cited this practice as an example of earlier Reformed approaches to this question. We've known about paedocommunion for a very long time. We've rejected it just as long.

Church history does not agree on this. The Hussites sought to restore paedocommunion at the Council of Basel in 1438. It was the practice from Apostolic times, abandoned by the heresy of transubstantiation which taught that the children might drop the elements.

I must point out that tradition does not determine truth, but often times validates it.

Joseph Bingham, author of Antiquities of the Christian Church, mentions this early practice by mostly all churches.

The Church Fathers' documents and many early Liturgical documents mention this practice. See 'The Eucharist in the Thought of the Early Church' by G.W.H. Lampe. It is also mentioned in 'The Lapse' by Cyprian. Clement of Rome (c.90) wrote in favor of the practice in 'Apostolic Confessions,' compiled in the late 4th century by an easter Arian. This is documented in 'Apostolic Constitutions' by G.T.D. Angel.

Sermons by Augustine refer to this early practice, 'Augustine of Hippo' by D.F. Wright.

..many, many more resources are available.

Originally posted by R. Scott ClarkThat's why HC 81 says:

Q81: Who are to come to the table of the Lord?

Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the suffering and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Infants are not capable of this sort of self-examination and self-knowledge. Nor are the able to implicate themselves and others in a corporate covenant renewal ritual which has corporate as well as personal implications. See 1 Cor 11!

In order to fuflill our duty to our covenant children we have historically catechized them so that they can enter into this sacrament of covenant renewal intelligently.

rsc

Infants aren't commanded to, it is the adults that are addressed in the immediate context of 1 Cor. 11. Remember, in proper Bible hermeneutics, we always want to know whom is being addressed in the passages. Infants don't come drunk to the table, nor cause schism in the body, therefore, they are qualified to partake. 1 Cor. 11 uses negative sanctions, not positive ones. Remember from church history, that concommitance was the practice of touching a small drop of wine to their lips to represent the whole. They could eat as their abilities matured.

History does not side with you that catechism is a pre-requisite to communion. It is fine for those who are able. Notice also that our Reformed heritage has always had 'children's catechism' and standard catechism. Neither are required to partake of communion. None of the covenant meals required this either. We can't divorce the Lord's Supper from early covenant meals - one covenant of grace with varying administrations.

When one starts making subjective requirements for the means of grace, we fall into all sorts of problems. At what point and to what extent is knowledge or understanding qualified? How does one measure a full understanding and comprehension? In our understanding of sanctification, we know that knowledge and obedience are life-long processes. No one ever reaches fullness in either realm. Where do we draw the line; do we only require a verbal response? If so, then a computer can qualify to partake of communion. If we require a heart response or understanding, how do we measure hearts of men? Subjective rules lead to absurdities in all areas. God deals in objective standards. Children are in the covenant via connection to their parents' inclusion. This does not mean they are regenerate, but that they are treated as such until proven otherwise.

Regards,

CharlesG





[Edited on 9-10-2006 by CharlesG]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Let me state why I, with John Calvin, oppose paidocommunion. But first, to note age thesholds, it would be helpful if the reader would study the following passages preferably in the original Hebrew or Greek: Gen. 2:17-24; 14:13-24; 17:23-27; 22:2-19; Ex. 12:3-4, 8-11, 26-27,37, 43-48; Num. 9:2-13; Prov. 22:6; Lam. 2:12; 4:4; Luke 2:40-52; 22:1-20; John 6:2-4,10,53; Acts 22:3; I Cor. 5:7-13f; 10:1-22; 11:1-10,20-34; 13:11; 14:20-37; Phil. 3:5; I Tim. 2:8-15; 6:12f; Heb. 5:12 to 6:2; I John 2:12f; and Rev. 2:20f.

I oppose all attempts to reconstruct the clearly antipaidocommunionistic teaching of our Westminster Confession 28:1 & 29:3,8 & 31:4 and our Westminster Larger Catechism QQ. 169-177. True Presbyterians and other men of like persuasion respect Calvin's views in his Commentaries on Ex. 12:24-43; Lam. 2:12; John 6:53 & Heb. 6:2; in his Sermons on Deuteronomy 16:1-8 cf. vv. 16f; and his Institutes IV:13:6 & IV:16:30 & IV:19:4f.

In summary:
1, infant baptism signifies regeneration (but not conversion);
2, one's first communion at teenage signifies conversion (not regeneration);
3, Eucharist replaces the Passover (but not circumcision);
4, the 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6's chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20);
5, no females nor any preteenagers ever partook of the Passover till it was thus deformed by Post-Christian Liberal Judaism (+/- 200 A.D.);
6, there is absolutely no trace whatsoever of paidocommunionism in patristic writings but only in pagan sources prior to 250 A.D.;
7, novel paidocommunionism is a ritualistic heterodoxy of the "Eastern Orthodox" and kindred denominations quite opposed to truly-orthodox Reformed Theology;
8, the practice of paidocommunionism abolishes the need first of catechization and then of profession of one´s faith before one´s own very first manducation at the sacrament;
9, paidocommunism ultimately leads to an uncatechized Church (which Calvin says cannot long continue without catechizing); and
10, Calvin in his Institutes (IV:16:30) accordingly concludes against the Anabaptists: "œThey object that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to Baptism than to the Lord´s Supper "“ to which, however, there are never admitted.... The Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed...infancy, are fit to bear solid food.... They cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord´s body. Why should we stretch out poison instead of vivifying food to our young children? ... Circumcision, which as is well known corresponds to our Baptism, was intended for infants. But the Passover for which the Supper is substituted...was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they thus be blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?"

Cordially in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ,

Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
Professor-Emeritus of the Queensland Presbyterian Theological College
Website: www.dr-fnlee.org

God Triune, at the beginning, created the tri-universe (cf. Gen. 1:1)




http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/pvp/pvp.pdf

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/cvcc/cvcc.pdf

 

[CharlesG]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Let me state why I, with John Calvin, oppose paidocommunion. But first, to note age thesholds, it would be helpful if the reader would study the following passages preferably in the original Hebrew or Greek: Gen. 2:17-24; 14:13-24; 17:23-27; 22:2-19; Ex. 12:3-4, 8-11, 26-27,37, 43-48; Num. 9:2-13; Prov. 22:6; Lam. 2:12; 4:4; Luke 2:40-52; 22:1-20; John 6:2-4,10,53; Acts 22:3; I Cor. 5:7-13f; 10:1-22; 11:1-10,20-34; 13:11; 14:20-37; Phil. 3:5; I Tim. 2:8-15; 6:12f; Heb. 5:12 to 6:2; I John 2:12f; and Rev. 2:20f.

John Calvin did not necessarily oppose this practice. If he did, he is the not the standard. See the following article regarding John Calvin and his view on the topic:

http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/john_calvin_paedocommunion.htm

Originally posted by Scott BusheyIn summary:
1, infant baptism signifies regeneration (but not conversion);

regeneration and conversion are the same thing.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
3, Eucharist replaces the Passover (but not circumcision);

The Eucharist is a transitional type of Passover, the final one. Circumcision is related to baptism, not communion.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
4, the 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6's chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20);

Some of this stemmed from the view of transubstantiational superstitions.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey5, no females nor any preteenagers ever partook of the Passover till it was thus deformed by Post-Christian Liberal Judaism (+/- 200 A.D.);

This is an argument from silence, as women were covenant members. Often times men or husbands were mentioned in covenant meals as representatives of the family. This did not mean the family members did not partake.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

6, there is absolutely no trace whatsoever of paidocommunionism in patristic writings but only in pagan sources prior to 250 A.D.;
7, novel paidocommunionism is a ritualistic heterodoxy of the "Eastern Orthodox" and kindred denominations quite opposed to truly-orthodox Reformed Theology;

See my references in a previous response in this thread. For further eading:

http://www.reformed.org/social/inde...www.reformed.org/sacramentology/tl_paedo.html

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
8, the practice of paidocommunionism abolishes the need first of catechization and then of profession of one´s faith before one´s own very first manducation at the sacrament;
9, paidocommunism ultimately leads to an uncatechized Church (which Calvin says cannot long continue without catechizing); and

This does not follow logically. One does not negate the other. Both were and are practiced today.


Regards,

CharlesG

 

[Scott Bushey]

regeneration and conversion are the same thing.

Really..............

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Not according to the Synod of Dort!

FV/Paedocommunion types forget that "conversion" and "regeneration" have two uses. Before the Arminian crisis, we used it both ways with some freedom. We (e.g., Calvin) used it predominantly for sanctification, but occasionally to refer to the initial awakening.

With the challenge of Arminianism, the usage switched. We began to use it almost exclusively to refer to the moment of awakening. This was said to precede faith and to produce faith.

The FV/PC boys (and girls) want to go back to the pre-Dort usage without acknowledging this difficulty and in order to facilitate their confusion of the two ways of being in the covenant of grace and their confusion of justification and sanctification and their confusion of law and gospel.

Please, read the Canons of Dort AND the rejection of errors. It addresses a lot of this. Read it as though they were speaking of the FV and see if much of what they doesn't fit.

rsc

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

regeneration and conversion are the same thing.

Really..............

 

[CharlesG]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Not according to the Synod of Dort!

FV/Paedocommunion types forget that "conversion" and "regeneration" have two uses. Before the Arminian crisis, we used it both ways with some freedom. We (e.g., Calvin) used it predominantly for sanctification, but occasionally to refer to the initial awakening.

With the challenge of Arminianism, the usage switched. We began to use it almost exclusively to refer to the moment of awakening. This was said to precede faith and to produce faith.

The FV/PC boys (and girls) want to go back to the pre-Dort usage without acknowledging this difficulty and in order to facilitate their confusion of the two ways of being in the covenant of grace and their confusion of justification and sanctification and their confusion of law and gospel.

Please, read the Canons of Dort AND the rejection of errors. It addresses a lot of this. Read it as though they were speaking of the FV and see if much of what they doesn't fit.

rsc

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

regeneration and conversion are the same thing.

Really..............

Many define conversion as sanctification and regeneration as the new birth or justification. This has been attempted, as it is a matter of terminology. Many also use the two terms as interchangeable. Samuel Hopkins has a great article on the former.

http://www.the-highway.com/regcon_Hopkins.html

Regards,

CharlesG

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Charles,

Are you familiar with who Hopkins was and what he taught?

rsc

Originally posted by CharlesG

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Not according to the Synod of Dort!

FV/Paedocommunion types forget that "conversion" and "regeneration" have two uses. Before the Arminian crisis, we used it both ways with some freedom. We (e.g., Calvin) used it predominantly for sanctification, but occasionally to refer to the initial awakening.

With the challenge of Arminianism, the usage switched. We began to use it almost exclusively to refer to the moment of awakening. This was said to precede faith and to produce faith.

The FV/PC boys (and girls) want to go back to the pre-Dort usage without acknowledging this difficulty and in order to facilitate their confusion of the two ways of being in the covenant of grace and their confusion of justification and sanctification and their confusion of law and gospel.

Please, read the Canons of Dort AND the rejection of errors. It addresses a lot of this. Read it as though they were speaking of the FV and see if much of what they doesn't fit.

rsc

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

regeneration and conversion are the same thing.

Really..............

Many define conversion as sanctification and regeneration as the new birth or justification. This has been attempted, as it is a matter of terminology. Many also use the two terms as interchangeable. Samuel Hopkins has a great article on the former.

http://www.the-highway.com/regcon_Hopkins.html

Regards,

CharlesG