Reprobate Covenant Children and the Lord’s Table

Status
Not open for further replies.
For the non-PC.

1. What did Jesus mean in John 6:45 ?
2. Were children included in the O.T. sacrifices I Cor. 10:18

I want to keep this an irenic dialogue. I am not trying to convert anyone to my opinion. I seriously came to believe in Paedo-Baptism never understanding any of the arguments for non-paedocommunion.
 
Originally posted by Peters
In the issue of the Lord's Table, there is nowhere any warrant where the command to the Church is to be sure not to administer the sacrament to the reprobate members of the congregation.

What then qualifies a person to eat and drink from the Table? Is it their ability to examine themselves? Is the self-examination of the Lord´s Table something that can only be performed by a true Christian? If not, then why keep your covenant children from the Table. If it is, then what does that say about your covenant children when you keep them from the Table?

[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Peters]
Yes, it is the ability to examine themselves. That takes some maturity and understanding that an infant or very young child does not have.

What it says about them is that they are young and not mature enough to handle certain things yet. It's not rocket science. Just because we don't allow our children to vote for the Elders and Deacons doesn't mean we don't consider them part of the body. It is a matter of maturity.

Historically, the Lord's Table has been treated as something the participant should understand. My 3 year old thinks it's neat but has no understanding of it yet.
 
Rich, no contention here, just curious.

How do you feel about administering the Lord's supper to the feeble-minded, retarded, comatose, or faithful and aged Christian suffering from alzheimer's ?

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Saiph]
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Rich, no contention here, just curious.

How do you feel about administering the Lord's supper to the feeble-minded, retarded, comatose, or faithful and aged Christian suffering from alzheimer's ?

Mark,

In case it's not clear, I'm a Marine. I have a very thick skin so don't worry about offending me. :)

I wanted to respond to your other point about paedocommunion but had to get somewhere.

I think you raise an interesting point. It's not because I don't enjoy to reason things out but I'm always careful about speculating or being dogmatic about them. Those kind of issue are best wrestled with by a group of elders who are able to wrestle through such issues. On the surface, I would say there is a difference between the immaturity and folly of a young child and dementia or incapacitation. That's all I'm really comfortable in saying.

Paedocommunion is one of those things where, like baptism, because the Apostles are never explicit, it leaves room to apply a principle like "...suffer the children to come unto Me..." to show that children are full participants and should be allowed at the table. Of course, it would be plainer if an Apostle said: "...your children should not be restrained from the table...."

When either side argues the issue they appeal to a principle and then extend it to the issue of whether a child ought to participate in the Supper.

I gave away that I fall in the camp opposing paedocommunion because my Church does. Having been Roman Catholic, I am wary of the traditions of men overriding the Scripture. But, after some years of the pendulum swinging a bit too far into egalitarianism, I have a high view of the authority of the Church leadership.

When I was at Camp Pendleton a few years ago, I was near Westminster Theological Seminary so I invited Mike Horton to the Officer's Club for lunch one day as we had struck up a bit of a friendship by correspondence.

We began talking about a brewing controversy in Reformed circles (easy to figure out for some) and how he was in dialogue with some people over it. He made a comment that has kind of stuck with me. He stated that some Reformed people see doctrine as a "dialogue" with the Saints of old, both learning from the Scriptures on what they say but learning from the past teachers and being careful not to quickly dismiss them. On the other "end", there is a tendency for some Reformed people to learn the ancient languages, learn some Reformed teaching, and easily jettison any value in prior understandings of key doctrines.

I don't want people to parse my words and bring in their dislikes or likes of Mike Horton. I'm setting up a general point here - don't get distracted by the particulars.

When certain practices have a really ancient history and understanding, one really better have their ducks in a row and be bold enough to overthrow the history of Christendom on an issue. If a doctrine is so perspicuous, like Justification, then it warrants overthrowing post-Apostolic history of a misunderstanding in merit that lead to a complete rejection of the Gospel. You've contributed some great things in another forum to help me understand how Luther and Calvin departed from Augustine on the subject of Justification when they insisted on Sola Fide. It was warranted because the Scriptures and the language were so clear.

But, is paedocommunion one of those doctrines that the Church has just completely messed up? I guess I just get really nervous about such a doctrine that requires an implicit association from one principle to the next to support paedocommunion when the Church has historically pointed to an implicit concern regarding discernment even if it wasn't always expressed with the greatest precision.

Might communion have been perverted rapidly in the post-Apostolic Church? Perhaps. I'm just very skeptical. It's frankly a strong reason, beside the clear Covenant language in the NT concerning our children, that I find credobaptism so increbile. The history just doesn't support it.

I know those who don't read through what I'm saying will say I take more stock in historical theology than exegesis. If any come to that conclusion then I have either expressed myself poorly or you've misunderstood me.

Bottom line for me, and I'll say it again as I said earlier in this thread: I do not believe I am clever enough to overthrow my Church's teaching on this subject or the history regarding the subject. I also personally believe there is a bit of intellectual arrogance in those who do so, in some cases, rather flippantly. I'm not accusing any individual of that unless I know them but the movement, in general, concerns me.

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by SemperFideles]
 
Excellent response Rich. Good point about folly vs. immaturity, and senility vs. incapacitance.

There is something to be said for historical precedence. But I tend not to lean on it as heavily as others might. With baptism we see plenty, and sometimes both sides presented. You are of course correct about tha absense of PC being mentioned. That troubles me somewhat. Attending an Anglican church gives me the liberty to bring my kids to the feast. Two of them can articulate their faith, as well as the deity and atoning work of Christ.

When we attended a PCA church before this, they simply could not partake. So we opted for the nursery (ecclesiastical daycare). As we seek God's guidance towards a new church home, the Anglican parish is enticing, but I do not want to be a single issue christian. There is a good PCA church near us as well, that would probably stick closer to reformed doctrines than the Anglican church. We were even considering visiting a Lutheran assembly. (definitely not PC)

I think you are right and wise to follow your church leadership in issues like these. And I hope I do not come across as arrogantly attacking the exegesis of monumental scholars of the faith. I simply still have many questions concerning this issue, and honestly, take Christ's words very seriously regarding children.

I covet your prayers as we visit and consider the reformed churches near our home.

Thank You.





[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Saiph]
 
Originally posted by SaiphAttending an Anglican church gives me the liberty to bring my kids to the feast. Two of them can articulate their faith, as well as the deity and atoning work of Christ.

When we attended a PCA church before this, they simply could not partake. So we opted for the nursery (ecclesiastical daycare). As we seek God's guidance towards a new church home, the Anglican parish is enticing, but I do not want to be a single issue christian. There is a good PCA church near us as well, that would probably stick closer to reformed doctrines than the Anglican church. We were even considering visiting a Lutheran assembly. (definitely not PC)
Does the Anglican Church allow for PC? When I was a Roman Catholic, we had to get a class at about age 6 before we could accept communion. I just assumed the Anglican Church would carry that tradition over.

I don't believe in ecclesiastical daycare. My children (18 months and 3 years) have attended worship with us since they were old enough to sit still and not distract me to significantly from worship and the sermon.

As a sidebar: I don't subscribe to calling anathema those who utilize nurseries. I think some build an altar to the idea that God commands screaming infants to remain in the service at all costs. The temple included a court for women and children. I think there is prudence in the separation, in some cases, to allow for the uninterrupted concentration of the adults to hear and pay attention to God's message delivered. At the same time, children need to be disciplined to the point where they can sit still and pay attention.

It irks me how undisciplined some adults are in worship. I think it's a reflection of how poorly they were raised and played in children's Church. They have short attention spans because they were never trained well as kids. One good thing about being a former RC is that I was trained to sit quietly through all of Church at a very early age. It is a Godly discipline that allows me to pay attention for lengths of time.

So, for my own kids, I have broken them into sitting in Church. We work with them at home during family worship to sit still so we're not trying to win all our battles at the consequence of everybody else paying attention. Until he was about 3, our son just couldn't last through the whole service and there are still challenges. I would take him back to the nursery when it became unfruitful to constantly deal with him in Church because the larger issue was the Worship through the Word.

Anyhow, a bit off topic. I'm totally on board with my children participating in the Covenant but their participation is, after all, as children and they'll enjoy further benefits of membership when they are mature enough to participate in them: the Lord's Supper and eventually as adult voting members. It's not a matter of being "second class" but suitability. My wife does not feel like a "second class" member because the Word prohibits her from the eldership.

Finally, I pray God will lead your family to the right fellowship. I expressed my concern generally about paedocommunion but, as I stated, I was not referring to you specifically or anyone else I don't know. For what it's worth, your posts display a lot of maturity and humility in my estimation.

I'm going through my own struggles finding a Church in Okinawa and am attending a Southern Baptist Church with significant leadership challenges. Our children sit with us during Church because that is our conviction. Not too many other choices here on Okinawa so we're just trying to love our fellow Christians rather than complain arrogantly about their immaturity. I'm always hopeful because God is faithful.

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by SemperFideles]
 
Yes, it is the ability to examine themselves.

Is this kind of self-examination possible only for Christians? Do you consider covenant children Christians?

That takes some maturity and understanding that an infant or very young child does not have.

What is the purpose of the self-examination?

What it says about them is that they are young and not mature enough to handle certain things yet. It's not rocket science.

I agree with you here, brother, but for completely different reasons I´m sure ïŠ

Just because we don't allow our children to vote for the Elders and Deacons doesn't mean we don't consider them part of the body. It is a matter of maturity.

I do not agree with you here, brother. The Table is a matter of obedience and a means of grace. The youngest of Christians can come and eat and drink and understand what´s going on *because* of the power of the Table. The Table preaches Christ in a profound way. I don´t think the principles of the Table and voting equate.

Historically, the Lord's Table has been treated as something the participant should understand. My 3 year old thinks it's neat but has no understanding of it yet.

Amen!
 
Originally posted by Peters
Is this kind of self-examination possible only for Christians? Do you consider covenant children Christians?
Yes, true self-examination is possible only for Christians. Yes I consider covenant children to be Christians but the young ones incapable of self-examination but not because they're non-Christians but because they are immature.

What is the purpose of the self-examination?
To prevent one from partaking the supper in an unworthy manner.

Just because we don't allow our children to vote for the Elders and Deacons doesn't mean we don't consider them part of the body. It is a matter of maturity.

I do not agree with you here, brother. The Table is a matter of obedience and a means of grace. The youngest of Christians can come and eat and drink and understand what´s going on *because* of the power of the Table. The Table preaches Christ in a profound way. I don´t think the principles of the Table and voting equate.
I didn't say they were the same thing. I was indicating that there are certain things that some members can do that others cannot. The fact that some members cannot do things does not equate that they are somehow not members. Even credo-baptists will allow a baptized 10 year old (after his profession and baptism) to partake of the Lord's Supper but he still cannot vote on Church matters because he is a child. In a similar manner, immaturity bars a toddler from the Table but is not indicative of a lack of real Covenant participation.
 
Rich,

Anyhow, a bit off topic. I'm totally on board with my children participating in the Covenant but their participation is, after all, as children and they'll enjoy further benefits of membership when they are mature enough to participate in them: the Lord's Supper and eventually as adult voting members. It's not a matter of being "second class" but suitability. My wife does not feel like a "second class" member because the Word prohibits her from the eldership.

I guess that is what kills me. Male leadership is clearly spelled out in scripture. But inclusion of children at the Lord's table, and circumcision replacing baptism, are a bit esoteric. If not, why are there so many reformed baptists? They seemed to find convictions in their understanding of the bible and say, "why has the church been baptizing children for so long ? We just do not see it in scripture, so we will not do it. "

If Christ is prophetically referring to the eucharist in John 6, and he who eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life, then I want my kids to partake of that. If the eucharist is a direct life-giving supernatural grace bestowing sacrament, it kills me inside to see my kids partake of the word, (which we have been reading to them since the womb) and NOT be able to partake of that sacrament.

I agree with you on ecclesiastical day-care. I prefer to keep my kids in the service as well. And the Anglican church does practice PC.

Finally, I pray God will lead your family to the right fellowship. I expressed my concern generally about paedocommunion but, as I stated, I was not referring to you specifically or anyone else I don't know. For what it's worth, your posts display a lot of maturity and humility in my estimation.

Thank you. I really appreciate this.

I'm going through my own struggles finding a Church in Okinawa and am attending a Southern Baptist Church with significant leadership challenges. Our children sit with us during Church because that is our conviction. Not too many other choices here on Okinawa so we're just trying to love our fellow Christians rather than complain arrogantly about their immaturity. I'm always hopeful because God is faithful.

I will be praying for you also. It is tough to find a church that not only fits our convictions, but does not stray from the clear teachings of scripture on certain issues.

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Saiph]
 
Yes, true self-examination is possible only for Christians. Yes I consider covenant children to be Christians but the young ones incapable of self-examination but not because they're non-Christians but because they are immature.
Ok, true self-examination is only possible for mature Christians. But you must infer that, right? The fact is, infants *can´t* remember that Christ has shed His blood for them, because He may not have. As I see it, the "œcovenant children" idea has dangerous implications on the Atonement.

To prevent one from partaking the supper in an unworthy manner.

What would that unworthy manner be?

I didn't say they were the same thing. I was indicating that there are certain things that some members can do that others cannot. The fact that some members cannot do things does not equate that they are somehow not members. Even credo-baptists will allow a baptized 10 year old (after his profession and baptism) to partake of the Lord's Supper but he still cannot vote on Church matters because he is a child. In a similar manner, immaturity bars a toddler from the Table but is not indicative of a lack of real Covenant participation.

If the Table is an ordained means of grace for the growth of Christians, then it seems strange that you would keep a Christian child (who is "œimmature") from it, since they need it to grow in grace.
 
Marcos, an unworthy manner, by the context of I Cor. 11, would be gluttony, drunkeness, disregard for the poor, etc . . .


If the Table is an ordained means of grace for the growth of Christians, then it seems strange that you would keep a Christian child (who is "œimmature") from it, since they need it to grow in grace.

That is what has always bothered me. It was the "baptism" of the Red Sea that gave a covenant member a right to the manna.


Here is the note in Sproul's Reformation Study Bible regarding the abuse:

"The warning in v.29 about 'discerning the Lord's body' almost surely refers to this failure to maintain the unity of the church as the body of Christ... Because some of the believers in Corinth were celebrating the Supper in a way that destroyed the unity it represents, God had brought judgment upon the community."

R.C. Sproul, ed., New Geneva Study Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 1815.

Read the note on 11:27-34 where it states we should not wrench this idea out of context as well.

The Corinthians are simply being warned here not to arrogantly assume that since they participated in the Lord's Supper they were therefore free from God's discipline. Chapter 10 refers to the manna as "spiritual food," The Israelites were also fed by God, yet "their bodies were scattered in the wilderness". The covenant children, and women, are punished with the men who failed in their leadership roles.





[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]
 
Marcos,

I think to address your question about the use of the term "œChristian" as it relates to the Lord´s Supper, we first should go back to a basic understanding of how membership in the Covenant of Grace works for us as paedobapists. Mainstream Reformed theology has always maintained that there is a dual aspect to the Covenant. One can be said to be "œin" the Covenant in terms of the historical administration, yet not be "œof" the Covenant in terms of being conformed to the stipulation (faith in Christ.) And of course, the question we keep coming back to is, does membership in the historical administration of the Covenant alone, absent a credible profession of faith entitle a person to participate in the Lord´s Supper? In my opinion Jonathan Edwards does a masterful job of addressing this question in his essay on qualifications for communion. I personally find the Edwards work so thoroughly destroys the arguments of those opposing credo-communion, that I think much of the debate today would go away if people simply took the time to read the essay.

I have copied a small section below, but the entire essay is available at the links below:

http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/humble_inquiry1.doc
http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/humble_inquiry2.doc
http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/humble_inquiry3.doc
http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/humble_inquiry4.doc

SECT. IX.

It is necessary that those who partake of the Lord´s supper should judge themselves truly and cordially to accept of Christ, as their only Saviour and chief good; or of this the actions, which communicants perform at the Lord´s table, are a solemn profession.

THERE is in the Lord´s supper a mutual solemn profession of the two parties transacting the covenant of grace, and visibly united in that covenant; the Lord Christ by his minister, on the one hand, and the communicants (who are professing believers) on the other. The administrator of the ordinance acts in the quality of Christ´s minister, acts in his name, as representing him; and stands in the place where Christ himself stood at the first administration of this sacrament, and in the original institution of the ordinance. Christ, by the speeches and actions of the minister, makes a solemn profession of his part in the covenant of grace: he exhibits the sacrifice of his body broken and his blood shed; and in the minister´s offering the sacramental bread and wine to the communicants, Christ presents himself to the believing communicants, as their propitiation and bread of life; and by these outward signs confirms and seals his sincere engagements to be their Saviour and food, and to impart to them all the benefits of his propitiation and salvation. And they, in receiving what is offered, and eating and drinking the symbols of Christ´s body and blood, also profess their part in the covenant of grace: they profess to embrace the promises and lay hold of the hope set before them, to receive the atonement, to receive Christ as their spiritual food, and to feed upon him in their hearts by faith. Indeed what is professed on both sides is the heart: for Christ, in offering himself, professes the willingness of his heart to be theirs who truly receive him; and the communicants, on their part, profess the willingness of their hearts to receive him, which they declare by significant actions. They profess to take Christ as their spiritual food, and bread of life. To accept of Christ as our bread of life, is to accept of him as our Saviour and portion; as food is both the means of preserving life, and is also the refreshment and comfort of life. The signification of the word manna, that great type of this bread of life, is a portion. That which God offers to us as our food, he offers as our portion; and that which we accept as our food, we accept as our portion. Thus the Lord´s supper is plainly a mutual renovation confirmation, and seal of the covenant of grace: both the covenanting parties profess their consent to their respective parts in the covenant, and each affixes his seal to his profession. And there is in this ordinance the very same thing acted over in profession and sensible signs, which is spiritually transacted between Christ and his spouse in the covenant that unites them. Here we have from time to time the glorious bridegroom exhibiting himself with his great love that is stronger than death, appearing clothed in robes of grace, and engaging himself, with all his glory and love, and its infinite benefits, to be theirs, who receive him: and here we have his spouse accepting this bridegroom, choosing him for her friend, her only Saviour and portion, and relying on him for all his benefits. And thus the covenant transaction of this spiritual marriage is confirmed and sealed, from time to time. The actions of the communicants at the Lord´s table have as expressive and significant a Language, as the most solemn words. When a person in this ordinance takes and eats and drinks those things which represent Christ, the plain meaning and implicit profession of these his actions, is this, "œI take this crucified Jesus as my Saviour, my sweetest food, my chief portion, and the life of my soul, consenting to acquiesce in him as such and to hunger and thirst after him only, renouncing all other saviours, and all other portions, for his sake." The actions, thus interpreted, are a proper renovation and ratification of the covenant of grace; and no otherwise. And those that take and eat and drink the sacramental elements at the Lord´s table with any other meaning, I fear, know not what they do.
The actions at the Lord´s supper thus implying, in their nature and signification, a renewing and confirming of the covenant, there is a declarative explicit covenanting supposed to precede it; which is the profession of religion, before spoken of, that qualifies a person for admission to the Lord´s supper. And doubtless there is, or ought to be, as much explicitly professed in words, as is implicitly professed in these actions; for by these significant actions, the communicant sets his seal but to his profession. The established signs in the Lord´s supper are fully equivalent to words; they are a renewing and reiterating the same thing which was done before; only with this difference, that now it is done by speaking signs, whereas before it was by speaking sounds. Our taking the bread and wine is as much a professing to accept of Christ, at least, as a woman´s taking a ring of the bridegroom in her marriage is a profession and seal of her taking him for her husband. The sacramental elements in the Lord´s supper represent Christ as a party in covenant, as truly as a proxy represents a prince to a foreign lady in her marriage; and our taking those elements is as truly a professing to accept of Christ, as in the other case the lady´s taking the proxy is her professing to accept the prince as her husband. Or the matter may more fitly be represented by this similitude: it is as if a prince should send an ambassador to a woman in a foreign land, proposing marriage, and by his ambassador should send her his picture, and should desire her to manifest her acceptance of his suit, not only by professing her acceptance in words to his ambassador, but in token of her sincerity openly to take or accept that picture, and to seal her profession, by thus representing the matter over again by a symbolical action.

To suppose persons ought thus solemnly to profess that which at the same time they do not at all imagine they experience in themselves, and do not really pretend to, is a very great absurdity. For a man sacramentally to make such a profession of religion, proceeding avowedly on the foot of such doctrine is to profess that which he does not profess; his actions being no established signs of the thing supposed to be professed, nor carrying in them the least pretension to it. And therefore doing thus can be no man´s duty; unless it be men´s duty to make a solemn profession of that which in truth they make no profession of. The Lord´s supper is most evidently a professing ordinance; and the communicants´ profession must be such as is adjusted to the nature and design of the ordinance; which nothing short of faith in the blood of Christ will answer, even faith unfeigned, which worketh by love. A profession therefore exclusive of this, is essentially defective, and quite unsuitable to the character of a communicant.

When the apostle says, 1 Cor. xi. 28. "œLet a man examine himself, and so let him eat;" it seems most reasonable to understand it of trying himself with regard to the truth of his Christianity, or the reality of his grace the same as 2 Cor. xiii. 5. where the same word is used in the original. The Greek word will not allow of what some have supposed to be the apostle´s meaning, viz. that a man should consider and inquire into his circumstances, and the necessities of his case, that he may know what are the wants for the supply of which he should go to the Lord´s table. The word properly signifies proving or trying a thing with respect to its quality and goodness, or in order to determine whether it be true and of the right sort. And so the word is always used in the New Testament; unless that sometimes it is used metonymically, and in such places is variously translated, either discerning, or allowing approving, liking, &c. these being the effects of trial. Nor is the word used more frequently in the New Testament for any sort of trial whatever, than for the trial of professors with regard to their grace or piety. The word (as Dr. Ames in his Catecheseos Sciagraphia, and Mr. Willard in his Body of Divinity, observe) is borrowed from goldsmiths, properly signifying the trial they make of their silver and gold, whether it be genuine or counterfeit: and with a manifest allusion to this original application of the word, is often used in the New Testament for trying the piety of professors. It is used with this view in all the following texts: 1 Pet. i. 7. "œThat the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried by fire, might be found unto praise," &c. 1 Cor. iii. 13. "œThe fire shall try every man´s work of what sort it is." James i. 3. "œThe trying of your faith worketh patience." 1 Thess. ii. 4. "œGod who trieth our hearts." The same word is used in 2 Cor. viii. 8. "œTo prove the sincerity of your love." So, Gal. vi. 3, 4. "œIf any man thinketh himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself: but let every man prove his own work." In all these places there is the same word in the Greek with that in the text now under consideration.

When the apostle directs professing Christians to try themselves, using this word indefinitely, as properly signifying the examining or proving of a thing whether it be genuine or counterfeit, the most natural construction of his advice is, that they should try themselves with respect to their spiritual state and religious profession, whether they are disciples indeed, real and genuine Christians, or whether they are not false and hypocritical professors. As if a man should bring a piece of metal that had the colour of gold, with the impress of the king´s coin, to a goldsmith, and desire him to try that money, without adding any words to limit his meaning, would not the goldsmith naturally understand that he was to try whether it was true gold or true money?

But here it is said by some that the content of the passage under debate (1 Cor. xi. 28.) plainly limits the meaning of the word in that place; the apostle there speaking of those things that had appeared among the communicants at Corinth, which were of a scandalous nature, so doubtless unfitting them for the Lord´s supper; and therefore when the apostle directs them to examine or prove themselves, it is but just to suppose his meaning to be, that they should try whether they be not disqualified by scandal."”To this, I answer, though the apostle is putting the Corinthians upon trying themselves, was on occasion of mentioning some scandalous practices found among there, yet this is by no means any argument of its being only his meaning, that they should try themselves whether they were scandalous persons; and not, that they should try whether they were genuine Christians. The very nature of scandal (as was observed before) is that which tends to obscure the visibility of the piety of professors, and wound others´ charity towards them, by bringing the reality of their grace into doubt; and therefore what could be more natural, than for the apostle, when mentioning such scandals among the Corinthians, to put them upon trying the state of their souls, and proving their sincerity? This is certainly the case in this apostle´s directing the same persons to prove themselves, 2 Cor. xiii. 5. using the same word there which he uses here, and giving his direction on the like occasion. For in the second epistle (as well as in the first) his putting them on examining and proving themselves, was on occasion of his mentioning some scandals found among them; as is plain from the foregoing context. And yet there it is expressly said, that the thing concerning which he directs them to prove themselves is, whether they be in the faith, and whether Christ is in them. Nor is there any thing more in the preceding context of one place, than in that of the other, obliging or leading us to understand the apostle to intend only a trying whether they were scandalous, and not whether they were sincere Christians.

And as to the words following in the next verse; "œFor he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord´s body:" these words by no means make it evident, (as some hold,) that what the apostle would have them examine themselves about, is, whether they have doctrinal knowledge sufficient to understand, that the bread and wine in the sacrament signify the body and blood of Christ: but on the contrary, to interpret the apostle in this sense only is unreasonable upon several accounts.

(1.) None can so much as attempt such an examination, without first knowing that the Lord´s body and blood is signified by these elements. For merely a man putting this question to himself, Do I understand that this bread and this wine signify the body and blood of Christ? supposes him already to know it from a previous information; and therefore to exhort persons to such an examination would be absurd.

And then, (2.) It is incredible that there should be any such gross ignorance in a number of the communicants in the Corinthian church, if we consider what the Scripture informs us concerning that church. St. Paul was an able and thorough instructor and spiritual father, who founded that church, brought them out of their heathenish darkness, and initiated them in the christian religion. He had instructed them in the nature and ends of gospel or¬dinances, and continued at Corinth, constantly labouring in the word and doctrine for a long while, no less than a year and six months; and, we may well suppose, administered the Lord´s supper among them every Lord´s day; for the apostle speaks of it as the manner of that church to communicate at the Lord´s table with such frequency, 1 Cor. xvi. 2. And the Corinthian church, when the apostle wrote this epistle, was noted for excelling in doctrinal knowledge; as is evident by chap i. 5 7. and several other passages in the epistle. Besides, the communicants were expressly told at every communion, every week, when the bread and wine were delivered to them in the administration, that the bread signified the body, and that the wine signified the blood, of Christ.

And, (3.) The apostle by his argument in chap. x. 16. supposes the Corinthians doctrinally acquainted with this subject already. It therefore appears to me much more reasonable to apprehend the case to be thus: the offensive behaviour of the communicants at Corinth gave the apostle reason to suspect, that some of them came to the Lord´s table without a proper impression and true sense of the great and glorious things there signified; having no habitual hunger or relish for the spiritual food there represented, no inward vital and experimental taste of that flesh of the Son of man, which is meat indeed. The word translated discerning, signifies to discriminate or distinguish. The taste is the proper sense whereby to discern or distinguish food, Job xxxiv. 3. And it is by a spiritual sense or taste we discern or distinguish spiritual food. Heb. v. 14. 11 "œThose who by reason of use, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil:" &c. a word of the same root with that rendered discerning in 1 Cor. xi. 29. He that has no habitual relish of that spiritual food, which is represented and offered at the Lord´s table; he that has no spiritual taste, wherewith to perceive anything more at the Lord´s supper, than in common food; or that has no higher view than with a little seeming devotion to eat bread, in the way of an ordinance, but without regarding in his heart the spiritual meaning and end of it, and without being at all suitably affected by the dying love of Christ therein commemorated; such a one may most truly and properly be said not to discern the Lord´s body. When therefore the apostle exhorts to self examination as a preparative for the sacramental supper, he may well be understood to put professors upon inquiring whether they have such a principle of faith by means whereof they are habitually in a capacity and disposition of mind to discern the Lord´s body, practically and spiritually, (as well a, speculatively and notionally,) in their communicating at the Lord´s table: which is what none can do who have a faith short of that which is justifying and saving. It is only a living faith that capacitates men to discern the Lord´s body in the sacrament with that spiritual sensation or spiritual gust, which is suitable to the nature and design of the ordinance, and which the apostle seems principally to intend.

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by AdamM]
 
Hi Mark,

For what it's worth, I find the paedocommunionist position in regard to "discerning the body" in 1 Corinthians to be rather weak, because I can grant that their interpretation may be correct (the problem in terms of discerning the body that Paul refers to at Corinth was one of practice), but how can orthopraxy be separated from orthodoxy? Wouldn't a proper understanding of the relationship of believers to one another, presuppose a proper understanding of meaning of Christ's sacrifice and the significance of it for the believer and the Church?
 
I think to address your question about the use of the term "œChristian" as it relates to the Lord´s Supper, we first should go back to a basic understanding of how membership in the Covenant of Grace works for us as paedobapists. Mainstream Reformed theology has always maintained that there is a dual aspect to the Covenant. One can be said to be "œin" the Covenant in terms of the historical administration, yet not be "œof" the Covenant in terms of being conformed to the stipulation (faith in Christ.) And of course, the question we keep coming back to is, does membership in the historical administration of the Covenant alone, absent a credible profession of faith entitle a person to participate in the Lord´s Supper? In my opinion Jonathan Edwards does a masterful job of addressing this question in his essay on qualifications for communion. I personally find the Edwards work so thoroughly destroys the arguments of those opposing credo-communion, that I think much of the debate today would go away if people simply took the time to read the essay.

I agree - one must be a true believer in order to eat from the Table, but I say that as a Baptist. I just think it´s an inconsistent position for a Peadobaptist to hold, since they presuppose that their children are believers until they prove otherwise.

I appreciate the Edwards quote, Adam. Thanks.
 
Originally posted by AdamM
Wouldn't a proper understanding of the relationship of believers to one another, presuppose a proper understanding of meaning of Christ's sacrifice and the significance of it for the believer and the Church?

Children believe what you tell them. That is why Christ commended childlike faith. It is as we grow in knowledge where understanding must increase and self examination "may" become necessary.

If understanding is a requirement, what of the mentally retarded, feeble minded, senile, or faithful christian suffering from Alzheimer's ?

Would Christ keep them from His table ? I know that is somewhat of an existential argument appealing to emotion. But would He ?
 
The supper is for all disciples of Jesus.


Joh 6:31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
Joh 6:32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."


1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]
 
No big deal we disagree.


I personally, do not know how a command like "do not commit adultery" applies to infants, and how they are able to break it. But yet they DO somehow in their hearts.

Many commands are given that children do not understand. There are many that I do not understand. I fail in examining myself before the table.
I do not judge myself rightly. I eat in FAITH. It is a table of blessing not malediction.
 
Mark,
That same table you speak of, because of NOT examining themselves, 'many sleep'. The command is specific: Examine! It does not say, "Eat in faith". Do I eat in faith, yes! Does that free me from my responsibility to examine myself, no!

The fact that a child has no idea of adultery only substantiates my position. The table must be taken by them that are able to understand not only adultery but to understand the command to reflect and examine.
 
I simply think that was a contextual instance where the Corinthians were totally out of line. When Jesus initiated it, there was no warning.

I do not see God hovering over the table with a big stick just waiting for someone to partake unworthily, and without self examination.

It is a table where he says, come and eat, without money, I want to bless you, it is MY table, and you bring nothing to it.

Does self examination make you worthy ? Does introspection justify you before the feast ?

Like I said. It is no big deal that we disagree.
 
Originally posted by Peters
Would anyone in this thread tell an unbeliever that Christ died specifically for them?

No. But I have said to an unbeliever, "the question you need to ask yourself is, Did Christ die for you?" Then I usually dare them to read the gospel of John, and pray to God to reveal Himself in His word.
 
Originally posted by Peters
Would anyone in this thread tell an unbeliever that Christ died specifically for them?

Why would anyone do that? Did Christ die for you Peter? I can only assume, Based upon your confession, that you are His. In the same way, you can only assume that about me. Keep in mind, I do not consider you an unbeliever. An unbeliever is someone whom rejects Christ.
 
Why would anyone do that? Did Christ die for you Peter? I can only assume, Based upon your confession, that you are His. In the same way, you can only assume that about me. Keep in mind, I do not consider you an unbeliever. An unbeliever is someone whom rejects Christ.

Scott, this is why we must keep a person from the Table. Until a person has a *good confession* we have no right to assume that Jesus shed his blood for them. The Table is for those for whom Jesus shed His blood.

So, is it not the case that you keep your covenant children from the Table because Jesus may not have died for them?
 
Originally posted by Peters
Why would anyone do that? Did Christ die for you Peter? I can only assume, Based upon your confession, that you are His. In the same way, you can only assume that about me. Keep in mind, I do not consider you an unbeliever. An unbeliever is someone whom rejects Christ.

Scott, this is why we must keep a person from the Table. Until a person has a *good confession* we have no right to assume that Jesus shed his blood for them. The Table is for those for whom Jesus shed His blood.

So, is it not the case that you keep your covenant children from the Table because Jesus may not have died for them?

My covenant children will not partake of Christs table until:
1) they have made a profession and
2) are able to examine themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top