When do you feel comfortable giving communion to children?
- Thread starter Roldan
- Start date
- Status
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
When they are able to examone themselves........whatever age that may be.
I don't mean to rehash old business, but why wouldn't they be exempt from the exercise of faith just like they are in baptism? Would you give the Lord's Supper to a retarded person- he couldn't examine himself? Could it be that Paul says that on the assumption that the people who he was talking to could examine themselves but were deliberately not?
I haven't studied the sacraments yet, but as of now I would allow my children (if I had em' ) to the table.
Rembrandt
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by rembrandt]
I haven't studied the sacraments yet, but as of now I would allow my children (if I had em' ) to the table.
Rembrandt
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by rembrandt]
I agree, after a profession of faith. And they should be able to some degree to examine themselves. But really, if they have made a profession of faith then I think they already know how to examine themselves for being drawn to salvation and repenting involves examining your sin and your need for a Savior.
The Table is restricted only to those who are not saved, or who act they are not saved (members under discipline).
Phillip
The Table is restricted only to those who are not saved, or who act they are not saved (members under discipline).
Phillip
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:934c4fe969][i:934c4fe969]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:934c4fe969]
When they are able to examone themselves........whatever age that may be. [/quote:934c4fe969]
I agree, and I also totally agreed with Pastorway when he said this:
"But really, if they have made a profession of faith then I think they already know how to examine themselves for being drawn to salvation and repenting involves examining your sin and your need for a Savior. "
But thats exactly my question what age may that be?
When are we for sure that they are consciencly able to make such decisions?
When they are able to examone themselves........whatever age that may be. [/quote:934c4fe969]
I agree, and I also totally agreed with Pastorway when he said this:
"But really, if they have made a profession of faith then I think they already know how to examine themselves for being drawn to salvation and repenting involves examining your sin and your need for a Savior. "
But thats exactly my question what age may that be?
When are we for sure that they are consciencly able to make such decisions?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
When they are able to comprehend what the idea means.
Example: John, what does the term 'examine oneself' mean?
Based upon the answer, one could ascertain if the examinig is genuine.
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]
Example: John, what does the term 'examine oneself' mean?
Based upon the answer, one could ascertain if the examinig is genuine.
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Those in the covenant community who partake of the sacrament must be able to apprehend and understand what "examine yourself" means and how it is applied tot he body of beleivers. If this is unattainable, then they ought not to partake. This is EXACTLY the same thing going on in the Passover. (Don't get fooled by a lack of exegesis on the passage by many who advocate that children partook of the Passover.) To make this more helpful here is the text:
Exodus 12:26 "And it shall be, when your children say to you, 'What do [b:2baa66980b]you mean by this service?'"[/b:2baa66980b]
The children did not eat of the Passover. Nursing infants and young children did not eat of it. That would have violated the point of the passage. They asked thier parents what [b:2baa66980b]they did[/b:2baa66980b] in eating of it - what does it mean [b:2baa66980b]to you?[/b:2baa66980b]
The Parents then explaiend what happened, and what it menas "to them."
In the same way, children should be asking thier parents what the communion meal is for. Their parents in parallel to the Passover, shoudl explain it to thier children. When they are old enough to understnad, and do not have to ask such questions, then they should partake.
Exodus 12:26 "And it shall be, when your children say to you, 'What do [b:2baa66980b]you mean by this service?'"[/b:2baa66980b]
The children did not eat of the Passover. Nursing infants and young children did not eat of it. That would have violated the point of the passage. They asked thier parents what [b:2baa66980b]they did[/b:2baa66980b] in eating of it - what does it mean [b:2baa66980b]to you?[/b:2baa66980b]
The Parents then explaiend what happened, and what it menas "to them."
In the same way, children should be asking thier parents what the communion meal is for. Their parents in parallel to the Passover, shoudl explain it to thier children. When they are old enough to understnad, and do not have to ask such questions, then they should partake.
If a child from what you can see honestly gave their life to Christ and not just "I wanted to be saved because I could get a free Bible" kind of saved, but they truly desired salvation, wouldn't it be fine for them to partake of the Lord's supper? It's not like they're going to die from doing so. :duel:
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Some sleep................
[color=red:30a6f14072]Fergy writes:
"wouldn't it be fine for them to partake of the Lord's supper? It's not like they're going to die from doing so." [/color:30a6f14072]
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and [b:30a6f14072][color=green:30a6f14072]many sleep[/color:30a6f14072][/b:30a6f14072].
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
1Co 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
(my emphasis added)
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]
[color=red:30a6f14072]Fergy writes:
"wouldn't it be fine for them to partake of the Lord's supper? It's not like they're going to die from doing so." [/color:30a6f14072]
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and [b:30a6f14072][color=green:30a6f14072]many sleep[/color:30a6f14072][/b:30a6f14072].
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
1Co 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
(my emphasis added)
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Infralap,
See Webmaster's post above.............
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]
See Webmaster's post above.............
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]
The fact that one must make a credible profession of faith before partaking of the Lord's Supper is probably the most widely held belief of Christendom other than the Trinity.
EVERY branch of the Church - Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Indepedent, even Roman has held this doctrine to be essential for 2,000 years.
EVERY branch of the Church - Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Indepedent, even Roman has held this doctrine to be essential for 2,000 years.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Paul,
Go to your room! (Fred speaking aka "Dad" )
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]
Go to your room! (Fred speaking aka "Dad" )
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey]
Oy oy oy oy oy!!!! Ya'all are so Jewishly clueless! Passover is imminent. The little kids play a big part! They hunt the Afikomen. (The middle piece of matzo, which has been broken and hidden.) The youngest child who can slightly read (or has been coached) asks the Four Questions.
Yes, I like the WCF. But I LOVE Leviticus 23, and Exodus 12 &13. The little kids eat the Afikomen, along with the adults.
If you do not understand the Jewishness of the Messiah, and have never made an attempt to understand the Passover, how can you understand Paul's teachings regarding the Lord's Supper? Without an understanding of the Levitical feasts and how they were observed, how can you understand John's gospel? John placed Jesus' ministry squarely within the context of the Levitical feasts. Must've been a reason for that.
Just a dumb blonde,
Bee
Yes, I like the WCF. But I LOVE Leviticus 23, and Exodus 12 &13. The little kids eat the Afikomen, along with the adults.
If you do not understand the Jewishness of the Messiah, and have never made an attempt to understand the Passover, how can you understand Paul's teachings regarding the Lord's Supper? Without an understanding of the Levitical feasts and how they were observed, how can you understand John's gospel? John placed Jesus' ministry squarely within the context of the Levitical feasts. Must've been a reason for that.
Just a dumb blonde,
Bee
[quote:202712c96e][i:202712c96e]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:202712c96e]
[color=red:202712c96e]Fergy writes:
"wouldn't it be fine for them to partake of the Lord's supper? It's not like they're going to die from doing so." [/color:202712c96e]
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and [b:202712c96e][color=green:202712c96e]many sleep[/color:202712c96e][/b:202712c96e].
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
1Co 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
(my emphasis added)
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:202712c96e]
I wasn't saved until I was 15, but I've been in church my whole life, so I had my fair share of "the Lord's supper" before I was saved, and I'm not dead, though I do sometimes get sleepy in church :sumo:
[color=red:202712c96e]Fergy writes:
"wouldn't it be fine for them to partake of the Lord's supper? It's not like they're going to die from doing so." [/color:202712c96e]
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and [b:202712c96e][color=green:202712c96e]many sleep[/color:202712c96e][/b:202712c96e].
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
1Co 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
(my emphasis added)
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:202712c96e]
I wasn't saved until I was 15, but I've been in church my whole life, so I had my fair share of "the Lord's supper" before I was saved, and I'm not dead, though I do sometimes get sleepy in church :sumo:
[quote:63e8cd622a][i:63e8cd622a]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:63e8cd622a]
[quote:63e8cd622a][i:63e8cd622a]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:63e8cd622a]
The fact that one must make a credible profession of faith before partaking of the Lord's Supper is probably the most widely held belief of Christendom other than the Trinity.
EVERY branch of the Church - Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Indepedent, even Roman has held this doctrine to be essential for 2,000 years. [/quote:63e8cd622a]
but our baptist bretheren (and some paedo's) would not argue that it isn't agreed upon but that we are inconsistant for witholding that sacrement from our children....right?
btw, this is another agreement between you and I. I was thinking as well (dangerous thing), and I saw that one of your kids name is Paul. I thought maybe this is why you disagree with me alot. You are used to correcting your son and when you see my name you sub-consciously carry that over to the PB. Is my psychobabble analysis correct?
-Paul [/quote:63e8cd622a]
:lb:
:lb:
I don't know Paul - maybe we should ask Dan..., I disagree with him too!
Seriously, I think we participate in the natural progression of Reformed theology on internet boards - we agree 95% of the time, and then spend 95% of the time talking about the 5% we disagree on!
While Baptists will at times accuse Presbyterians of inconsistency, it is always a veiled attack on paedobaptism, since the practice of communing at the Lord's table is so universally accepted (arguing from strength to weakness)
The fact is, as both you and I know, the two sacraments are different in nature - the one a one-time, constituting ordinance; the other a many-time, nourishing ordinance.
I love it when we agree! {huming the wonderful Psalter tune to Psalm 133}
[quote:63e8cd622a][i:63e8cd622a]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:63e8cd622a]
The fact that one must make a credible profession of faith before partaking of the Lord's Supper is probably the most widely held belief of Christendom other than the Trinity.
EVERY branch of the Church - Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Indepedent, even Roman has held this doctrine to be essential for 2,000 years. [/quote:63e8cd622a]
but our baptist bretheren (and some paedo's) would not argue that it isn't agreed upon but that we are inconsistant for witholding that sacrement from our children....right?
btw, this is another agreement between you and I. I was thinking as well (dangerous thing), and I saw that one of your kids name is Paul. I thought maybe this is why you disagree with me alot. You are used to correcting your son and when you see my name you sub-consciously carry that over to the PB. Is my psychobabble analysis correct?
-Paul [/quote:63e8cd622a]
:lb:
:lb:I don't know Paul - maybe we should ask Dan..., I disagree with him too!
Seriously, I think we participate in the natural progression of Reformed theology on internet boards - we agree 95% of the time, and then spend 95% of the time talking about the 5% we disagree on!
While Baptists will at times accuse Presbyterians of inconsistency, it is always a veiled attack on paedobaptism, since the practice of communing at the Lord's table is so universally accepted (arguing from strength to weakness)
The fact is, as both you and I know, the two sacraments are different in nature - the one a one-time, constituting ordinance; the other a many-time, nourishing ordinance.
I love it when we agree! {huming the wonderful Psalter tune to Psalm 133}
[quote:6e9365004b][i:6e9365004b]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:6e9365004b]
Oy oy oy oy oy!!!! Ya'all are so Jewishly clueless! Passover is imminent. The little kids play a big part! They hunt the Afikomen. (The middle piece of matzo, which has been broken and hidden.) The youngest child who can slightly read (or has been coached) asks the Four Questions.
Yes, I like the WCF. But I LOVE Leviticus 23, and Exodus 12 &13. The little kids eat the Afikomen, along with the adults.
If you do not understand the Jewishness of the Messiah, and have never made an attempt to understand the Passover, how can you understand Paul's teachings regarding the Lord's Supper? Without an understanding of the Levitical feasts and how they were observed, how can you understand John's gospel? John placed Jesus' ministry squarely within the context of the Levitical feasts. Must've been a reason for that.
Just a dumb blonde,
Bee [/quote:6e9365004b]
Bee,
Do you think that it is [i:6e9365004b]just possible[/i:6e9365004b] that Jewish practice here has degenerated from Biblical practice? It's not like it would be the only area.
I recommend that you read Pastor Richard Bacon's [b:6e9365004b]excellent[/b:6e9365004b] article:
[u:6e9365004b]What Mean Ye By This Service[/u:6e9365004b]
And by the way, Rev. Bacon is for children participating in the worship of God:
http://www.fpcr.org/pdf/Revealed-Babes.pdf
Oy oy oy oy oy!!!! Ya'all are so Jewishly clueless! Passover is imminent. The little kids play a big part! They hunt the Afikomen. (The middle piece of matzo, which has been broken and hidden.) The youngest child who can slightly read (or has been coached) asks the Four Questions.
Yes, I like the WCF. But I LOVE Leviticus 23, and Exodus 12 &13. The little kids eat the Afikomen, along with the adults.
If you do not understand the Jewishness of the Messiah, and have never made an attempt to understand the Passover, how can you understand Paul's teachings regarding the Lord's Supper? Without an understanding of the Levitical feasts and how they were observed, how can you understand John's gospel? John placed Jesus' ministry squarely within the context of the Levitical feasts. Must've been a reason for that.
Just a dumb blonde,
Bee [/quote:6e9365004b]
Bee,
Do you think that it is [i:6e9365004b]just possible[/i:6e9365004b] that Jewish practice here has degenerated from Biblical practice? It's not like it would be the only area.
I recommend that you read Pastor Richard Bacon's [b:6e9365004b]excellent[/b:6e9365004b] article:
[u:6e9365004b]What Mean Ye By This Service[/u:6e9365004b]
And by the way, Rev. Bacon is for children participating in the worship of God:
http://www.fpcr.org/pdf/Revealed-Babes.pdf
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
[quote:72f94a0744][i:72f94a0744]Originally posted by Fergy[/i:72f94a0744]
[quote:72f94a0744][i:72f94a0744]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:72f94a0744]
[color=red:72f94a0744]Fergy writes:
"wouldn't it be fine for them to partake of the Lord's supper? It's not like they're going to die from doing so." [/color:72f94a0744]
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and [b:72f94a0744][color=green:72f94a0744]many sleep[/color:72f94a0744][/b:72f94a0744].
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
1Co 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
(my emphasis added)
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:72f94a0744]
I wasn't saved until I was 15, but I've been in church my whole life, so I had my fair share of "the Lord's supper" before I was saved, and I'm not dead, though I do sometimes get sleepy in church :sumo: [/quote:72f94a0744]
Maybe what you were partaking of was not truly the Lords supper. How is it that you were given the supper prior to -understanding - what it was that you were partaking of? What age were you when you first partook? Why did your pastor & elders allow for this? Parents?
The verse says "some". Apparently, God does not put to sleep all. Whose responsibility is it that you do not "stumble"? The child or the adults?
Aslo, how do you know that you weren't converted at 15 and regenerated at an earlier time?
Food for thought.
[quote:72f94a0744][i:72f94a0744]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:72f94a0744]
[color=red:72f94a0744]Fergy writes:
"wouldn't it be fine for them to partake of the Lord's supper? It's not like they're going to die from doing so." [/color:72f94a0744]
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and [b:72f94a0744][color=green:72f94a0744]many sleep[/color:72f94a0744][/b:72f94a0744].
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
1Co 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
(my emphasis added)
[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:72f94a0744]
I wasn't saved until I was 15, but I've been in church my whole life, so I had my fair share of "the Lord's supper" before I was saved, and I'm not dead, though I do sometimes get sleepy in church :sumo: [/quote:72f94a0744]
Maybe what you were partaking of was not truly the Lords supper. How is it that you were given the supper prior to -understanding - what it was that you were partaking of? What age were you when you first partook? Why did your pastor & elders allow for this? Parents?
The verse says "some". Apparently, God does not put to sleep all. Whose responsibility is it that you do not "stumble"? The child or the adults?
Aslo, how do you know that you weren't converted at 15 and regenerated at an earlier time?
Food for thought.
[quote:da2412d2fc][i:da2412d2fc]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:da2412d2fc]
Aslo, how do you know that you weren't converted at 15 and regenerated at an earlier time?
Food for thought. [/quote:da2412d2fc]
Excuse my ignorance, as I'm new to Reformed teachings (raised dispensational/premill/freewill), could you elaborate on the separate time for new birth and regeneration? and any scriptures? thanks
Aslo, how do you know that you weren't converted at 15 and regenerated at an earlier time?
Food for thought. [/quote:da2412d2fc]
Excuse my ignorance, as I'm new to Reformed teachings (raised dispensational/premill/freewill), could you elaborate on the separate time for new birth and regeneration? and any scriptures? thanks
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
1) Can infants have exercising faith?
2) If they cannot, can they be filled with the Spirit?
3) If they can, how can they be filled witht he Spirit and not exercise faith?
4) Is regeneration the same as having faith?
think through those questions...
2) If they cannot, can they be filled with the Spirit?
3) If they can, how can they be filled witht he Spirit and not exercise faith?
4) Is regeneration the same as having faith?
think through those questions...
[b:7b08ca32a8]Pastor Fred,[/b:7b08ca32a8]
[quote:7b08ca32a8]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul manata
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fredtgreco
The fact that one must make a credible profession of faith before partaking of the Lord's Supper is probably the most widely held belief of Christendom other than the Trinity.
EVERY branch of the Church - Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Indepedent, even Roman has held this doctrine to be essential for 2,000 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but our baptist bretheren (and some paedo's) would not argue that it isn't agreed upon but that we are inconsistant for witholding that sacrement from our children....right?
btw, this is another agreement between you and I. I was thinking as well (dangerous thing), and I saw that one of your kids name is Paul. I thought maybe this is why you disagree with me alot. You are used to correcting your son and when you see my name you sub-consciously carry that over to the PB. Is my psychobabble analysis correct?
-Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b:7b08ca32a8]fredtgreco wrote:[/b:7b08ca32a8]
I don't know Paul - maybe we should ask Dan..., I disagree with him too!
Seriously, I think we participate in the natural progression of Reformed theology on internet boards - we agree 95% of the time, and then spend 95% of the time talking about the 5% we disagree on!
While Baptists will at times accuse Presbyterians of inconsistency, it is always a veiled attack on paedobaptism, since the practice of communing at the Lord's table is so universally accepted (arguing from strength to weakness)
The fact is, as both you and I know, the two sacraments are different in nature - the one a one-time, constituting ordinance; the other a many-time, nourishing ordinance.
I love it when we agree! {huming the wonderful Psalter tune to Psalm 133}
[/quote:7b08ca32a8]
Well, if we had a participant by the name of Peter who posted regularly, we'd really be able to find out if Paul's hypothesis is correct or not.
But for the record, I wholeheartly agree with you on this subject.
And, yes, I'm sure we do agree on most theological issues, as our respective confessions appear to be word for word identical at least 95% of the time ([i:7b08ca32a8]on cursory glance, as I'm not about to do the math. Although if someone does know just how much is word for word identical, I'd be interested in knowing.[/i:7b08ca32a8]).
[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Dan....]
[quote:7b08ca32a8]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul manata
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fredtgreco
The fact that one must make a credible profession of faith before partaking of the Lord's Supper is probably the most widely held belief of Christendom other than the Trinity.
EVERY branch of the Church - Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Indepedent, even Roman has held this doctrine to be essential for 2,000 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but our baptist bretheren (and some paedo's) would not argue that it isn't agreed upon but that we are inconsistant for witholding that sacrement from our children....right?
btw, this is another agreement between you and I. I was thinking as well (dangerous thing), and I saw that one of your kids name is Paul. I thought maybe this is why you disagree with me alot. You are used to correcting your son and when you see my name you sub-consciously carry that over to the PB. Is my psychobabble analysis correct?
-Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b:7b08ca32a8]fredtgreco wrote:[/b:7b08ca32a8]
I don't know Paul - maybe we should ask Dan..., I disagree with him too!
Seriously, I think we participate in the natural progression of Reformed theology on internet boards - we agree 95% of the time, and then spend 95% of the time talking about the 5% we disagree on!
While Baptists will at times accuse Presbyterians of inconsistency, it is always a veiled attack on paedobaptism, since the practice of communing at the Lord's table is so universally accepted (arguing from strength to weakness)
The fact is, as both you and I know, the two sacraments are different in nature - the one a one-time, constituting ordinance; the other a many-time, nourishing ordinance.
I love it when we agree! {huming the wonderful Psalter tune to Psalm 133}
[/quote:7b08ca32a8]
Well, if we had a participant by the name of Peter who posted regularly, we'd really be able to find out if Paul's hypothesis is correct or not.
But for the record, I wholeheartly agree with you on this subject.
And, yes, I'm sure we do agree on most theological issues, as our respective confessions appear to be word for word identical at least 95% of the time ([i:7b08ca32a8]on cursory glance, as I'm not about to do the math. Although if someone does know just how much is word for word identical, I'd be interested in knowing.[/i:7b08ca32a8]).
[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Dan....]
Speaking of agreement....I even agree with Fred on baptism (for adults)!
And for the thread in general, I do not think we can put an age limit on the Table - we use the guidelines we have been given in Scirpture and when a person, any person, meets those requirements then they are to partake of the Supper.
I will say that the Passover was much more simple in the Pentateuch than the ceremony into which it evolved by the addition of man made traditions. Much like New Testament worship being a lot more simple than it is practiced in many evangelical churches today.
That said, I do think that we can make a case Biblically for children not eating the Passover. That does not mean that children should eat the Lord's Supper though. The OT feast was a shadow fulfilled in Christ and the Lord's Table and we have been given specific instructions about it - there is discontinuity between the shadow and the substance based on positive Biblical instruction (1 Cor 11:27). There is no such positive instruction saying that the children were not to partake of the Passover meal in the OT!
The feast itself is based on an everlasting ordinance (Ex 12:14) but that does not mean that the observance or ritual is to remain always the same. Christ changed it with the disciples and gave us the fulfillment in Himself, His body and blood.
I just preached on the Passover this morning and I don't remember any text that forbade children from partaking. The whole house ate the meal and if there were any leftovers they were to be burned the next morning.
In fact, the "whole assembly" ate the meal (Ex 12:6-8) and Deut 16:7 tells us that the families travelled out of the camp for the sacrifice and meal and returned to their tents the next morning. Surely the whole family went out for the sacrifice and the meal and returned. They did not leave the kids home.
Phillip
[Edited on 4-5-04 by pastorway]
And for the thread in general, I do not think we can put an age limit on the Table - we use the guidelines we have been given in Scirpture and when a person, any person, meets those requirements then they are to partake of the Supper.
I will say that the Passover was much more simple in the Pentateuch than the ceremony into which it evolved by the addition of man made traditions. Much like New Testament worship being a lot more simple than it is practiced in many evangelical churches today.
That said, I do think that we can make a case Biblically for children not eating the Passover. That does not mean that children should eat the Lord's Supper though. The OT feast was a shadow fulfilled in Christ and the Lord's Table and we have been given specific instructions about it - there is discontinuity between the shadow and the substance based on positive Biblical instruction (1 Cor 11:27). There is no such positive instruction saying that the children were not to partake of the Passover meal in the OT!
The feast itself is based on an everlasting ordinance (Ex 12:14) but that does not mean that the observance or ritual is to remain always the same. Christ changed it with the disciples and gave us the fulfillment in Himself, His body and blood.
I just preached on the Passover this morning and I don't remember any text that forbade children from partaking. The whole house ate the meal and if there were any leftovers they were to be burned the next morning.
In fact, the "whole assembly" ate the meal (Ex 12:6-8) and Deut 16:7 tells us that the families travelled out of the camp for the sacrifice and meal and returned to their tents the next morning. Surely the whole family went out for the sacrifice and the meal and returned. They did not leave the kids home.
Phillip
[Edited on 4-5-04 by pastorway]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Phillip,
What do you make of this passage?
Exo 12:24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
Exo 12:25 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.
Exo 12:26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, [color=Maroon:e208540082]What mean ye by this service[/color:e208540082]?
[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Scott Bushey]
What do you make of this passage?
Exo 12:24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
Exo 12:25 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.
Exo 12:26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, [color=Maroon:e208540082]What mean ye by this service[/color:e208540082]?
[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Scott Bushey]
"What mean ye by this service?"
It would be like a kid asking his parents, "Why are we doing this?" It was an opportunity for the parents to teach the kids the truth behind the ceremony.
It does not mean, "What do you mean when you do this and don't let us do it with you?" (What kind of feast and Holy Day is it when the kids are only observers?) The whole house ate this meal in the evening. It was dinner that night!
It quite simply means, "Why are we doing this? What does all this mean?"
And what was the answer to be? Tell the kids why we are celebrating this Holy Day.
Ex 12:27 "that you shall say, "It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households."' So the people bowed their heads and worshiped.
Phillip
It would be like a kid asking his parents, "Why are we doing this?" It was an opportunity for the parents to teach the kids the truth behind the ceremony.
It does not mean, "What do you mean when you do this and don't let us do it with you?" (What kind of feast and Holy Day is it when the kids are only observers?) The whole house ate this meal in the evening. It was dinner that night!
It quite simply means, "Why are we doing this? What does all this mean?"
And what was the answer to be? Tell the kids why we are celebrating this Holy Day.
Ex 12:27 "that you shall say, "It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households."' So the people bowed their heads and worshiped.
Phillip
[quote:792633c5a6][i:792633c5a6]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:792633c5a6]
[quote:792633c5a6][i:792633c5a6]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:792633c5a6]
"What mean ye by this service?"
It would be like a kid asking his parents, "Why are we doing this?" It was an opportunity for the parents to teach the kids the truth behind the ceremony.
It does not mean, "What do you mean when you do this and don't let us do it with you?" (What kind of feast and Holy Day is it when the kids are only observers?) The whole house ate this meal in the evening. It was dinner that night!
It quite simply means, "Why are we doing this? What does all this mean?"
And what was the answer to be? Tell the kids why we are celebrating this Holy Day.
Ex 12:27 "that you shall say, "It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households."' So the people bowed their heads and worshiped.
Phillip [/quote:792633c5a6]
Pastor Way,
Note that in Exodus the children said what do [i:792633c5a6]you[/i:792633c5a6] mean by this.
When you translated it you committed an intentional fallacy and translated it: what do [i:792633c5a6]we[/i:792633c5a6] mean by this.
By doing this you implied that they were partaking of the meal.
By saying what do [i:792633c5a6]you[/i:792633c5a6] mean by this it is not logically implied that the children partook.
-Paul [/quote:792633c5a6]
There goes that 95% again!
And even after I just had to discipline my Paul for disobedience!
:goodpost:
[quote:792633c5a6][i:792633c5a6]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:792633c5a6]
"What mean ye by this service?"
It would be like a kid asking his parents, "Why are we doing this?" It was an opportunity for the parents to teach the kids the truth behind the ceremony.
It does not mean, "What do you mean when you do this and don't let us do it with you?" (What kind of feast and Holy Day is it when the kids are only observers?) The whole house ate this meal in the evening. It was dinner that night!
It quite simply means, "Why are we doing this? What does all this mean?"
And what was the answer to be? Tell the kids why we are celebrating this Holy Day.
Ex 12:27 "that you shall say, "It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households."' So the people bowed their heads and worshiped.
Phillip [/quote:792633c5a6]
Pastor Way,
Note that in Exodus the children said what do [i:792633c5a6]you[/i:792633c5a6] mean by this.
When you translated it you committed an intentional fallacy and translated it: what do [i:792633c5a6]we[/i:792633c5a6] mean by this.
By doing this you implied that they were partaking of the meal.
By saying what do [i:792633c5a6]you[/i:792633c5a6] mean by this it is not logically implied that the children partook.
-Paul [/quote:792633c5a6]
There goes that 95% again!
And even after I just had to discipline my Paul for disobedience!
:goodpost:
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
[quote:d1fcdf15cb]
I just preached on the Passover this morning and I don't remember any text that forbade children from partaking. The whole house ate the meal and if there were any leftovers they were to be burned the next morning.
In fact, the "whole assembly" ate the meal (Ex 12:6-8) and Deut 16:7 tells us that the families travelled out of the camp for the sacrifice and meal and returned to their tents the next morning. Surely the whole family went out for the sacrifice and the meal and returned. They did not leave the kids home.
[/quote:d1fcdf15cb]
I think Phillip has brought up an interesting point in that the Passover was an actual full cource meal, not just a bite of bread and a sip of wine as the Lord's Supper is today. Even though Scripture is silent as to the extent of the participation of children in this sacrament, is it reasonable to infer that small children did eat the passover meal with the whole family even though they might not have understood what was going on? If this is so, then could this be a situation of continuity/discontinuity between these two sacraments?
I just preached on the Passover this morning and I don't remember any text that forbade children from partaking. The whole house ate the meal and if there were any leftovers they were to be burned the next morning.
In fact, the "whole assembly" ate the meal (Ex 12:6-8) and Deut 16:7 tells us that the families travelled out of the camp for the sacrifice and meal and returned to their tents the next morning. Surely the whole family went out for the sacrifice and the meal and returned. They did not leave the kids home.
[/quote:d1fcdf15cb]
I think Phillip has brought up an interesting point in that the Passover was an actual full cource meal, not just a bite of bread and a sip of wine as the Lord's Supper is today. Even though Scripture is silent as to the extent of the participation of children in this sacrament, is it reasonable to infer that small children did eat the passover meal with the whole family even though they might not have understood what was going on? If this is so, then could this be a situation of continuity/discontinuity between these two sacraments?
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Wayne, Phillip, Scott and Paul,
I have moved to conclude that children did not partake of the Passover. I think the Hebrew text is clear to me. I have posted an article at the end of this post that agrees with that conclusion as well which I think is basic, but very helpful for those first coming to see this.
Just some notes to help work through that section of scripture. (As a notation, I think you have missed some important points Phillip and are drawing a conclusion not present in the text.)
Notes:
As instituted by God, the lamb was the centerpiece for the passover meal.
The lamb was to be sacrificed in the place where God set His name (Deut. 16:2) which was Shiloh until the ark was moved to Jerusalem. Richard Bacon notes that this differecne is stated in the Mishna between the "Egyptian Passover" and the "Permenant Passsover."
Christ fuliflls everything that the lamb symbolized. Once the viel is torn, the Passover was fulfilled in Him as the lamb slain.
In Exo 12:3-4 it states that there was a lamb for every house. Question stated, "Does this mean everyone int he house ate of the lamb?" The Scripture reads that (Exodus 12:4) "according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. " Note - every MAN.
In verse 6 it says, "Exodus 12:6 and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening." However, the actual "mechanics" of how this was accomplished is explicitely stated in verse 21, "Exodus 12:21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover." This demosntrates the well known "covenantal head" aspect of the church community. The elders (i.e. the fathers of each household) did this on behalf of their household. The elders then made a count, and it was "According to their eating" or according to the count that the lambs were slain. Bacon says, "In their counting they were to assure that no "stranger" was among those counted (vv. 43, 45). Note here the importance of the elders "fencing" the table even in this prototypical meal."
What part do the children play in this meal? Does God simply leave it to our imagination? Does the Church have "discretion" as to what part the children take? No, for in verses 26-27 God informs us that the children are to serve a catechetical role. "When your children shall say, `What mean ye by this service,'" etc. The children are not told to ask, "What do [b:efd766aa5e]we[/b:efd766aa5e] mean by the fact that [b:efd766aa5e]we[/b:efd766aa5e] are eating." That would then indicate that they actually partook of the meal. Rather, they are to ask, "What do [b:efd766aa5e]you[/b:efd766aa5e] mean by your eating in this service?" The Hebrew pronouns demosntrate the catechistical nature of the question, and who partook of the passover - which later, Paul expounds int he exact say way concerning the Lord's Supper - that those who can understand and examine themselves partake of it.
Bacon says, "In Exodus 12:43ff., Moses describes "the ordinance of the Passover." First, no strangers may eat it because it is a covenantal meal (43). Second, slaves may eat the meal only after they have been circumcised - thus receiving the sign of the covenant (44). Third, it is no ordinary meal (as a so-called agape feast would be), but a sacramental meal. The elements are therefore not to be treated as ordinary or common food (46). Finally, a stranger may partake if and after he accepts covenantal responsibilities (48-49). In verse 48, all his males must be circumcised, [b:efd766aa5e]but only he (as an adult male covenantal head of the household) draws near and partakes.[/b:efd766aa5e] Upon drawing near and partaking of the sacramental meal, he is subject to the very same laws of God as the covenant people (49)."
The text reads in verse 48 - Exodus 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, [b:efd766aa5e]and then let him come near and keep it[/b:efd766aa5e]; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. " Again, this is demonstrating the typical manner in which such a meal was taken, the sojourner copied the Israleite if he was covenantally repsonsible.
This is a covenant meal and is thus to be eaten covenantally.
The nature of the passage does not allow us to non-chaluantly say "Well of course all the children ate" with all the paedocimmunionists out there. There is more going on in the passges which exegetical work needs to flush out. There are other things to consider, things surrounding ceremonially unclean men and women, menstrual cycles that would have opted for women not eating because of theri 14 day uncleanliness stretch, nursing infants, catechistical instruction, etc.
The next thing involved sis to see if the NT Supper is akin to the OT Passover, or a similar fulfillemnt of it. Does the NT Supper reflect the same outline as the OT Passover? (Since Paedos believe that circumcision and baptism parallel as covenant signs given to infants, so they shoudl also think that the Passover and Lord's Supper were given to adults who had discernment and were within the covenant community.) Do we find this?
Bacon asks these questions, "For instance, on the basis of Deuteronomy 16:2, we would expect to see participants (covenantal adult males) going to Jerusalem to keep the Passover. Additionally, on the basis of our understanding of Exodus 12:26-27, we would expect to see the children of the participants involved in catechism. Moreover, based on Exodus 12:3-4 and 12:21, we would expect to see a counting of adult males (a.k.a. "men" taking place around the time of the Passover. Finally, based on Numbers 9:1-6 and II Chronicles 30:8, we would expect to see an increased awareness and concern over ceremonial cleanness."
Bacon also makes a good point surrounding the covenatnal heads of families cocnerning the time of the Passover in John 6:10: "In John 6:10, the disciples (i.e., the apostles) made the men sit down on the grass; and we are told that the men numbered about five thousand. The disciples then distributed fish and barley loaves to them that were set down (v. 11). After gathering up twelve baskets full of fragments, the passage tells us, "then those men, when they had seen . . . " (v. 14). The parallel passage in Matthew is even clearer, for in Matthew 14:21 we read, "And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children." It is very clear that the count was of men only (not because this was Passover, but because Passover was nigh)......The word used in Matthew 14:21 is often made to read besides, as though the men were in addition to women and children who were also present but uncounted. Although that alone would be sufficient to prove that the counting for the lambs was a counting of men only, the underlying Greek is even more devastating to the paedocommunionist's view. The Greek of v. 21 is chôris gunaikon, i.e. chôris plus genitive. The primary meaning of chôris plus genitive is "separated from someone, far from someone, without someone" (e.g. I Corinthians 11:11, which reads, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" [emphasis added]). Note also that the cognates of this preposition have similar meanings. The verb means "divide" or "separate" and the noun, chôrismos, means "a division." So Matthew 14:21 at least teaches that the men (only) were numbered for the Passover feast.....The Pharisees, Chief Priests and Scribes had perverted the meaning and intent of God's law. That should come as no surprise, because they had also perverted the meaning of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:2, 7; John 5:16, 18; 7:23-24), honoring father and mother (Matthew 15:4-9; Mark 7:8-13) and the righteousness of the law in general (Matthew 5:20; 20:18; etc.). But the fact that the Pharisees perverted God's law should not cause us to lose sight of the fact that God's law enjoined the Jews to examine themselves and to discern the proper applications of God's law. This is a requirement that was placed only on adult males at the sacrament of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16:2, 16-17). With the advent of Christ, we no longer have priests to examine us with respect to God's law (cf. Numbers 9:1-13), but are required to examine ourselves. This should shed some additional light on Paul's intention in I Corinthians 11:27-30 when we come to that place in Scripture."
Just as the adults in the OT had to have a detialed undeerstanding fo the Passover, and susquently catechised thier children based on the Hebrew pronouns and questions, so in the NT, paralleled, the believer must have such a knowweldge of Christ, and the body, before partaking. Passover is seen in light of the death and resurrection o fChrist more fully, which is Paul's interpretation of it in Corinthians as "Christ our Passover." For this to mean that Christ is our Passover, would subsequently involve a parallel, not a change. Otherwise, Paul is invoking a brand new idea here, one that none of us, still, would understnad without a previous reference point. But this cannot be the case. His allusions to leavened bread, Passover and the like are quite blatant. He is referring to the paralleled circumstacne of Exodus 12. Even Christ warns us of the leaven of the Pharisees, where leaven is stricted tied to knoweldge of a holy life - something Paul picks up later in 1 Cor. 5:6-8.
Bacon well says, "In the Old Testament, a priest was required for the examination due to his specialized knowledge of the law of God. Today we are to examine ourselves by the same standard. Such examination presupposes a knowledge of the law and the ability to apply it properly. In short, it requires previous catechetical instruction.
This should not be used as a discouragement to the young children in the church. Rather, it should be an encouragement to them to learn and properly apply the means that God has given for holy living. "But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin" (Numbers 9:13). It is not simply desirable to partake of the sacrament, it is as important as is baptism (Genesis 17:14). Avoiding the sacramental meal does not avoid judgment.
Our children should be encouraged to partake in their appointed season. When the child has learned enough to make a good confession he should fear God and partake of the meal. But how does a session know that the child is truly confirmed in the faith (the session does not confirm, but acknowledges the confirmation of the child)? The answer is that the child must exhibit an understanding of what it is to partake of the sacrament worthily. To the parents of such children, this means catechize, catechize, catechize your children. To the children of the Church this means catechize, catechize, diligently catechize and ask until you understand the answer to the question, "What mean ye by this service?"
On the basis of the Shorter Catechism (# 97), just as adults in the church do, the children should continue to ask themselves these four questions:
(1) Am I a believer?
(2) Do I judge my actions by God's law?
(3) Do I love God and my neighbor?
(4) Am I dealing with the sin that God has revealed?
These are the issues of life and it is to these very issues that the Lord's Supper calls each of us: "It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, of their faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves" (Shorter Catechism, # 97)."
After looking at information against peadocommunionists, and then researching these Scriptures, Bacon's article "What Mean Ye?" is a helpful cherry on top of the sundae. You can read the whole thing here:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm
Its about 45 pages, but I think simply links together a number of well thought out points on the text. He saved me from typing it all out!
Hope this helps. I think it is a further testimony to the lucid connection between the sacraments, as well as it overthrowing the logical blunder of paedocommunion.
We find in the New Testament, then, exactly what our model or hypothesis would suggest, viz., meticulous attention to the details of Levitical cleanness at the time of the Passover.
[Edited on 4-5-2004 by webmaster]
I have moved to conclude that children did not partake of the Passover. I think the Hebrew text is clear to me. I have posted an article at the end of this post that agrees with that conclusion as well which I think is basic, but very helpful for those first coming to see this.
Just some notes to help work through that section of scripture. (As a notation, I think you have missed some important points Phillip and are drawing a conclusion not present in the text.)
Notes:
As instituted by God, the lamb was the centerpiece for the passover meal.
The lamb was to be sacrificed in the place where God set His name (Deut. 16:2) which was Shiloh until the ark was moved to Jerusalem. Richard Bacon notes that this differecne is stated in the Mishna between the "Egyptian Passover" and the "Permenant Passsover."
Christ fuliflls everything that the lamb symbolized. Once the viel is torn, the Passover was fulfilled in Him as the lamb slain.
In Exo 12:3-4 it states that there was a lamb for every house. Question stated, "Does this mean everyone int he house ate of the lamb?" The Scripture reads that (Exodus 12:4) "according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. " Note - every MAN.
In verse 6 it says, "Exodus 12:6 and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening." However, the actual "mechanics" of how this was accomplished is explicitely stated in verse 21, "Exodus 12:21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover." This demosntrates the well known "covenantal head" aspect of the church community. The elders (i.e. the fathers of each household) did this on behalf of their household. The elders then made a count, and it was "According to their eating" or according to the count that the lambs were slain. Bacon says, "In their counting they were to assure that no "stranger" was among those counted (vv. 43, 45). Note here the importance of the elders "fencing" the table even in this prototypical meal."
What part do the children play in this meal? Does God simply leave it to our imagination? Does the Church have "discretion" as to what part the children take? No, for in verses 26-27 God informs us that the children are to serve a catechetical role. "When your children shall say, `What mean ye by this service,'" etc. The children are not told to ask, "What do [b:efd766aa5e]we[/b:efd766aa5e] mean by the fact that [b:efd766aa5e]we[/b:efd766aa5e] are eating." That would then indicate that they actually partook of the meal. Rather, they are to ask, "What do [b:efd766aa5e]you[/b:efd766aa5e] mean by your eating in this service?" The Hebrew pronouns demosntrate the catechistical nature of the question, and who partook of the passover - which later, Paul expounds int he exact say way concerning the Lord's Supper - that those who can understand and examine themselves partake of it.
Bacon says, "In Exodus 12:43ff., Moses describes "the ordinance of the Passover." First, no strangers may eat it because it is a covenantal meal (43). Second, slaves may eat the meal only after they have been circumcised - thus receiving the sign of the covenant (44). Third, it is no ordinary meal (as a so-called agape feast would be), but a sacramental meal. The elements are therefore not to be treated as ordinary or common food (46). Finally, a stranger may partake if and after he accepts covenantal responsibilities (48-49). In verse 48, all his males must be circumcised, [b:efd766aa5e]but only he (as an adult male covenantal head of the household) draws near and partakes.[/b:efd766aa5e] Upon drawing near and partaking of the sacramental meal, he is subject to the very same laws of God as the covenant people (49)."
The text reads in verse 48 - Exodus 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, [b:efd766aa5e]and then let him come near and keep it[/b:efd766aa5e]; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. " Again, this is demonstrating the typical manner in which such a meal was taken, the sojourner copied the Israleite if he was covenantally repsonsible.
This is a covenant meal and is thus to be eaten covenantally.
The nature of the passage does not allow us to non-chaluantly say "Well of course all the children ate" with all the paedocimmunionists out there. There is more going on in the passges which exegetical work needs to flush out. There are other things to consider, things surrounding ceremonially unclean men and women, menstrual cycles that would have opted for women not eating because of theri 14 day uncleanliness stretch, nursing infants, catechistical instruction, etc.
The next thing involved sis to see if the NT Supper is akin to the OT Passover, or a similar fulfillemnt of it. Does the NT Supper reflect the same outline as the OT Passover? (Since Paedos believe that circumcision and baptism parallel as covenant signs given to infants, so they shoudl also think that the Passover and Lord's Supper were given to adults who had discernment and were within the covenant community.) Do we find this?
Bacon asks these questions, "For instance, on the basis of Deuteronomy 16:2, we would expect to see participants (covenantal adult males) going to Jerusalem to keep the Passover. Additionally, on the basis of our understanding of Exodus 12:26-27, we would expect to see the children of the participants involved in catechism. Moreover, based on Exodus 12:3-4 and 12:21, we would expect to see a counting of adult males (a.k.a. "men"
taking place around the time of the Passover. Finally, based on Numbers 9:1-6 and II Chronicles 30:8, we would expect to see an increased awareness and concern over ceremonial cleanness."Bacon also makes a good point surrounding the covenatnal heads of families cocnerning the time of the Passover in John 6:10: "In John 6:10, the disciples (i.e., the apostles) made the men sit down on the grass; and we are told that the men numbered about five thousand. The disciples then distributed fish and barley loaves to them that were set down (v. 11). After gathering up twelve baskets full of fragments, the passage tells us, "then those men, when they had seen . . . " (v. 14). The parallel passage in Matthew is even clearer, for in Matthew 14:21 we read, "And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children." It is very clear that the count was of men only (not because this was Passover, but because Passover was nigh)......The word used in Matthew 14:21 is often made to read besides, as though the men were in addition to women and children who were also present but uncounted. Although that alone would be sufficient to prove that the counting for the lambs was a counting of men only, the underlying Greek is even more devastating to the paedocommunionist's view. The Greek of v. 21 is chôris gunaikon, i.e. chôris plus genitive. The primary meaning of chôris plus genitive is "separated from someone, far from someone, without someone" (e.g. I Corinthians 11:11, which reads, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" [emphasis added]). Note also that the cognates of this preposition have similar meanings. The verb means "divide" or "separate" and the noun, chôrismos, means "a division." So Matthew 14:21 at least teaches that the men (only) were numbered for the Passover feast.....The Pharisees, Chief Priests and Scribes had perverted the meaning and intent of God's law. That should come as no surprise, because they had also perverted the meaning of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:2, 7; John 5:16, 18; 7:23-24), honoring father and mother (Matthew 15:4-9; Mark 7:8-13) and the righteousness of the law in general (Matthew 5:20; 20:18; etc.). But the fact that the Pharisees perverted God's law should not cause us to lose sight of the fact that God's law enjoined the Jews to examine themselves and to discern the proper applications of God's law. This is a requirement that was placed only on adult males at the sacrament of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16:2, 16-17). With the advent of Christ, we no longer have priests to examine us with respect to God's law (cf. Numbers 9:1-13), but are required to examine ourselves. This should shed some additional light on Paul's intention in I Corinthians 11:27-30 when we come to that place in Scripture."
Just as the adults in the OT had to have a detialed undeerstanding fo the Passover, and susquently catechised thier children based on the Hebrew pronouns and questions, so in the NT, paralleled, the believer must have such a knowweldge of Christ, and the body, before partaking. Passover is seen in light of the death and resurrection o fChrist more fully, which is Paul's interpretation of it in Corinthians as "Christ our Passover." For this to mean that Christ is our Passover, would subsequently involve a parallel, not a change. Otherwise, Paul is invoking a brand new idea here, one that none of us, still, would understnad without a previous reference point. But this cannot be the case. His allusions to leavened bread, Passover and the like are quite blatant. He is referring to the paralleled circumstacne of Exodus 12. Even Christ warns us of the leaven of the Pharisees, where leaven is stricted tied to knoweldge of a holy life - something Paul picks up later in 1 Cor. 5:6-8.
Bacon well says, "In the Old Testament, a priest was required for the examination due to his specialized knowledge of the law of God. Today we are to examine ourselves by the same standard. Such examination presupposes a knowledge of the law and the ability to apply it properly. In short, it requires previous catechetical instruction.
This should not be used as a discouragement to the young children in the church. Rather, it should be an encouragement to them to learn and properly apply the means that God has given for holy living. "But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin" (Numbers 9:13). It is not simply desirable to partake of the sacrament, it is as important as is baptism (Genesis 17:14). Avoiding the sacramental meal does not avoid judgment.
Our children should be encouraged to partake in their appointed season. When the child has learned enough to make a good confession he should fear God and partake of the meal. But how does a session know that the child is truly confirmed in the faith (the session does not confirm, but acknowledges the confirmation of the child)? The answer is that the child must exhibit an understanding of what it is to partake of the sacrament worthily. To the parents of such children, this means catechize, catechize, catechize your children. To the children of the Church this means catechize, catechize, diligently catechize and ask until you understand the answer to the question, "What mean ye by this service?"
On the basis of the Shorter Catechism (# 97), just as adults in the church do, the children should continue to ask themselves these four questions:
(1) Am I a believer?
(2) Do I judge my actions by God's law?
(3) Do I love God and my neighbor?
(4) Am I dealing with the sin that God has revealed?
These are the issues of life and it is to these very issues that the Lord's Supper calls each of us: "It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, of their faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves" (Shorter Catechism, # 97)."
After looking at information against peadocommunionists, and then researching these Scriptures, Bacon's article "What Mean Ye?" is a helpful cherry on top of the sundae. You can read the whole thing here:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm
Its about 45 pages, but I think simply links together a number of well thought out points on the text. He saved me from typing it all out!
Hope this helps. I think it is a further testimony to the lucid connection between the sacraments, as well as it overthrowing the logical blunder of paedocommunion.
We find in the New Testament, then, exactly what our model or hypothesis would suggest, viz., meticulous attention to the details of Levitical cleanness at the time of the Passover.
[Edited on 4-5-2004 by webmaster]
Just because children ate the Passover meal does not mean that we have to have them partaking of the Lord's Table, you know. Jesus gave to Paul a regulation for the Table. So saying that kids were there and ate does not automatically lead to paedocommunion. (then for me as a Baptist discontuity within the ordinances is not a huge deal!)
The kids did not ask, "Why are you eating this meal?"
They asked, "Why are you doing this?" What do you mean by this ritual? What is your reason behind leading the family in this ceremony? They were to be informed as to the reasons behind the observance.
I think you have to see discontinuity between the Passover in the OT and the Lord's Table in the NT, otherwise you make it rather ridiculous.
A Lamb was chosen and brought into the house on the tenth of the month. If there were not enough people in the house to eat a whole Lamb, then families could join with one another in the observance of the meal. The lamb was chosen to fit the family size!
On the fourteenth it was killed between 3 and 5 pm and then eaten by the family. The children were to ask why/what the family was observing. Matthew Henry agrees that the question was one of asking why the family (why "we" were doing this thing with the Lamb and herbs, etc.
[quote:7e7be978af][i:7e7be978af]Matthew Henry[/i:7e7be978af]
The question which the children would ask concerning this solemnity (which they would soon take notice of in the family): "What mean you by this service? What is he meaning of all this care and exactness about eating this lamb, and this unleavened bread, more than about common food? Why such a difference between this meal and other meals?" Note, [1.] It is a good thing to see children inquisitive about the things of God; it is to be hoped that those who are careful to ask for the way will find it. Christ himself, when a child, heard and asked questions, Luke ii. 46. [2.] It concerns us all rightly to understand the meaning of those holy ordinances wherein we worship God, what is the nature and what the end of them, what is signified and what intended, what is the duty expected from us in them and what are the advantages to be expected by us. Every ordinance has a meaning; some ordinances, as sacraments, have not their meaning so plain and obvious as others have; therefore we are concerned to search, that we may not offer the blind for sacrifice, but may do a reasonable service. If either we are ignorant of, or mistake about, the meaning of holy ordinances, we can neither please God nor profit ourselves.
The destroying angel, when he was abroad doing execution, might justly have destroyed our first-born too, yet God graciously appointed and accepted the[b:7e7be978af] family-sacrifice of a lamb[/b:7e7be978af], instead of the first-born, as, of old, the ram instead of Isaac, and in every house where the lamb was slain the first-born were saved." [/quote:7e7be978af]
Remember too that there was no leaven in the house for 14 days, as the Feast of Unleavened bread followed the Passover for 7 days. Did the children not participate there either? Seven days?
This was a week of celebration and remembrance and the whole family participated as the regular evening meal on the 14th became a remembrance and a ceremony to celebrate the faithfulness of God in delivering the people out of Egypt. Who would fix a whole entire meal with specific ingredients and then forbid the kids from eating at the Table?
The only requirement for eating is that they be circumcised if they are males. There is no age limit.
Children were vitally important to these types of ceremonies in the Old Testament. In fact, look at these examples of the involvement of children, even infants, in significant events in the OT:
[quote:7e7be978af]excerpt from [i:7e7be978af]Suffer the Little Children to Come to Me[/i:7e7be978af], an statement by the elders of Maranatha Community Church
In the Old Testament, the Jews were seldom required to come together to worship the Lord in the hearing and exposition of the Law, but when they did come together the children were normally included in the worship. For example, at the renewal of the covenant recorded in Deuteronomy 29, we are specifically told that the "little ones" (v. 11) were present. The word translated "little ones" literally means: "those who walk with quick tripping steps," i.e., toddlers. Similarly at the sabbatical year convocation we are told that the men, women, strangers, and children were to be gathered and instructed. "When all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, in order that they may hear and learn and fear the Lord your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law. And their children, who have not known, will hear and learn to fear the Lord your God." (Deut.31:11-13). Then again, in Joshua 8:35, we are told that "all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them" attended to the reading of the Word by Joshua. And again we read of similar gatherings during the time of Jehoshaphat (2Chr.20:13) and during the reformation of Ezra (Neh.8:2-3; 12:43) as well as the revival of Josiah in which the king read aloud (long before the day of cushioned pews and air-conditioned sanctuaries!) "all the words of the book of the covenant" to "all the people both small and great".
When the people gathered to hear our Lord, the young children were usually present too (see Mat.14:21; 15:38; etc.). On one occasion, we are told that the people began bringing their young children to the Lord to be touched by Him (Mk 10:13). For some reasons the disciples tried to stop them. Regardless of the reason the disciples rebuked the parents, we are told that, "when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mk.10:13-14). The word translated 'little children' here is the Greek paidion, which means "very young child or infant." This statement of our Lord is instructive, for how do we suffer the little children to come unto Christ in post-ascension Christian worship, but to bring them to worship with the body of Christ? There is little doubt that the practice of having children in the worship service was the norm in the early church. This is suggested by the fact that the apostolic epistles, which were read during congregational worship in the early church, addressed the children directly (Eph.6:1; Col.3:20; 1Jn.2:12; etc.). In general, the biblical pattern is that the Christian family ought to worship together. It is also a matter of historical fact that the exclusion of children from congregational worship is a very modern innovation.
http://users3.ev1.net/~maranathachurch/casefiw.html[/quote:7e7be978af]
Let's look at the other observances of the Passover after the Exodus in the OT:
1. [b:7e7be978af]Joshua 5:10[/b:7e7be978af] - Now the children of Israel camped in Gilgal, and kept the Passover....
The whole nation collectively observed the feast. In fact, as already illustrated, when the "whole assembly" came together children were included.
2. [b:7e7be978af]2 Chronicles 30[/b:7e7be978af] - see that the [b:7e7be978af]whole assembly[/b:7e7be978af] (30:2) came to partake of the Passover!
3. [b:7e7be978af]2 Kings 23; 2 Chronicles 35[/b:7e7be978af]. Josiah keeps the Passover with the whole nation, and the priests gave the lamb and other parts of the meal to [b:7e7be978af]"all the people"[/b:7e7be978af] (2 Chron 35:13).
4. [b:7e7be978af]Ezra 6:19-22[/b:7e7be978af] shows us that everyone who returned from the captivity partook of the Passover! They "ate together with [b:7e7be978af]all who had separated themselves[/b:7e7be978af] from the filth of the nations..."
Now this covers every OT observance of the Passover. And they included the "whole assembly", "all people", and "all who had separated themselves" from wickedness.
Where exactly are the children absent here?
Wow. Think about it. I am arguing for infant inclusion where the Presbyterians are not!! Children at the Passover in the OT.
Phillip
[Edited on 4-5-04 by pastorway]
The kids did not ask, "Why are you eating this meal?"
They asked, "Why are you doing this?" What do you mean by this ritual? What is your reason behind leading the family in this ceremony? They were to be informed as to the reasons behind the observance.
I think you have to see discontinuity between the Passover in the OT and the Lord's Table in the NT, otherwise you make it rather ridiculous.
A Lamb was chosen and brought into the house on the tenth of the month. If there were not enough people in the house to eat a whole Lamb, then families could join with one another in the observance of the meal. The lamb was chosen to fit the family size!
On the fourteenth it was killed between 3 and 5 pm and then eaten by the family. The children were to ask why/what the family was observing. Matthew Henry agrees that the question was one of asking why the family (why "we"
were doing this thing with the Lamb and herbs, etc.[quote:7e7be978af][i:7e7be978af]Matthew Henry[/i:7e7be978af]
The question which the children would ask concerning this solemnity (which they would soon take notice of in the family): "What mean you by this service? What is he meaning of all this care and exactness about eating this lamb, and this unleavened bread, more than about common food? Why such a difference between this meal and other meals?" Note, [1.] It is a good thing to see children inquisitive about the things of God; it is to be hoped that those who are careful to ask for the way will find it. Christ himself, when a child, heard and asked questions, Luke ii. 46. [2.] It concerns us all rightly to understand the meaning of those holy ordinances wherein we worship God, what is the nature and what the end of them, what is signified and what intended, what is the duty expected from us in them and what are the advantages to be expected by us. Every ordinance has a meaning; some ordinances, as sacraments, have not their meaning so plain and obvious as others have; therefore we are concerned to search, that we may not offer the blind for sacrifice, but may do a reasonable service. If either we are ignorant of, or mistake about, the meaning of holy ordinances, we can neither please God nor profit ourselves.
The destroying angel, when he was abroad doing execution, might justly have destroyed our first-born too, yet God graciously appointed and accepted the[b:7e7be978af] family-sacrifice of a lamb[/b:7e7be978af], instead of the first-born, as, of old, the ram instead of Isaac, and in every house where the lamb was slain the first-born were saved." [/quote:7e7be978af]
Remember too that there was no leaven in the house for 14 days, as the Feast of Unleavened bread followed the Passover for 7 days. Did the children not participate there either? Seven days?
This was a week of celebration and remembrance and the whole family participated as the regular evening meal on the 14th became a remembrance and a ceremony to celebrate the faithfulness of God in delivering the people out of Egypt. Who would fix a whole entire meal with specific ingredients and then forbid the kids from eating at the Table?
The only requirement for eating is that they be circumcised if they are males. There is no age limit.
Children were vitally important to these types of ceremonies in the Old Testament. In fact, look at these examples of the involvement of children, even infants, in significant events in the OT:
[quote:7e7be978af]excerpt from [i:7e7be978af]Suffer the Little Children to Come to Me[/i:7e7be978af], an statement by the elders of Maranatha Community Church
In the Old Testament, the Jews were seldom required to come together to worship the Lord in the hearing and exposition of the Law, but when they did come together the children were normally included in the worship. For example, at the renewal of the covenant recorded in Deuteronomy 29, we are specifically told that the "little ones" (v. 11) were present. The word translated "little ones" literally means: "those who walk with quick tripping steps," i.e., toddlers. Similarly at the sabbatical year convocation we are told that the men, women, strangers, and children were to be gathered and instructed. "When all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, in order that they may hear and learn and fear the Lord your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law. And their children, who have not known, will hear and learn to fear the Lord your God." (Deut.31:11-13). Then again, in Joshua 8:35, we are told that "all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them" attended to the reading of the Word by Joshua. And again we read of similar gatherings during the time of Jehoshaphat (2Chr.20:13) and during the reformation of Ezra (Neh.8:2-3; 12:43) as well as the revival of Josiah in which the king read aloud (long before the day of cushioned pews and air-conditioned sanctuaries!) "all the words of the book of the covenant" to "all the people both small and great".
When the people gathered to hear our Lord, the young children were usually present too (see Mat.14:21; 15:38; etc.). On one occasion, we are told that the people began bringing their young children to the Lord to be touched by Him (Mk 10:13). For some reasons the disciples tried to stop them. Regardless of the reason the disciples rebuked the parents, we are told that, "when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mk.10:13-14). The word translated 'little children' here is the Greek paidion, which means "very young child or infant." This statement of our Lord is instructive, for how do we suffer the little children to come unto Christ in post-ascension Christian worship, but to bring them to worship with the body of Christ? There is little doubt that the practice of having children in the worship service was the norm in the early church. This is suggested by the fact that the apostolic epistles, which were read during congregational worship in the early church, addressed the children directly (Eph.6:1; Col.3:20; 1Jn.2:12; etc.). In general, the biblical pattern is that the Christian family ought to worship together. It is also a matter of historical fact that the exclusion of children from congregational worship is a very modern innovation.
http://users3.ev1.net/~maranathachurch/casefiw.html[/quote:7e7be978af]
Let's look at the other observances of the Passover after the Exodus in the OT:
1. [b:7e7be978af]Joshua 5:10[/b:7e7be978af] - Now the children of Israel camped in Gilgal, and kept the Passover....
The whole nation collectively observed the feast. In fact, as already illustrated, when the "whole assembly" came together children were included.
2. [b:7e7be978af]2 Chronicles 30[/b:7e7be978af] - see that the [b:7e7be978af]whole assembly[/b:7e7be978af] (30:2) came to partake of the Passover!
3. [b:7e7be978af]2 Kings 23; 2 Chronicles 35[/b:7e7be978af]. Josiah keeps the Passover with the whole nation, and the priests gave the lamb and other parts of the meal to [b:7e7be978af]"all the people"[/b:7e7be978af] (2 Chron 35:13).
4. [b:7e7be978af]Ezra 6:19-22[/b:7e7be978af] shows us that everyone who returned from the captivity partook of the Passover! They "ate together with [b:7e7be978af]all who had separated themselves[/b:7e7be978af] from the filth of the nations..."
Now this covers every OT observance of the Passover. And they included the "whole assembly", "all people", and "all who had separated themselves" from wickedness.
Where exactly are the children absent here?
Wow. Think about it. I am arguing for infant inclusion where the Presbyterians are not!! Children at the Passover in the OT.
Phillip
[Edited on 4-5-04 by pastorway]
- Status
Similar threads
