When do you feel comfortable giving communion to children?

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:b2af41773d]

When do you feel comfortable giving communion to children?
[/quote:b2af41773d]


When they are Baptized, confessing members of the Church.
 
Phillip, nothing you said was remotely convicing in defending the position that children ate it. You must deal exegetically witht he Hebrew and demosntrate from it that it is a "we and not a "you."

Phillip, where exactly, does Matthew Henry say the children ate? Doesn't he say "which they would soon take notice of in the family..." He does not say they ate. Even if he thought that, it still doe snot say that, nor is there any interaction with the hebrew of Exodus 12.


[quote:ee4742b278]
Where exactly are the children absent here?
[/quote:ee4742b278]

Where exactly, does it say they are included? Are you going to say the children are included in the NT supper in the same way by say "men" means everyone in 1 cor. 11? that won't work for any of us.

According to Exodus 12, they were inquiring as to what "YOU" do, not "we".

As for the seven days - would you say nursing infants ate unleaven bread for seven days or not?

Exodus 12:20 20 'You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread.' "

If not, then don't read into it the small children.

Also, the establishment of federal headship in the family, the elder's involvement (see my last post again) would exclude the "non chalaunt" ideas surrounding "everyone partook." There are a host of ceremonial ideas going on in the passage that exclude them.

Saying that families ate of it does not make the point that infants did not eat of it, or small children that could not yet discern the supper. Are you saying infants ate of the Passover? I don't know of anyone saying that in any camp. If that is the case, then "all" isn't "all". The heads fo the fmaily are what are pinpointed in Exodus 12, including those proselytes.

Exodus 12:48 then let [b:ee4742b278]him[/b:ee4742b278] come near and keep it;

Exodus 12:44 then shall he eat thereof.


Let's not make the text say something it doesn't, or read into it something it doe snot imply or say. let's take it more exegetically that "traditionally". Here it is transliterated for those who want to look up a few words.

Exodus 12:48 wükî|-yägûr ´iTTükä Gër wü`äºSâ pesaH lyhwh(la´dönäy) himmôl lô kol-zäkär wü´äz yiqrab la`áSötô wühäyâ Kü´ezraH hä´äºrec wükol-`ärël lö|´-yöº´kal Bô

See, this is going to be another one of those sticking points for dispensationalists. It is very apprent why this is a sticking point. If chidlren did not eat of the Passoveer, and nursing infants and small children did NOT eat of bitter herbs and lamb, then the problem arises for both the Paedocommunionist and the dispensationalist. Both have a problem with the continued (continuity not discontinuity) between the Passover and the Lord's Supper. Again, further reflection demosntrates the apparent continuity and not the discontinuity of the "everlasting ordinacne fo Christ's fulfillment of this supper.

Exodus 12:17 herefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an [b:ee4742b278]"everlasting ordinance."[/b:ee4742b278] We do this in remembrance of Christ, and in the Supper.
 
I have shown from Scripture that "all the assembly", "all the people", and "all who had separated themselves" ATE the meal.

Nursing infants are excluded because they obviously do not eat whole food. But children who can eat do eat at the evening meal, which this was! It was a sanctified meal, not a bite to eat for the men only. It sounds as if you are suggesting that only the circumcised men ate the meal and that the kids and wives went hungry or ate something else!?

That simply does not fly given the way the Jews celebrated throughout the OT.

Phillip
 
Wait, wait wait....


[quote:02725e045c]
That simply does not fly given the way the Jews celebrated throughout the OT.
[/quote:02725e045c]

Where are the necessary points of instruction on the meal?

Exodus 12. All relevant passages after that referring to "all the assembly", "all the people", and "all who had separated themselves" would still fall under the mechanics of Exodus 12. We don't change the rules just because we see lots of instances where they partook of the Passover. That is like saying after 10 times of taking the Lord's supper, we change it up. No we don't.

Rather, Exodus 12 sets the standard - federal headship is blatantly in view in the passage. No unclean man OR women could eat of the passover - what then do we do with women who were on their menstrual cycle right smack dab in the middle of the passover - 14 day periods? They did not eat. Those who could eat, who discerned the congregation and did separate themselves, did eat. Nothing hinders the passages that say "all the assembly", "all the people", and "all who had separated themselves" - because we know very well that nursing infants did not eat of the Passover, or 1 year olds or 2 year olds. That alone should tell us that "all" in these cases "is not all." In fact, if I remember right, "all" in the whole bible, only means "all inclusively" 3 times. "All" of a class is another story altogether - which is exactly what Exodus 12 tells us.


[quote:02725e045c]
That simply does not fly given the way the Jews celebrated throughout the OT.
[/quote:02725e045c]

Actually, it would fly perfectly because they would not be reinterpreting the passage in Exodus 12. They would be following its perscription.


[quote:02725e045c]
It sounds as if you are suggesting that only the circumcised men ate the meal and that the kids and wives went hungry or ate something else!?
[/quote:02725e045c]

Would those unclean go hungry or would they eat something else? Of course they would. Just not leaven bread. Would nursing infatns or small children go hungry or eat something else? Did 2 year old Joey stand up all night with a stick and staff in his hand and eat bitter herbs and lamb, or did he eat something else?

Come now, think of the logistics of it alone.
1) Exegetically it is totally sound.
2) Demosntratably it is totally sound.
3) No texts after the fact reinterpreted or changed the Passover meal.
4) All did not mean all as in all inclusively because unclean women and men, and small children could not eat of it both physically, by way or holiness before god, and actually as small children or infants.
Etc.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by webmaster]
 
Pastorway is totally right on this. The whole family was included in the Passover meal, not just the adults. Ya'all wanna make it complicated when it's not. I'd suggest you do a Messianic Seder sometime. The youngest child asks the 4 questions. The little ones hunt the Afikomen, the middle piece of matzo which has been broken and hidden. Do a seder. You will be blessed and your faith will be strengthened.
Bee
 
Melissa,
Being also Jewish, there is a difference between tradition and that which is scriptural. Traditionalism has so permeated present day Judaism that in essence, it is no longer Judaism.
Example: Bahtmizvah's

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
:ditto:

We are not talking about the "Sedar" (i.e. what the Jews have done in distorting the Passover), but the actual Passover. We want to know what Exodus 12 says, not what Jewish children do today.

In any case Melissa has helped the point - the child does in fact ask the question. Exodus 12 points that out. The children, though, until they come to the age of discernment, which for a Jewish household in the time of the Exodus, as well as According to the Mishnah, was 13. Until THEY were asked , "What does this service mean to YOU" and are able to answer, they would not have partken of the Passover, just as today, accordining to Rabbi Paul, who adds nothing but fulfillment to Christ outr Passover, says that in commeorating such a feast, we are to discern the body.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by webmaster]
 
Excellent post webmaster:bouncing:

I find [b:dbb2f65750]so much [/b:dbb2f65750] comfort in the [b:dbb2f65750]continuity of God in scripture[/b:dbb2f65750]

Praise God forever, Amen!:sunny:
 
[quote:65b03949d3]
Being also Jewish, there is a difference between tradition and that which is scriptural. Traditionalism has so permeated present day Judaism that in essence, it is no longer Judaism.
[/quote:65b03949d3]


[quote:65b03949d3]
We are not talking about the "Sedar" (i.e. what the Jews have done in distorting the Passover), but the actual Passover. We want to know what Exodus 12 says, not what Jewish children do today.
[/quote:65b03949d3]


Just what i was going to say.:yes:
 
One last post here and I am done:

Using the [i:5b7e0a1ad5]Analogy of Faith[/i:5b7e0a1ad5], using the Scripture to interpret Scripture, we find that we must move beyond Exodus 12 to answer the question of children eating the Passover meal. The question is not settled in Exodus.

Looking at the other occurrences when the nation celebrated the Passover we have seen that "the whole assembly", "all the people", and "all who had separated themselves" ate the meal.

Is is true that "all" may leave people out? Yes that is true. But is it true in this case?

I have also already show from the Scripture how when all the assembly gathered for significant events in the OT, children were included.

"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).

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 "all" does leave people out we are told who is left out, by the way, and a return now to Exodus 12 shows that only those who were uncircumcised (out of the camp, not of Israel) were fenced from this Table!

Phillip
 
[quote:062a368498]

When do you feel comfortable giving communion to children?
[/quote:062a368498]


When they are Baptized, confessing members of the Church.
 
[quote:fc51906f28][i:fc51906f28]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:fc51906f28]
[quote:fc51906f28]

When do you feel comfortable giving communion to children?
[/quote:fc51906f28]


When they are Baptized, confessing members of the Church. [/quote:fc51906f28]




Yes, BUT when are they capable of comprehending this confession.

That's my ultimite question, what age is this attainable?
 
[quote:bb4e0dfd6a][i:bb4e0dfd6a]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:bb4e0dfd6a]
So if the opinion of the my church session is that my 4yr old is able to understand then we give him/her the meal?

And if you say no then when is this attainable? [/quote:bb4e0dfd6a]
 
[quote:fde4d164a6]
Yes, BUT when are they capable of comprehending this confession.

That's my ultimite question, what age is this attainable?
[/quote:fde4d164a6]

How much do we comprehend it? My comprehension grows day by day.

How much do the feeble minded or handicapped understand it ? ?

My 4 and 6 year old children have a basic understanding of the creed. They partake of the supper.

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Wintermute]
 
[quote:75151da8b8][i:75151da8b8]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:75151da8b8]
So if the opinion of the my church session is that my 4yr old is able to understand then we give him/her the meal?

And if you say no then when is this attainable? [/quote:75151da8b8]


The answer is yes.

The ability to profess the gospel is nothing mechanically determined. That is why elders must be men of spiritual wisdom and discernment.

That is also why we do not leave that task to parents
 
One thing to remember is that in the Presbyterian Church when a child of whatever age is admitted to the Lord's Table, there is more to it. The child of 4 becomes a communing member of that particular church and will be required to make membership vows (a covenant), which they also must understand. As a member they will not only have the right to the Lord's Supper but they can also vote in congregational meetings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top