# Question for paedocommunionists



## Me Died Blue (Aug 22, 2004)

In recent times on the board I've seen passive remarks regarding support of paedocommunion by various people. So as someone who once held the paedocommuionist position myself, I would like to pose an exegetical and theological question to those who still have such leanings: How do you interpret and apply 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 - in other words, what do you take Paul to be saying in those verses, and how do you justify your paedocommunionist leanings in light of that interpretation? I'm interested to see if I will get the type of responses I anticipate.


----------



## openairboy (Aug 24, 2004)

[quote:2ce11b75f4="Me Died Blue"]In recent times on the board I've seen passive remarks regarding support of paedocommunion by various people. So as someone who once held the paedocommuionist position myself, I would like to pose an exegetical and theological question to those who still have such leanings: How do you interpret and apply 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 - in other words, what do you take Paul to be saying in those verses, and how do you justify your paedocommunionist leanings in light of that interpretation? I'm interested to see if I will get the type of responses I anticipate.[/quote:2ce11b75f4]

Hey Chris,

How did you answer it when you were paedo? What persuaded you away from the position? I hope to write a little something, but it probably won't be until next week due to my schedule (a lot of work and a big fantasy football draft this weekend).

openairboy


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 29, 2004)

Well, since none that lean toward the paedocommunion side have yet answered my question, I'll say what I was thinking, based on what I used to argue, and based on what I've heard from people on this board who still lean toward paedocommunion, particularly Mark Kodak and Craig Sowder. Of course, the chief text that has made paedocommunion next to non-existent in the church is 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (ESV): "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." The primary paedocommunion answer to this passage I have heard (and indeed, the one I used to give) is basically that the original language simply instructs us to "examine the body" before partaking, and that even though the church has traditionally interpreted that to mean a personal, introspective examination of one's own mind and heart with respect to faith in the cross, there is no warrant to interpret it thus. In other words, the objection is that it is likely that Paul was simply correcting the Corinthians' gluttonous, sloppy treatment of the Supper, each person hastening to get food for themself, and not treating it as a holy ordinance. Thus, it is argued, each person does not need to personally examine his or her own heart and mind before partaking, but the congregation as a whole simply needs to put and recognize the Supper in its proper place as a holy ordinance for everyone - that "discern the body" is referring to acknowledgment of the church body rather than examination of oneself. From there, it is argued that since we baptize infants because they are presumed to be regenerate (or simply elect, depending on who you ask), and that since 1 Cor. 11 does not in fact require personal, introspective examination, that baptized infants should be able to participate like everyone else.

In short, the paedocommunionist argument is, "Of course infants cannot thoughtfully examine their own hearts, but that's not what 1 Cor. 11 is commanding; rather, it's only commanding a general recognition by the church body of each other and the Supper's set-apart nature - and baptized infants are a part of that external church body just like any of us, and should therefore be allowed to partake." However, there is an absolutely massive logical jump and overlook in this argument, which lies in the fact that [b:ade5d7b38b]all we are presuming of our baptized infants is that they are regenerate, and a part of the external church. However, we also know for sure that external covenant status and presumed regeneration is not enough to ensure that one is in-line with the commands of 1 Cor. 11 - for ALL the members of the Corinthian church necessarily had those two things, yet Paul [i:ade5d7b38b]still[/i:ade5d7b38b] had to rebuke them for their abuse of the Supper, since some of them had died because of God's judgment![/b:ade5d7b38b]

So even if we [i:ade5d7b38b]do[/i:ade5d7b38b] grant the paedocommunionists' interpretation of "discerning the body" as being merely a general heed for reverance to the congregation as a whole (which, by the way, is not even the best interpretation based on other related Scriptures, such as 2 Chronicles 30:18-20), some Corinthian adults who themselves had external covenant status and presumed regeneration were still judged for not heeding this command to "discern the body," whatever interpretation of that phrase one takes! And thus none of us can know that our baptized children are any safer from abusing the Supper than were those adults! For all persons are victims of original sin from birth (Ps. 51:5, 58:3), and not even external covenant status and presumed regeneration are enough to assume that that sin will not take over in one's partaking of the Supper, as proven by God's judgment on those presumably regenerate, covenant Corinthians who somehow failed to "discern the body." Paul's advice to the Corinthian church in light of their judged adults shows that the church needs more evidence of one's sanctification than simply external covenant membership and presumed regeneration in order to administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to someone.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 29, 2004)

No PC takers on these questions? Mark, Craig, anyone?


----------



## Goosha (Sep 8, 2004)

Hey, I'll take a crack at it.

"27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

Since I'm so poor at history, I tend to take alot of caution with interpretation. I do have a strong background in classical greek but my pathetic historical knowledge tends to get the best of me. Now, I recently heard an interpretation (I think Wilson) which suggests that the phrase "recognizing the body" refers to the body of Christ in the Church. In other words, people need to be conscientious of other Christians as they partake in communion. Either way you look at it, young Children are often argued to not be incapable of "recognizing the body" either interpretation you take. 

I'm not really impressed with such an application of this text. The context has nothing to do with children in the first place. This would be akin to arguing that since the bible gives numerous examples of adults professing faith prior to baptism; therefore, unless infants can profess faith they cannot be baptized. Children would not be held to the same standard as adults; rather, children are held to childish standards (obey mommy and daddy). 

By the way, Steve Wilkins and other paedocommunionists have argued that the early church did in fact practice paedocommunion but it was the reformers who made the bed for the half-way covenant that westminster has slepted in ever since. 

Half-way Covenant-
If we believe that baptism and the Lord's Supper to be sacraments, then what benefit is there to give them only some the sacraments. Suppose I challanged Christians to perservere in there faith without praying. This is rediculous! All of the sacraments and the various means of grace work together to build up our holy faith. Withholding the Lord's Supper and yet giving them the other means of grace- preaching, prayer, baptism etc. simply does not make any good sense to me. Not to mention the fact, the Passover would have included the whole family not just those capable of understanding the passover.


----------



## Goosha (Sep 8, 2004)

Me Died Blue wrote
[quote:a200bf3113][So even if we [i:a200bf3113]do[/i:a200bf3113] grant the paedocommunionists' interpretation of "discerning the body" as being merely a general heed for reverance to the congregation as a whole (which, by the way, is not even the best interpretation based on other related Scriptures, such as 2 Chronicles 30:18-20), some Corinthian adults who themselves had external covenant status and presumed regeneration were still judged for not heeding this command to "discern the body," whatever interpretation of that phrase one takes! And thus none of us can know that our baptized children are any safer from abusing the Supper than were those adults! For all persons are victims of original sin from birth (Ps. 51:5, 58:3), and not even external covenant status and presumed regeneration are enough to assume that that sin will not take over in one's partaking of the Supper, as proven by God's judgment on those presumably regenerate, covenant Corinthians who somehow failed to "discern the body." Paul's advice to the Corinthian church in light of their judged adults shows that the church needs more evidence of one's sanctification than simply external covenant membership and presumed regeneration in order to administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to someone.[/quote:a200bf3113]

This assumes that this particular text need be applied to children the same way its applied to adults. I don't believe this is justified. This is no different than many arguments used by credo-baptists. For instance, 1 Peter 3:21 "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." Can infants make a pledge of a good conscience? This of course is what many baptists argue and I don't don't see it anymore convincing than arguments made from this passage against paedocomunion.


[/quote]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 8, 2004)

Hey Chris,

Sorry but I somehow have totally missed this thread until now. 

You said:

[quote:20ba94db19]In short, the paedocommunionist argument is, "Of course infants cannot thoughtfully examine their own hearts, but that's not what 1 Cor. 11 is commanding; rather, it's only commanding a general recognition by the church body of each other and the Supper's set-apart nature - and baptized infants are a part of that external church body just like any of us, and should therefore be allowed to partake." However, there is an absolutely massive logical jump and overlook in this argument, which lies in the fact that all we are presuming of our baptized infants is that they are regenerate, and a part of the external church. However, we also know for sure that external covenant status and presumed regeneration is not enough to ensure that one is in-line with the commands of 1 Cor. 11 - for ALL the members of the Corinthian church necessarily had those two things, yet Paul still had to rebuke them for their abuse of the Supper, since some of them had died because of God's judgment! 

So even if we do grant the paedocommunionists' interpretation of "discerning the body" as being merely a general heed for reverance to the congregation as a whole (which, by the way, is not even the best interpretation based on other related Scriptures, such as 2 Chronicles 30:18-20), some Corinthian adults who themselves had external covenant status and presumed regeneration were still judged for not heeding this command to "discern the body," whatever interpretation of that phrase one takes! And thus none of us can know that our baptized children are any safer from abusing the Supper than were those adults! For all persons are victims of original sin from birth (Ps. 51:5, 58:3), and not even external covenant status and presumed regeneration are enough to assume that that sin will not take over in one's partaking of the Supper, as proven by God's judgment on those presumably regenerate, covenant Corinthians who somehow failed to "discern the body." [/quote:20ba94db19]

I'll be honest, Chris. I don't see the weight of this argument at all. So what if there were adults who were presumed regenerate and part of the visible church that died because of taking the supper unworthily? This says nothing to paedocommunion. In fact, if it is possible for adults that are presumed regenerate and part of the church to take the supper unworthily, then you shouldn't even give the supper to adults based on the same standard. It's only if you assume that all children are unworthy partakers that this argument would begin to have weight. But I don't buy into this assumption, so I disagree with the argument.

[quote:20ba94db19]Paul's advice to the Corinthian church in light of their judged adults shows that the church needs more evidence of one's sanctification than simply external covenant membership and presumed regeneration in order to administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to someone.[/quote:20ba94db19]

How much evidence would be enough? Children obviously are not as mature in their thinking as adults. But this does not mean they cannot heed the command of Scripture. Adults examine themselves [i:20ba94db19]as adults[/i:20ba94db19]. Children examine themselves [i:20ba94db19]as children[/i:20ba94db19]. I don't see the problem.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 8, 2004)

Thanks for replying Ed. I've been waiting for your reponse. Looking forward to reading more concerning your opinion on this.


----------



## daveb (Sep 8, 2004)

[quote:9e0959d116="luvroftheWord"]Children examine themselves [i:9e0959d116]as children[/i:9e0959d116].[/quote:9e0959d116]

Just curious as to what age you think a child would be able to examine themselves.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 8, 2004)

Each child is different. It may be earlier for different children than others. But I think this is a decision the parents must make. They are the ones primarily responsible for teaching their children the gospel and discipling them. Just like the profession of the faith of the parents is required for them to receive baptism, I think it is also fair to let the parents determine when it is time for their child to being taking communion, just because of their headship over the child.

Here's the main thing that I disagree with concerning traditional Presbyterianism. I don't agree with making a child wait until they are such and such an age and them make them go through a class or something and be tested by the elders to see if they are fit to take communion. This doesn't make it any more likely that the child is fit for communion than the parents' discipling of the child makes them fit. This is because the inward condition of the heart is something that cannot be seen by any group of elders (or parents, for that matter). As Chris already pointed out, there are many people in the visible church who have been catechized and have been tested by the elders and are presumed to be saved that have taken the elements in an unworthy manner, and have even apostasized from the faith altogether. And likewise, there are many children that are fully able to taking the supper in a worthy manner, but are withheld from it because they haven't been properly catechized or been grilled by the elders. All we can do is give the command to examine, and distribute the supper in faith. No group of elders can accomplish any more than that to begin with.

Also, I should say that I have been told that my position is not considered a paedocommunion position because I don't necessarily advocate infants partaking of the table. I admit that this is for pragmatic reasons, because such a thing would be difficult to do (do we really grind up the bread into the baby's formula?), and I don't mind saying that because even though I think the sacraments are vitally important to the lives of believers, I am not superstitious about them. Their partaking of either of the sacraments can be delayed for any number of reasons. I just think traditional Presbyterianism delays it more than is necessary to accomplish what they are trying to do. If this is not truly a paedocommunion position, then whatever. That's fine with me.

That may not be helpful or rational to anyone, but that's some input from me.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 9, 2004)

[quote:34eda85ca3="Goosha"]
Half-way covenant-
If we believe that baptism and the Lord's Supper to be sacraments, then what benefit is there to give them only some the sacraments. Suppose I challanged Christians to perservere in there faith without praying. This is rediculous! All of the sacraments and the various means of grace work together to build up our holy faith. Withholding the Lord's Supper and yet giving them the other means of grace- preaching, prayer, baptism etc. simply does not make any good sense to me. Not to mention the fact, the Passover would have included the whole family not just those capable of understanding the passover.[/quote:34eda85ca3]
I've heard this phrase "half-way covenant" used to attack the traditional meaning quite often and I think it is rather irresponsible. The Half-Way Covenant controversy was not from Calvin or Westminster. It was a controversy in New England between those who wished to allow baptised non-professing members the privilege of baptising their children and partaking of the Lord's Supper and those who wished to maintain the necessity of a profession of faith to be admitted to communicant membership in order to partake of the Supper and baptise their children. First, this was a Congregational dispute, not a Presbyterian dispute. Second, the Half-Way covenant proponents were simply wrong in allowing non-professing members to partake of these sacraments. To equate this heresy with the traditional Presbyterian view is simply irresponsible. The controversy had nothing to do with peado-communion


----------



## Goosha (Sep 9, 2004)

Puritan Sailor writes:
"I've heard this phrase "half-way covenant" used to attack the traditional meaning quite often and I think it is rather irresponsible. " 

I'm glad at least thats the only thing you think is wrong with my post You may be correct about my misuse of the term but I'd like to think its cuz I'm bad at history not because i'm irresponsible Anyways, I won't use the term anymore unless I'm refering to the controversy.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 9, 2004)

[quote:63f41de592]17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. 

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come. 
[/quote:63f41de592]

A couple of points, note in verse 27 the "therefore" is referring back to what was previously discussed and that was the right administration of the sacrament. To say that the "Lord's body" in verse 29 represents the Church just makes no since in the context with Paul's discourse on the right administration of the "Body and Blood" and the consequences of taking the sacrament in an unworthy manner in verse 27. We should also consider where Paul has used the phrase "examine himself" as he has in verse 28. Consider 2 Cor 13:5-6 [b:63f41de592]Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified. 6 But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified. [/b:63f41de592]

Another point to consider is the exegetical evidence that small children were partakers of the Passover after Israel entered the land of Canaan. Once Israel crossed the Jordan there was a distinct change in the administration of the Passover feast. Only men could participate and were to congregate only were the Lord designated. There is an article by Roger Beckwith that has been posted in here which discusses this issue at length: 
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5757&highlight=

This article points out that even peadocommunionists agree that there is no exegetical evidence that after Israel entered the promised land that children partook of the Passover feast. The only thing that we have in Scripture that points to an age of possible participation in the Passover is when Jesus was at the temple during the Passover and Scripture notes that he was 12 years old. Since the Passover and the Lord's Supper are connected, unless you could point to something in Scripture that would directly say or inferr that small children participated in the Passover or the Lord's Supper, you would be on very shakey ground to allow small children who were ignorant of the meaning of the Supper to paricipate.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 9, 2004)

Wayne, 

What if small children are not ignorant of what the supper means? Would they be allowed to participate then?


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 9, 2004)

If a child (or adult) were able to make a credible profession of faith (understand what the Gospel means) and show that they can discern the Body and Blood (understand what the Supper is about) to a Session then they can participate and become a communing member. As you know, the PCA has not set a specific age limit for becoming a communing member. It is left to the discretion of the Session. Some Churches have set the limit at 8 and some at 12.

The real issue for most peadocommunionists like Wilson, is that when a child can take communion is up to the parents not the Church. Examination by a Session is not necessary. Baptism is the only requirement for participation. He advocates that a child should be able to participate as soon as they can chew solid food, which could be as young as 1 yr or 18 months old or possibly younger if the parents want it that way.

LOTW, what did you think of Beckwith's article?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 9, 2004)

[quote:147e834875="Goosha"]Puritan Sailor writes:
"I've heard this phrase "half-way covenant" used to attack the traditional meaning quite often and I think it is rather irresponsible. " 

I'm glad at least thats the only thing you think is wrong with my post You may be correct about my misuse of the term but I'd like to think its cuz I'm bad at history not because i'm irresponsible Anyways, I won't use the term anymore unless I'm refering to the controversy.[/quote:147e834875]
Sorry, didn't mean to be harsh. I know I can be a little blunt sometimes. But using phrases like that just distracts from the issue at hand and makes people defensive. There was more I disagreed with, but I think Wayne is addressing those concerns already. But my job and desire as a moderator, and as a seeker of truth, is to get to the bottom of the disagreement so we can resolve it and build from there. Phrases and nuances like the one you used (though certainly not maliciously) don't help us get to the core of the issue and help us discover the truth together. Again, sorry if I was harsh. Just trying to facilitate biblical grounds for unity


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 9, 2004)

Wayne,

I thought the article was interesting, and it has certainly got me thinking about things. I'll write more when I've thought about it more. I'm sure Jayson (Goosha) and I will be discussing this article quite a bit (we are roommates, after all), so we'll both probably be of more help after we've bounced a few thoughts off each other.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 9, 2004)

Craig,

To be sure that I am hearing you right, are you advocating:



[*:43f836def9]Participation in communion by every professing believer and all their children (starting as soon as you can physically get bread into their mouths
[*:43f836def9]Participation in communion by every professing believer and their children as soon as they can show some signs of thinking (say, 2 years old)
[*:43f836def9]Participation in communion by every professing believer as soon as they can make a credible profession of faith before the Session, even if that is at a very young age (say, even as young as 4 or 5)
[/list:43f836def9]

I think this will help me understand your position much better. Thanks.

(By the way, we've been praying for you and the RTS Orlando Students here at Jackson)


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 9, 2004)

Hmmm... I think my position is along the lines of (2). But I think it would involve more than just simply being able to think. I would advocate a child partaking of communion after they have been taught the gospel and what communion is all about. This can be difficult to do for a child that is as young as 2-years-old. But of course, I don't believe you can hold a child to the same standard of self-examination as an adult. Children can examine themselves, but only with childlike capabilities. For example, a child knows how to tell if he has obeyed Mommy and Daddy, though his ability to answer such questions is not as advanced as an adolescent child, which in turn is not as advanced as that of an adult. But would you ever indict a 5-year-old child as having not properly examined himself as to whether or not he has obeyed his parents simply because he is not yet capable of grasping all the fine contours of human introspection? (For example, he may not have physically taken the cookie from the cookie jar against his parents' wishes, but he still has the impending desire inside himself to disobey his parents and get that cookie if he can get away with it, which is still dishonoring his parents.) So I think there are different levels of self-examination and understanding, and I think this must be taken into account when heeding the command of 1 Cor. 11.

I hope that makes sense.

Thanks also for your prayers (I assume its because of the hurricanes and not because you think we've fallen off the cliff of sound doctrine into the sea of rank liberalism.  )


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 9, 2004)

Thread hijack begins:

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

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

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

Taken from: http://www.dr-fnlee.org/


Thread hijack released


----------



## daveb (Sep 9, 2004)

[quote:7cbd92e558="luvroftheWord"]
That may not be helpful or rational to anyone, but that's some input from me.[/quote:7cbd92e558]

Thanks, that was helpful. I appreciate your feedback.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 10, 2004)

Craig,

When you and Jayson discuss Beckwith's article, and being the budding theologian that you are, I would be very interested to know how you deal with the lack of any exegetical support for small children taking communion/passover. I think this area is the achilles heal for peadocommunionists.


----------



## Goosha (Sep 14, 2004)

Hi Wayne,

I have just deleted two posts in response. That article is very long and highly technical so responding to it isn't easy. I have written two reponses but both of them were based off of a misunderstanding of the article. I need to make sure I aim my response correctly so it might be a few days.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 14, 2004)

Jayson,

I will be very interested to read your response. You are right it's a pretty technical paper. I think that the bottom line is does Scripture provide any evidence concerning the participation of small children in either the Passover (after Israel entered the Promised Land) or the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Goosha (Sep 15, 2004)

Wayne wrote:
[quote:d81ee99561]A couple of points, note in verse 27 the "therefore" is referring back to what was previously discussed and that was the right administration of the sacrament. To say that the "Lord's body" in verse 29 represents the Church just makes no since in the context with Paul's discourse on the right administration of the "Body and Blood" and the consequences of taking the sacrament in an unworthy manner in verse 27. We should also consider where Paul has used the phrase "examine himself" as he has in verse 28. Consider 2 Cor 13:5-6 [b:d81ee99561]Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified. 6 But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified. [/b:d81ee99561][/quote:d81ee99561]

Goosha writes:
Perhaps your right, I tend to agree with your interpretation that body has an immediate meaning referring to the elements as opposed to the congregation. But I would like ask you why you think this applies to children the same way as adults. 

I think your exegesis is fine. My issue is the application of your exegesis. For instance, suppose I were to quote Peter in Acts 2:38, "œRepent and be baptized"¦." and then try to argue that infants can"(tm)t repent because they do not have the mental capacity for repentance and then argue that infants shouldn"(tm)t be baptized for this reason. You probably wouldn"(tm)t accept this. I know I don"(tm)t except this line of reasoning; unfortunately, I don"(tm)t see how this is any different than taking a passage that doesn"(tm)t appear to address the subject of infants and very young children and using it against paedocommunion. Or maybe 1 Peter 3:21 "œand this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." Infants are incapable of pledging a good conscience so they shouldn"(tm)t be baptized. None of these arguments are very convincing because they fail from the same problem- they assume that these texts need be applied to infants the same as to adults.

Wayne wrote:
[quote:d81ee99561]Another point to consider is the exegetical evidence that small children were partakers of the Passover after Israel entered the land of Canaan. Once Israel crossed the Jordan there was a distinct change in the administration of the Passover feast. Only men could participate and were to congregate only were the Lord designated. There is an article by Roger Beckwith that has been posted in here which discusses this issue at length: 
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5757&highlight=

This article points out that even peadocommunionists agree that there is no exegetical evidence that after Israel entered the promised land that children partook of the Passover feast. The only thing that we have in Scripture that points to an age of possible participation in the Passover is when Jesus was at the temple during the Passover and Scripture notes that he was 12 years old. Since the Passover and the Lord's Supper are connected, unless you could point to something in Scripture that would directly say or infer that small children participated in the Passover or the Lord's Supper, you would be on very shakey ground to allow small children who were ignorant of the meaning of the Supper to paricipate.[/quote:d81ee99561]

Goosha writes:

I"(tm)ve had to read Beckwith"(tm)s article several times in order to understand the main thrust of his argument. Since I don"(tm)t take Keidel"(tm)s for two distinct administrations of the Passover, I don"(tm)t think some of Beckwith"(tm)s arguments even apply to me. He doesn"(tm)t appear anywhere in that article to even make a scriptural justification for women and children not participating in the Passover. He does however suggest, based off of the passages referred to by Keidel, that there is little historical evidence for their inclusion. He argues that the Jews interpreted the Passover, after settling in the promise land, in such a way that women and children were not even encouraged to partake. And historically he argues that most likely they didn"(tm)t for a large portion of Jewish history. 

Thus, I can only argue from what reasons I think children participated in the Passover and really can"(tm)t buy into what Beckwith is trying to say because he doesn"(tm)t really make any biblical case. Seems to me like he isn"(tm)t really sure whether children were supposed to participate but thinks the historical, theological, and rabbinical evidence points to the likelihood that they didn"(tm)t. 

Since he doesn"(tm)t have a biblical argument and I"(tm)m not going argue against his use of rabbinic tradition and Jewish history, I can only give what I think is biblical evidence.

Wayne wrote:
"œOnly men could participate and were to congregate only were the Lord designated."

Here are my reasons for why I think this isn"(tm)t true:

1.) Exodus 10:9 anticipates women and children participating in the Passover festival.
2.) Exodus 12:24-27 contradicts the assertion that there are two distinct Passover meals. This text explicitly predicts that children will ask questions concerning the Passover when they have already entered the promise land; consequently, the change to exclusion of women and children simply doesn"(tm)t jive with the text.
3.) The requirements of the Passover do not indicate that participants are required to understand the feast. Basically, circumcision, the ability to eat, and being ritually clean are the only requirements that I have been able to find. If this is true of communion, then the case seems to be pretty straightforward.
4.) Luke 2:41 indicates Joseph and Mary traveling to Jerusalem every year during the Passover. I think we have a good case example of a family traveling regularly toegther for feast. If Mary wasn't encouraged to participate, I find little reason why she would make the long journey. I suppose its possible that she may have not participated but unless someone can give a good reason why, I think most likely they faithfully celebrated it as a family. 
5.) The basis for excluding women and children (in Beckwith"(tm)s article-Keidel"(tm)s idea) is taken from a command aimed at men (Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16). I hate to argue this way but I just don"(tm)t see anything in these passages that would exclude women and children. Granted, the commands are aimed at the men but that doesn"(tm)t mean women and children weren"(tm)t allowed to participate; it just means that the men were the responsible ones for keeping the Passover. Not too convincing to me.

Now, having said this much:

I would like to ask why a person would give their children all of the means of grace except for one. Doesn"(tm)t it defeat the purpose? What if I tried to live for Jesus without prayer, do you think I could do it? Children are just as in need of all the sacraments and means of grace as adults. So why would you let your children pray, participate in worship, preaching, baptism and not communion?


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 16, 2004)

Wayne wrote: 
Quote:
A couple of points, note in verse 27 the "therefore" is referring back to what was previously discussed and that was the right administration of the sacrament. To say that the "Lord's body" in verse 29 represents the Church just makes no since in the context with Paul's discourse on the right administration of the "Body and Blood" and the consequences of taking the sacrament in an unworthy manner in verse 27. We should also consider where Paul has used the phrase "examine himself" as he has in verse 28. Consider 2 Cor 13:5-6 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified. 6 But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified. 


Goosha writes: 
Perhaps your right, I tend to agree with your interpretation that body has an immediate meaning referring to the elements as opposed to the congregation. But I would like ask you why you think this applies to children the same way as adults. 

I think your exegesis is fine. My issue is the application of your exegesis. For instance, suppose I were to quote Peter in Acts 2:38, "œRepent and be baptized"¦." and then try to argue that infants can"(tm)t repent because they do not have the mental capacity for repentance and then argue that infants shouldn"(tm)t be baptized for this reason. You probably wouldn"(tm)t accept this. I know I don"(tm)t except this line of reasoning; unfortunately, I don"(tm)t see how this is any different than taking a passage that doesn"(tm)t appear to address the subject of infants and very young children and using it against paedocommunion. Or maybe 1 Peter 3:21 "œand this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." Infants are incapable of pledging a good conscience so they shouldn"(tm)t be baptized. None of these arguments are very convincing because they fail from the same problem- they assume that these texts need be applied to infants the same as to adults. 

Wayne Writes:
The problem with this type of argument is that it does not take into consideration the differences between the two sacraments. I consider this the "œBaptist trap". As you have noted, they are not convincing. This argument assumes that both sacraments stand or fall together in regards to infants and small children. Obviously they don"(tm)t. Infants who were circumcised in the OT and children in the NT who were baptized were obviously not required to "œrepent and believe" as adults are required to do. Infants were circumcised because they were considered Israelites and the promises of the covenant were to the Israelites and their children, with circumcision being the sign of this covenant. Baptism of infants works the same way as Peter notes also in Acts 2:39 that the promise is to you and your children. So if a child is born to at least one Christian parent, they are considered Christians and receive the sign of the covenant (1 Cor 7:14). This makes the sacrament of baptism a "œpassive" sacrament for the child. But in a sense it is an active sacrament for the parent for they covenant with God to raise up the child to understand what their baptism means. 


Wayne wrote: 
Quote:
Another point to consider is the exegetical evidence that small children were partakers of the Passover after Israel entered the land of Canaan. Once Israel crossed the Jordan there was a distinct change in the administration of the Passover feast. Only men could participate and were to congregate only were the Lord designated. There is an article by Roger Beckwith that has been posted in here which discusses this issue at length: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5757&highlight= This article points out that even peadocommunionists agree that there is no exegetical evidence that after Israel entered the promised land that children partook of the Passover feast. The only thing that we have in Scripture that points to an age of possible participation in the Passover is when Jesus was at the temple during the Passover and Scripture notes that he was 12 years old. Since the Passover and the Lord's Supper are connected, unless you could point to something in Scripture that would directly say or infer that small children participated in the Passover or the Lord's Supper, you would be on very shakey ground to allow small children who were ignorant of the meaning of the Supper to paricipate.


Goosha writes: 

I"(tm)ve had to read Beckwith"(tm)s article several times in order to understand the main thrust of his argument. Since I don"(tm)t take Keidel"(tm)s for two distinct administrations of the Passover, I don"(tm)t think some of Beckwith"(tm)s arguments even apply to me. He doesn"(tm)t appear anywhere in that article to even make a scriptural justification for women and children not participating in the Passover. He does however suggest, based off of the passages referred to by Keidel, that there is little historical evidence for their inclusion. He argues that the Jews interpreted the Passover, after settling in the promise land, in such a way that women and children were not even encouraged to partake. And historically he argues that most likely they didn"(tm)t for a large portion of Jewish history. 

Thus, I can only argue from what reasons I think children participated in the Passover and really can"(tm)t buy into what Beckwith is trying to say because he doesn"(tm)t really make any biblical case. Seems to me like he isn"(tm)t really sure whether children were supposed to participate but thinks the historical, theological, and rabbinical evidence points to the likelihood that they didn"(tm)t. 

Since he doesn"(tm)t have a biblical argument and I"(tm)m not going argue against his use of rabbinic tradition and Jewish history, I can only give what I think is biblical evidence. 

Wayne writes:

I would disagree that Beckwith does not make a biblical case. He noted under section 5. "œThe Analogy of the Passover Meal" the biblical evidence not only the fact that the administration of the sacrament had changed when Israel entered the promised land but also included biblical arguments for men only with the following: "œHe concedes that the command to go up to Jerusalem in subsequent years for the passover and the other two pilgrim feasts applied only to males (Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16), and only to those among them who had reached the age for the fulfilling of the commandments. But he contends that this change was because of the centralized sanctuary, which has now, under the gospel, been abolished; so the true antecedent of the Lord"(tm)s supper is not the later passovers but the first passover, where women and children partook as well as men." Of course he is attempting to deal with Keidel"(tm)s paper but the argument is fair regardless. There was a change in administration when the Israelites entered the promise land. The biblical evidence is clear.


Wayne wrote: 
"œOnly men could participate and were to congregate only were the Lord designated." 

Here are my reasons for why I think this isn"(tm)t true: 

1.) Exodus 10:9 anticipates women and children participating in the Passover festival. 
2.) Exodus 12:24-27 contradicts the assertion that there are two distinct Passover meals. This text explicitly predicts that children will ask questions concerning the Passover when they have already entered the promise land; consequently, the change to exclusion of women and children simply doesn"(tm)t jive with the text. 
3.) The requirements of the Passover do not indicate that participants are required to understand the feast. Basically, circumcision, the ability to eat, and being ritually clean are the only requirements that I have been able to find. If this is true of communion, then the case seems to be pretty straightforward. 
4.) Luke 2:41 indicates Joseph and Mary traveling to Jerusalem every year during the Passover. I think we have a good case example of a family traveling regularly toegther for feast. If Mary wasn't encouraged to participate, I find little reason why she would make the long journey. I suppose its possible that she may have not participated but unless someone can give a good reason why, I think most likely they faithfully celebrated it as a family. 
5.) The basis for excluding women and children (in Beckwith"(tm)s article-Keidel"(tm)s idea) is taken from a command aimed at men (Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16). I hate to argue this way but I just don"(tm)t see anything in these passages that would exclude women and children. Granted, the commands are aimed at the men but that doesn"(tm)t mean women and children weren"(tm)t allowed to participate; it just means that the men were the responsible ones for keeping the Passover. Not too convincing to me. 

Wayne writes:

I"(tm)ll take these one at a time.
1.) Ex 10:9 refers to a feast just before the eighth plague (locusts). The Passover was not instituted until the final plague.
2.) The point has to do with a change in the administration of the Passover per Ex 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16 and who participates. The fact that the child asks questions does not mean that he participated.
3.) Disagree. Consider 2 Chr 30:18-20. Here King Hezekiah prays, "œ"May the good Lord provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary." And the Lord listened to Hezekiah and healed the people." Remember that God desires mercy not sacrifice (Matt 12:7). Not understanding what the sacrament points to makes the sign meaningless.
4.) Beckwith makes this same point when he makes the point regarding the Essenes and the Pharisees.
5.) These passages are pretty clear that only men were to go up. You seem to be basing your comments on the fact that Scripture does not specifically state that women and children were excluded. This is quite a leap. You would need to offer a passage that would at least infer that they participated. Otherwise this is just an argument from silence.

Now, having said this much: 

I would like to ask why a person would give their children all of the means of grace except for one. Doesn"(tm)t it defeat the purpose? What if I tried to live for Jesus without prayer, do you think I could do it? Children are just as in need of all the sacraments and means of grace as adults. So why would you let your children pray, participate in worship, preaching, baptism and not communion?

I understand your concern for the children of the Church. I can tell that you take this issue seriously as you should. This is an issue that touches every Christian"(tm)s heart that care for the children of the Church. 

As Christians we are to "œlive by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God". That would be Holy Scripture. Scripture tells us that there are requirements for participation in the Sacraments, for both in the OT saints and the NT saints. The Church would not baptize an infant of a pagan, only a child of a Christian. This is God"(tm)s requirement for baptism. God has also prescribed a requirement for the participation in the sacrament of the Lord"(tm)s Supper; one must be a professing baptized believer and must be able to discern the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament in order not to eat and drink God"(tm)s judgment. This is God"(tm)s requirement for all who come to the table, adults and children alike.

But one thing I find interesting about this issue is that it appears that the sacraments are put at the same level as the preaching of the Word of God. The sacraments are a means of grace in order to bolster one"(tm)s faith, but it is the preaching and teaching of the Word of God that changes lives and gives meaning to the sacraments. And this is what our children have the privilege of hearing from the Church and is the most precious means of grace that God can provide. It is a means of grace that leads to salvation!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 16, 2004)

No comments on Nigel Lee's paper?


----------



## Goosha (Sep 17, 2004)

Wayne writes: 

[quote:684a84f5c6]I"(tm)ll take these one at a time. 
1.) Ex 10:9 refers to a feast just before the eighth plague (locusts). The Passover was not instituted until the final plague. [/quote:684a84f5c6]

Goosha"(tm)s response:
1.) Yeah, I think that makes sense. The tenth plague is necessary even for the Passover to exist.

Wayne writes:
[quote:684a84f5c6]2.) The point has to do with a change in the administration of the Passover per Ex 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16 and who participates. The fact that the child asks questions does not mean that he participated.[/quote:684a84f5c6]

Goosha"(tm)s response:
2.) Here are the verses-
[quote:684a84f5c6]Exodus 23:17 "Three times a year all the men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD."
Exodus 34:23 "œThree times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD , the God of Israel."
Deuteronomy 16:16 "œThree times a year all your men must appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles. No man should appear before the LORD empty-handed:"[/quote:684a84f5c6]
My argument works well if you take the position that children weren"(tm)t present at the Passover meal. Since children would have to at least witness the festival to know enough in order to ask questions, I think Exodus 12:24-27 sufficiently refutes this. 

If the above passages limit who participates in each of these three appearances, then women and children would not have participated in any of the festivals referenced in these verses. In other words, the above passages refer to more than just the Passover. Therefore, the above verses would also prove that women and children should not partake of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles according to your argument. However, we know that children participated in both the Feast of Weeks and Feast of Tabernacle(Deuteronomy 16:9-17). Consequently, the foundation for a change of administration is lacking. Since we know that the original institution included the whole congregation (Exodus 12:3-4, Exodus 12:47) and since young children met the minimum requirements, we don"(tm)t have any reason to think they didn"(tm)t participate. There is no evidence that God changed the administration to including only men and since the original institution gives us every indication of women and children participating, we have good reason that with the added stipulations women and children [b:684a84f5c6]continued[/b:684a84f5c6] to participate.

Wayne writes: 
[quote:684a84f5c6]3.) Disagree. Consider 2 Chr 30:18-20. Here King Hezekiah prays, "œ"May the good Lord provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary." And the Lord listened to Hezekiah and healed the people." Remember that God desires mercy not sacrifice (Matt 12:7). Not understanding what the sacrament points to makes the sign meaningless. [/quote:684a84f5c6]

Goosha"(tm)s response:
3.) I don"(tm)t really care to spend much on this point. The fact that he had to pray for atonement on behalf of everyone indicates that purification was necessary but God forgave them in this instance. Otherwise, there wouldn"(tm)t have even been an issue. In all honesty though, I think on this point we simply spoke past each other. 

Wayne writes:
[quote:684a84f5c6]4.) Beckwith makes this same point when he makes the point regarding the Essenes and the Pharisees. [/quote:684a84f5c6]

Goosha"(tm)s response:
4.) I agree.

Wayne writes:
[quote:684a84f5c6]5.) These passages are pretty clear that only men were to go up. You seem to be basing your comments on the fact that Scripture does not specifically state that women and children were excluded. This is quite a leap. You would need to offer a passage that would at least infer that they participated. Otherwise this is just an argument from silence.[/quote:684a84f5c6]

Goosha"(tm)s response:
5.) If you believe that only men were to make the trip, then my original arguments sufficiently disprove this. After all, Mary accompanied Joseph every year and children were predicted (original Passover) to witness the festival and ask questions. I believe the burden of proof is on you because you"(tm)re the one claiming that there was a change in the administration. I think the original Passover gives us a sufficient basis for including women and children but you claim an abrogation of their inclusion; I"(tm)m trying to show that such a claim is simply not justified. 

Wayne writes:
[quote:684a84f5c6]God has also prescribed a requirement for the participation in the sacrament of the Lord"(tm)s Supper; one must be a professing baptized believer and must be able to discern the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament in order not to eat and drink God"(tm)s judgment. This is God"(tm)s requirement for all who come to the table, adults and children alike.[/quote:684a84f5c6]

Goosha"(tm)s response:
My argument above was based on a theological implication. The problem with theological implications is that God is not required to follow my logic or application. After all if God told me that paedocommunion was wrong and that it shouldn"(tm)t be done, I"(tm)d like to think of myself adjusting my theology to meet God"(tm)s application. In other words, your point is correct if God creates a requirement that all people need to follow than my argument would be irrelevant. However, I don"(tm)t think this is the case with children taking the supper as I have already argued that if the language need be applied to children the same as adults (In 1 Corinthians) then many of the arguments Baptists make against paedobaptism would have to be accepted. Of course, you don't agree with this and thats ok. I would rather keep focusing on the passover and deal with Corinthians later.

Wayne writes:
[quote:684a84f5c6]I can tell that you take this issue seriously as you should. This is an issue that touches every Christian"(tm)s heart that care for the children of the Church. [/quote:684a84f5c6]

Goosha's response:
Thank you, you're very kind!


Scott, I"(tm)ll spend some time next week looking at Nigel Lee. It will probably take me awhile to read through a few times so I can understand him but I try to write a response.


----------



## Goosha (Sep 20, 2004)

Hi Scott,

Here is an attempt to engage some of what Nigel argues:


Scotts Summary: 
[quote:e7e26993d4]1, infant baptism signifies regeneration (but not conversion); 
2, one's first communion at teenage signifies conversion (not regeneration); 
3, Eucharist replaces the Passover (but not circumcision);[/quote:e7e26993d4]

Jayson"(tm)s Response:
1-3: I don"(tm)t think this is really relevant but I also don"(tm)t buy into the idea that regeneration and conversion can be separated. Even if infant baptism symbolizes only regeneration, then conversion would certainly be implied. Even if first communion as a teenager symbolizes conversion, certainly conversion implies regeneration. 

Scott"(tm)s Summary:
[quote:e7e26993d4]4, the 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6's chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20); 
5, no females nor any preteenagers ever partook of the Passover till it was thus deformed by Post-Christian Liberal Judaism (+/- 200 A.D.); 
6, there is absolutely no trace whatsoever of paidocommunionism in patristic writings but only in pagan sources prior to 250 A.D.; 
7, novel paidocommunionism is a ritualistic heterodoxy of the "Eastern Orthodox" and kindred denominations quite opposed to truly-orthodox Reformed Theology; 
8, the practice of paidocommunionism abolishes the need first of catechization and then of profession of one"(tm)s faith before one"(tm)s own very first manducation at the sacrament; [/quote:e7e26993d4]

Jayson"(tm)s Response:
4-8: I"(tm)m not a lazy person but I also have no desire to argue against these historical arguments. Maybe we could have another thread devoted to just a one or two of these claims. Unfortunately, my historical skills aren"(tm)t good enough to engage these claims all at once-it could take me a couple of weeks to just verify (he could be right) only one or two of them; therefore, I will have to pass on any response.

Scott"(tm)s Summary:
[quote:e7e26993d4]9, paidocommunism ultimately leads to an uncatechized Church (which Calvin says cannot long continue without catechizing); and [/quote:e7e26993d4]

Jayson"(tm)s Response:
9. I simply don"(tm)t understand this. Does he think that parents have no motivation to catechize their children unless their children don"(tm)t partake of communion? I"(tm)m sorry, he does not provide any evidence for such a claim and I"(tm)m going to simply deny it without any evidence.

Scott"(tm)s Summary:
10, Calvin in his Institutes (IV:16:30) accordingly concludes against the Anabaptists: "œThey object that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to Baptism than to the Lord"(tm)s Supper "" to which, however, there are never admitted.... The Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed...infancy, are fit to bear solid food.... They cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord"(tm)s body. Why should we stretch out poison instead of vivifying food to our young children? ... Circumcision, which as is well known corresponds to our Baptism, was intended for infants. But the Passover for which the Supper is substituted...was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they thus be blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?" 

Jayson"(tm)s Response:
Ironically, I read in Calvin support for paedocommunion even though Calvin himself didn"(tm)t believe it. Notice that Calvin suggests that children ate of the Passover meal when they were old enough to inquire about it and [b:e7e26993d4]not because they understood it[/b:e7e26993d4]. Of course, how old does a child have to be in order to inquire about a passover meal? Anyways, Calvin seems to argue against the suitability of the Lord's Supper primarily from the New Testament requirement to discern the Lord's Body. His own interpretation of the Passover (if carried over into the New Testament) would actually allow for paedocommunion. However, he believes that Paul's requirement for communion in Corinthians applies equally to children as adults thereby excluding them.


----------



## Saiph (Sep 21, 2004)

It has been a while since I have posted. I just noticed this thread and the direct question to me.

My answer:

I put more weight on what Christ said in "Suffer the little children to come to me, and forbid them not, or the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these", than some passage by St. Paul correcting heinous error in a eucharist gone awry and degrading to a drunken feast where the poor and the children go away empty.

In a sense I think Paul was saying, "Listen guys, to get back on track with the Lord's supper, I want you to start examining yourselves before you partake. This will help you maintain order and sobriety."

His prescription was for a straying congregation, not a universal doctrine for the Eucharist. Children ate Passover. Infants get what their mother eats through nursing. Once they are able to partake, baptised children should partake. The table of Christ is a joyous blessing and spiritual renewal, not a judgment hall where the wrath of God looms over each participant anxious to strike them dead for some forgotten or unconfessed sin.

The gospels are full of the phrase "Who is this man that eats and drinks with sinners ? ? ? " That is the beauty of communion. Christ invites us to HIS meal, unworthy as we are . . .we can never examine ourselves enough . . so that cannot be a prerequisite.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 22, 2004)

Mark,

Have you read this?

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

Your thoughts?


----------



## Saiph (Sep 22, 2004)

I will read it Matt. . .. . 

I believe the Eastern Orthodox are the only ones historically to practice paedocommunion . . but my memory maybe false here.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 23, 2004)

Jayson,

I want to explore a couple of things regarding what I consider the change in the administration of the Passover from the time it was first inaugurated in Egypt to the time it was celebrated in Israel.

First I want to note the following passages from Exodus 12:1-28:

[quote:bae3d12c3a]1 Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2 "This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3 Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: [b:bae3d12c3a]'On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. [/b:bae3d12c3a]4 And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man's need you shall make your count for the lamb. 5 [b:bae3d12c3a]Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. 7 And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. 8 Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. [/b:bae3d12c3a]9 Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire--its head with its legs and its entrails. 10 You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. 11 [b:bae3d12c3a]And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand.[/b:bae3d12c3a] So you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. 13 Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. [b:bae3d12c3a][/b:bae3d12c3a]

[/quote:bae3d12c3a]

Verses 1-12 establishes the initial Passover meal. Note that every man was to take a lamb for his household (verse 3), kill it (verse 6), then put the blood on the two doorposts and lintel of the houses where they will eat the meal (verse 7). Note also that the meal was to consist strictly of the lamb, unleavened bread and bitter herbs (verse 8). Note in verse 11 how they are to be dressed when they eat the meal.

[quote:bae3d12c3a]14 So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. [b:bae3d12c3a]15 Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. [/b:bae3d12c3a]16 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat--that only may be prepared by you. [b:bae3d12c3a]17 So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. [/b:bae3d12c3a]18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. 19 For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land. 20 You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread.' " [/quote:bae3d12c3a]

In verses 14-20 God relays how the Passover meal will be celebrated throughout their generations (verse 14). At this time God also establishes the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which follows immediately after the Passover (verse 15). This dovetails into Duet 16:1-8

[quote:bae3d12c3a]1 "Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to the Lord your God, for in the month of Abib the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the Lord chooses to put His name. [b:bae3d12c3a]3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. [/b:bae3d12c3a]4 And no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the meat which you sacrifice the first day at twilight remain overnight until morning. 5 You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you; 6 but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover at twilight, at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt. 7 And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God chooses, and in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a sacred assembly to the Lord your God. You shall do no work on it. [/quote:bae3d12c3a]

And Lev 23:4-8:

[quote:bae3d12c3a]4 "These are the Lord's appointed times, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times. 5 The Passover to the Lord comes in the first month, at twilight on the fourteenth day of the month. 6 The Festival of Unleavened Bread to the Lord is on the fifteenth day of the same month. For seven days you must eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you are to hold a sacred assembly; you are not to do any daily work. 8 You are to present a fire offering to the Lord for seven days. On the seventh day there will be a sacred assembly; you must not do any daily work."[/quote:bae3d12c3a]

[quote:bae3d12c3a]21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Pick out and take lambs for yourselves according to your families, and kill the Passover lamb. 22 And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning. 23 For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you. 24 And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your sons forever. 25 It will come to pass when you come to the land which the Lord will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep this service. 26 And it shall be, when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' 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. 28 Then the children of Israel went away and did so; just as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.[/quote:bae3d12c3a]

Note that in verse 26 we see the first instance of children asking any questions about the Passover and these questions happen after Israel passes into the Promised Land. Note that God never instructs the father"(tm)s to prompt these questions or make them apart of the Passover meal.

So there definately is a change in the administration of the Passover from the time it was established in Egypt vs entrance into the promised land. Fathers no longer killed the passover lamb, the priests did in the Temple; the lamb was then eaten by the temple priests per temple law; and no more putting the blood of the lamb on the doorposts and lintel.

Regarding the other 3 festivals (other than the Passover) a definate argument can be made that both children and women were apart of these celebrations. But note the differences in Duet 16:1-8 where the celebration of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are discussed, versus 9-12 the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and 13-15 the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths). In versus 11 and 14 the whole family were to celebrate, so I think it can be safely said the whole family celebrated the Feast of Weeks and Tabernacles together in Jerusalem and mostlikely they also came along for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. But there is no evidence that women and children participated in the Passover sacrifice at the Temple.

Duet 16:1-17

[quote:bae3d12c3a]1 "Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to the Lord your God, for in the month of Abib the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the Lord chooses to put His name. 3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. 4 And no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the meat which you sacrifice the first day at twilight remain overnight until morning. 5 You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you; 6 but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover at twilight, at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt. 7 And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God chooses, and in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a sacred assembly to the Lord your God. You shall do no work on it.9 "You shall count seven weeks for yourself; begin to count the seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the grain. 10 Then you shall keep the Feast of Weeks to the Lord your God with the tribute of a freewill offering from your hand, which you shall give as the Lord your God blesses you. 11 You shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your gates, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are among you, at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide. 12 And you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and you shall be careful to observe these statutes. 13 "You shall observe the Feast of Tabernacles seven days, when you have gathered from your threshing floor and from your winepress. 14 And you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant and the Levite, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow, who are within your gates. 15 Seven days you shall keep a sacred feast to the Lord your God in the place which the Lord chooses, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you surely rejoice. 16 Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed. 17 Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you.[/quote:bae3d12c3a]

And as verse 16 notes, it is the men who must appear before the Lord, not the whole family when the sacrifices are made.


----------



## Goosha (Sep 24, 2004)

Hi Wayne,

I enjoyed reading your post, I thought it was very informative and definitely corrected some things that were missing in my understanding of the Passover, thanks. I see what you mean about all the changes made to the way the Passover was celebrated. In fact, there wasn't anything I disagreed with in your post.


----------



## CalsFarmer (Sep 26, 2004)

*Paedo communion*

It all comes down to an understanding of a profession of faith. Is it possible for a young child say 4 or 5 years old to make a profession and be admitted to table? 

In answer, Did Mozart write and compose music at age 5? Yes he did. He was a prodigy. And I certainly believe that there may be a VERY VERY VERY small group of little reformers that are truly cognizant of what a profession of faith means. One in every congregation? NO. One maybe in 500 congregations. 

The childs parents should be examined by the Session and then the children themselves should be examined by the Session. Do we expect them to have a firm grasp of the finer five points? No. Most of us first professing our faith did not have it down either. If a child can be examined and clearly articulate his faith and the why for his faith then he should be admitted to table. As a mother and grandmother I truly understand that there are mental and emotional ages that have nothing to do with physical age in terms of years. 

This is a really emotionally charged issue and should be dealt with very carefully and with much love. Parents should be prepared to accept a no if thats what the Session decides and the Session should be prepared to say yes if the childs profession merits such. 

Which leads me to: What are the elements of a confession of faith? 
Are there any? 

This issue should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and should not really be a general concern. Like I said one congregation in 500 should be facing this issue.

Allowing paedo communion as a right of a covenant child without a profession of faith is a non issue. 

What does anyone else have to offer?


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 27, 2004)

Well, I have an update for everybody. I have decided that I finally feel comfortable affirming Westminster's position on communion. This is for two reasons:

1) I feel uncomfortable aligning myself with a view that the vast majority of church history has opposed and still opposes.

2) My view isn't all that similar to a real paedocommunion position anyway, since I don't advocate giving communion to infants to begin with. Although I think the typical Presbyterian practice of examination is a little unnecessary, it is not so unnecessary that I should oppose it.

So there you have it. I guess I am anti-paedocommunion after all. (Sorry, Jayson. We'll talk about it later.)


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 27, 2004)

Craig,

Why is the "typical Presbyterian practice of examination is a little unnecessary"? What do you think goes on in this examination and how do you think it should go?


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 27, 2004)

Wayne,

I have always understood the process as the child at the very least standing before the session making a credible profession of faith. Some churches send the kids through catechism classes and stuff first. But none of this can assure that the child is partaking of the supper in a worthy manner, and I think this is more than what you can get out of 1 Corinthians 11. The passage calls for self-examination, not church examination.

As for what I think is a better process, I am of the opinion that the parents can admit their children to the table after they feel they have been properly instructed in how to partake of the table. In short, I don't think the process should be all that difficult. It should be easy to come to the Lord's table. He has graciously invited us to do so. I don't think it is helpful to live in the paranoia that somebody is going to partake of the table unworthily if we don't ask them enough questions first. Doing this puts us in the position of trying to peer into places we cannot see. We give the command for self-examination. That is all we can do, and that's all we will be held accountable for. 

But I understand what drives the traditional view. It is an attempt to take 1 Corinthians 11 seriously. And although I don't necessarily like the process, its certainly better than letting just any Tom, Dick, and Harry come to the table. And I don't see my qualms with the traditional view as enough of a reason to repudiate it. So I am no longer aligning myself with the paedocommunion position. Two thousand years of church history can't be all wrong, at least concerning the fundamental points. So whatever my church requires I will submit to humbly and in good conscience.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 27, 2004)

Craig,

I agree with you that coming to the Table should not be difficult in and of itself. But can you see that your position essentially de-legitimizes the church, takes the sacraments out of the hands of the Church, its elders (who are Christ's gift to His people) and the minister of the Word (hence divorcing sacrament from Word)? 

I'm pretty sure you don't intend this, but that is what you get when you take it out of the hands of the Church and give it to families, where God has never placed it.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 28, 2004)

Craig,

Fred hits the nail right on the head. If the Lord's Supper was celebrated in the home you might have a legitimate argument, but the Lord's Supper is celebrated in the Church and is for the Church. Though it is very important that the child be trained by the parents to understand their baptism, (and that the parents meet their obligations when they baptized their child) it does not releave the Church from its responsibilties. 

Consider Paul's comments in Eph 4:11-16 "11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head--Christ-- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love." 

Not that God appoints pastors and teachers to equip the saints and that would be all those in the Church including children. Note also that he tells us not to be as "children" being thrown to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

I think you you might want to consider 1 Cor 11:27ff in light of what was going on in Corinth, ie; schisms, heresy, etc. Note in 2 Cor 13:5 the topic of examining yourself comes up again with a fuller explanation - "5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified. " Considering what was going on in Corinth, they were not acting like Christians and needed to examine themselves to make sure they were "walking worthy of their calling" (Eph 4:1) and thus approaching to Lord's Table in a worthy manner.

BTW, what exegetical evidence did you find to support small children participating in the Passover or the Lord's Supper?


----------



## Goosha (Sep 29, 2004)

Wayne,

I still don't understand why you think children were excluded from the passover. Even if I grant that children weren't physically capable of eating the Passover meal until they were as old as 12 or 13 years old, that still wouldn't disprove anything since the requirement for children would still have been based on their ability to eat and not their understanding of the festival. 

Also, I don't think it makes much sense to suggest that women and children were restricted from leaven and yet had no right to eat the sacrifice. Granted, they could not appear before the Lord with the actual Lamb but that does not mean they couldn't eat from it. The other two festivals also require men to bring a sacrifice and we know that families participated in those so just because the added stipulation of men appearing before the Lord doesn't automatically exlude children. Also, explicitly including children in the later commandment is not required since the egyptian passover feast already specified; thus, repeating that women and children could partake needs not be repeated. After all, why would it? Principles continue until they are abrogated and noone has been able to provide a verse which abrogates children's participation.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 29, 2004)

Jayson,

Have you read this:

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

It isa very good help tp the quesiton on why children did not eat the passover.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 29, 2004)

Jayson,

Here is a link to an article by Brian Schwertley who goes through the various biblical reasons why small children were not included in the Temple Passover and how it carried over to the Lord's Supper. He also takes the position that principles continue until they are abrogated.

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/paedocommunion-schwertley.htm

I would also recommend the article Matt has provided a link to.


----------



## Goosha (Sep 30, 2004)

Wayne,

How am I supposed to respect a man who like Schwertley when he titles his article, "Paedocommunion: A biblical Examination," then for his first summary point against paedocommunion he writes, "Paedocommunion is a repudiation of the teachings of all the Protestant Reformers as well as all the Reformed symbols regarding the proper recipients of communion." Come on! Give me a break! I will read this guy's article a few times and get back with you but I have a hard time respecting people like him and Nigel Lee who feel they need to fill their paper with such anamosity.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 30, 2004)

Jayson,

I understand your comments and I am not a big Schwertley fan as he is an avid Theonomist. But when you get past the rhetoric he makes some very good points regarding the OT Passover.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 30, 2004)

I have my own concerns about Brian Schwertley based on past experience as well as the theonomy issue, but I find him to be a very reasonable and articulate writer on every issue that I have had occasion to read. I see nothing offensive in the comment cited above. If it is inaccurate, then I would like to see evidence of that. However, in the very next sentence of his article Schwertley cites the Westminster Standards, which to me clearly demonstrates his point, ie., that padeocommunionism is not a historically Reformed position.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 30, 2004)

[quote:2599878836="Goosha"]Wayne,

How am I supposed to respect a man who like Schwertley when he titles his article, "Paedocommunion: A biblical Examination," then for his first summary point against paedocommunion he writes, "Paedocommunion is a repudiation of the teachings of all the Protestant Reformers as well as all the Reformed symbols regarding the proper recipients of communion." Come on! Give me a break! I will read this guy's article a few times and get back with you but I have a hard time respecting people like him and Nigel Lee who feel they need to fill their paper with such anamosity.[/quote:2599878836]

Jayson,

The comment is completely accurate. Every book of discipline ever rpoduced by a Reformed church, as well as every Reformed Confession, is crystal clear on the issue of paedocommunion. This is not only true of the Reformed, it is the unanimous position of the Western Church.

What should he have said? "Well, even though every Western church confession, book of discipline and denomination have rejected paedocommunion, a feat of unanimity only seen in three other doctrines: the actual return of Christ, the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and even though it is a pernicious doctrine that confuses the need for personal confession of Christ as Lord, it really is no big deal?"


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 30, 2004)

Craig and Jayson,

I want to touch on an ancillary issue regarding peadocommunion and that is when a person, adult or child, becomes a commning member of the Church in the PCA, not only are they admitted to the Lord's Supper but they will take membership vows. 

The following is from CPC's Session concerning children coming before the Session focusing on membership vows:

[quote:ce192e9c1c]If your child is able to give the necessary and appropriate expression to their understanding then we will notify you of your child"(tm)s reception into communing membership and, at the earliest date, proceed to provide your child with the opportunity to give public expression to his faith by affirming the vows of communing membership before the congregation. 

Regarding the vows of communing membership, our Constitution states that through the vows your child is entering into a "œsolemn covenant with God and His Church" (BCO 57-5). The vows that the child will take are:

1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?

2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?

3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?

4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?

5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

It is the responsibility of the parents to explain these vows to their children and also the seriousness of entering into a covenant with God and His Church. The BCO states the following regarding children, "œWhen they have reached the age of discretion, they become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience. They then make public confession of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the discipline of the Church. God, through His Holy Word states, "œThou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain (Exo 20:7)" and "œWhen you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed-- Better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger of God that it was an error. Why should God be angry at your excuse and destroy the work of your hands? (Eccl 5:4-6)". As our Constitution also states regarding Oaths and Vows (WCF Chapter 22): 

I. A lawful oath is part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears.

II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence. Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament as well as under the old; so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.

III. Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.

IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt. Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.

V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.

VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties: or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.

VII. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he has no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.

If at any point in the nurturing of your children in faith you need advice, or counsel, or encouragement please know that the elders stand ready to support you by assisting in any way that we can.

May the blessings of our Covenant God be yours, your children"(tm)s, and you children"(tm)s children for a thousand generations. [/quote:ce192e9c1c]

Can a youg child, still under the authority of their parents, legitimately make a vow as outlined by the WCF?


----------



## Goosha (Sep 30, 2004)

Wayne,

Craig can correct me if I'm wrong but I was receiving the impression that he was calling into question the idea that a child needs to express faith before the eldership prior to receiving the Lord's Supper. I personally am not all that familiar with presbyterian polity because I grew up baptist but it seems to me that the process lacks any biblical warrent. At least in context of Paul's admonition to the Corinthians. Paul seems to put the responsibility on the individual to examine themselves rather than on the eldership to examine anybody. I don't understand how people get all that out of a couple verses. 

There are some sketchy elements to the above quotation relating to covenant. I was under the impression that the vow brought the child into covenant when you write, "vows your child is entering into a "œsolemn covenant with God and His Church." Is this something different than the New Covenant?


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 30, 2004)

The covenant that is mentioned is not the "New Covenant" that is spoken of in the Bible. When a person makes a promise or vow before God to do something, like a marriage vow, they are entering into an agreement or covenant, with God as their witness. In questions 1. and 2. a person is attesting to what they believe and in 3., 4., and 5. they are promising to do what is asked.


----------



## Saiph (Sep 30, 2004)

[quote:639cad324d]I was under the impression that the vow brought the child into covenant when you write, "vows your child is entering into a "œsolemn covenant with God and His Church." [/quote:639cad324d]


Exactly.



They bear the covenant sign but cannot partake of the "Covenant Meal".

Absurd.

Satan wants nothing more than to keep children from the blessings of the promise. We must feed our children with the word and the sacrament.

All through the gospels the Pharisees astoundingly say, "Who is this that eats and drinks with sinners ?"

The meal is for the poor in spirit hungering for righteousness. (Children fit that description if you ask me)


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 30, 2004)

Right, Jayson. My qualm is with the idea of "confirmation", or whatever you wish to call it. I do not understand why our children need to make a public profession of faith before the session. They have been baptized into the church and they are Christians. Making a public profession adds no more to that. It's always struck me as kind of odd that Presbyterians will criticize Baptists for their insistence on a public profession before baptism since there are many false professors that are baptized, but yet do the exact same thing they criticize Baptists for with the Lord's Supper. There are all sorts of false professors that partake of the Lord's Supper as well. So what does a public profession get you? It certainly doesn't solidify whether or not the person is a worthy partaker of the elements.

And concerning the comment that my view would seperate the sacrament from the authority of the church, I'm not sure I follow why this is the case. After all, it is the church that administers the sacraments. I've never advocated anything else. 

Wayne asked me for exegetical evidence as to whether or not small children partook of the Passover, but this question is irrelevant to what I have argued simply because if children are able to heed the command of 1 Corinthians 11, then there is no reason to exclude them. They are fulfilling the requirements. If there is another requirement for them before taking the supper, such as NOT being a child, then 1 Corinthians 11 is irrelevant to the debate altogether (at least as far as my position is concerned).


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 30, 2004)

[quote:f1aa51d384]Wayne asked me for exegetical evidence as to whether or not small children partook of the Passover, but this question is irrelevant to what I have argued simply because if children are able to heed the command of 1 Corinthians 11, then there is no reason to exclude them. They are fulfilling the requirements. If there is another requirement for them before taking the supper, such as NOT being a child, then 1 Corinthians 11 is irrelevant to the debate altogether (at least as far as my position is concerned).[/quote:f1aa51d384]

Then I am confused about your argument. I would assume that we would both agree that there are points of contact between Passover and the Lord's Supper as there are points of contact between Circumcision and Baptism. Just as exegetical evidence needs to be shown that infants can be baptized based on the sacrament of circumcision (the NT does not have anything in it that says "baptize babies" but we can point to Genesis for the inclusion of infants), exegetical evidence needs to be shown who can participate in the Lord's Supper. Since the only evidence there is concerning how young a person could be to participate in the Passover (post Egypt) is 12, when Jesus went up to Jerusalem with his parents, then to be biblically consistent, one would have to conclude through necessary consequence that one must be 12 in order to meet the requirements of participating in the Lord's Supper. Your argument does not appear to be based on necessary consequences of interpreting Scripture but on conjecture regarding a couple of verses in 1 Cor 11.


----------



## Saiph (Sep 30, 2004)

The burden of proof is for any of you against paedocommunion to prove children DID NOT eat the passover meal.

Even so, they all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink . . . 


Did the little children eat manna . . .?????

It is an absolute contradiction to baptize an infant and not give it the Eucharist when old enough to eat, because there is no profession.

The covenant sign stands as their profession.

Also, would you deny the feeble minded or alzheimers victim who is baptized. . . (of course not)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 30, 2004)

Saiph said:


> The burden of proof is for any of you against paedocommunion to prove children DID NOT eat the passover meal./quote]
> 
> That would only be true if it were a normal church practice and we were kicking against the goads. The opposite here is true. The burden of proof is on you to prove, exegetically, that this is the common practice of the church both from the Scripture, and from confessional Christianity.
> 
> ...


----------



## Saiph (Oct 1, 2004)

I read the paper and disagree with some of it.

I still believe 1 Cor. 11 is for notorious and/or unrepentant sinners abusing the feast (as the Corinthians were), not children.

We do not see very many writings from the early church on this topic.

Isn't that the same argument the baptists use for paedobaptism ? ? ?  

Giving the children the sign of baptism without giving them the covenant meal is a contradiction. It was the main contradiction that kept me from being paedo for years. I think the baptists would agree with me that it is inconsistent.

Note Calvin on this very contradiction:



[quote:6a8768779c]
30. At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord"(tm)s Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. [b:6a8768779c]In the early Church, indeed, the Lord"(tm)s Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1); but the practice justly became obsolete.[/b:6a8768779c] For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God, whereas on the contrary the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord"(tm)s death, and understand its power. Can we wish anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, "œLet a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup?" (1Co_11:28). Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants. Again, "œHe that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord"(tm)s body." If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord"(tm)s body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our Lord"(tm)s injunction? "œDo this in remembrance of me." And what the inference which the apostle draws from this? "œAs often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord"(tm)s death till he come." How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them to "œshow forth the Lord"(tm)s death," of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. [b:6a8768779c]Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the Passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exo_12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?[/b:6a8768779c][/quote:6a8768779c]

Institutes Book IV, 30

Note that while using the typical argument at the end of the paragraph, he does not ever return to why the early church DID practice paedocommunion, nor why the church abandoned it. 

He mentions merely that it "became obsolete".

I would like to hear from any of you why this happened.
I am not as learned as most, nor have I gone to seminary. If any of you have a reason please share.

[b:6a8768779c]This[/b:6a8768779c] is why I say the purden of proof is on the non-paedo communionist.

P.S. I love the phrase Calvin uses "least particle of soundess" . . .


----------



## Goosha (Oct 2, 2004)

[quote:d3f0eaf8e8="fredtgreco"][quote:d3f0eaf8e8="Goosha"]Wayne,

How am I supposed to respect a man who like Schwertley when he titles his article, "Paedocommunion: A biblical Examination," then for his first summary point against paedocommunion he writes, "Paedocommunion is a repudiation of the teachings of all the Protestant Reformers as well as all the Reformed symbols regarding the proper recipients of communion." Come on! Give me a break! I will read this guy's article a few times and get back with you but I have a hard time respecting people like him and Nigel Lee who feel they need to fill their paper with such anamosity.[/quote:d3f0eaf8e8]

Jayson,

The comment is completely accurate. Every book of discipline ever rpoduced by a Reformed church, as well as every Reformed Confession, is crystal clear on the issue of paedocommunion. This is not only true of the Reformed, it is the unanimous position of the Western Church.

What should he have said? "Well, even though every Western church confession, book of discipline and denomination have rejected paedocommunion, a feat of unanimity only seen in three other doctrines: the actual return of Christ, the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and even though it is a pernicious doctrine that confuses the need for personal confession of Christ as Lord, it really is no big deal?"[/quote:d3f0eaf8e8]

Fred,

Do you believe the issue of paedocommunion to be as important as the trinity, the return or Christ and the person of Christ? Your statement is nothing more than hot air! I think the issue is important but I wouldn't die over it! Oh yeah, it just goes to show what Schwertley's priorities and many people who follow him really are. They claim to argue biblically but the most important reason for rejecting paedocommunion is because goes against our confessions. At least Wayne debates cordially rather than blowing hot air!


----------



## Goosha (Oct 2, 2004)

Hi Wayne,

I just finished Schwertley's article for the second time. I liked Beckwith's a little more because of his attitude but I think Schwertley was much more direct against my position so it was little more convincing. I also liked how much extra info was in the footnotes. 

All the articles you guys have had me to read have been pretty benificial for me. I've enjoyed learning more about the Passover over the course of the last month or two. I have decided that since all non-paedo communion guys argue that the levitical passover has no justification for children participating that I am going to change my argument method.

I am willing to grant for the sake of argument that women and children didn't participate in the levitical passover (I personally don't believe this). I am going to suggest that if you take the position that many of the writers like Schwertley, Nigel Lee, Beckwith that these men basically only have the new testament for they're understanding of how the Lord's Supper relates to women and Children. 

Otherwise, they would have to concede that we should wait until children are fully catechized and have reached the age of 12 or 13. However, I don't even think they could justify this either since the Levitical passover doesn't make any age specification; consequently, if I take your position on the passover then I would say that you have no justification for giving the Lord's Supper to children [b:f190a65278]at all [/b:f190a65278]and should wait until they are the age of 20.

Here is my challenge-
Tell me where you find scripture that gives you any principles on how the Lord's Supper relates to women and children.

Suppose you say that you believe that children who are catechized regardless of their age can partake of the Lord's Supper. Thats fine. Now you have abrogated the age distinctions in the Old Testament thus making your entire understanding of the Lord's Supper based on a few verses in Corinthians. 

Suppose you were to argue that you think that children of the age thirteen and have been successfully catechized are to receive the Lord's Supper. Thats fine too. Now, you have will have trouble proving that. Your age choice would be arbitrary because the Levitical passover doesn't specify which age class a person must be to partake. And if you use Jewish sources, you would be committing an is/ought fallacy basing your practice of off how the Jews practiced it and not on any principles. 

Suppose you ignore the egyptian or levitical passover principles completely. Thats fine. Now you have your understanding of the Lord's Supper based completely on the New Testament which brings me back to another inconsistency with how people interpret 1 Corinthians 11. Children aren't even mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 and yet you guys include them while Peter in Acts 2:38-39 explicitely include children and non-paedos exlude them from the command to "repent." I could just take the same method that you guys interpret 1 Corinthians 11 and say that Peter's command is to children who are capable of the mental requirements involved in repentance and argue the baptist position. I don't see any difference between the baptist [i:f190a65278]hermenuetic[/i:f190a65278] on Acts 2:38-39 than the non-paedo communionist's [i:f190a65278]hermenuetic[/i:f190a65278] in 1 Corinthians 11. I'm not arguing this by their similarity; I am pointing out the inconsistent standard for interpreting the Author's words. Of course you might say that we have a whole host of Jewish theology going into Peter's words. That's fine. Tell me what Jewish theology you bring into your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11. I'd be interested.

Thus, I don't see how any of the papers I have read salvage any principles on how we should see the Lord's Supper relating to children at all.

Just to repeat my challenge-
Here is my challenge-
Tell me where you find scripture that gives you any principles on how the Lord's Supper relates to women and children.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Oct 2, 2004)

Try to chill out a bit, Jay. We need the discussion to remain fruitful.


----------

