# Paedocommunion



## ConfederateTheocrat

Are you for it? Are you against it? Discuss.....

(I'm very unsure on the subject)

[Edited on 11-28-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]

[Edited on 11-28-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]


----------



## RamistThomist

Interestingly enough, the Federal Vision people were moderately silent on this subject. Mark Horne wrote about the Lord's Supper but I don't remember anything firmly endorsing it (I am aware that they are pro-PC). However, it has been a while since I read that essay. All I remember him saying is that Calvin said that it had been a practice in the early church. That saying means very little, however. All Calvin could be saying is that yes, it was a factor among the early church.

For a positive view, see Leithart's Blessed are the Hungry.
For a negative, any number of Reformed Systematics on the Lord's Supper.
For a sympathetic, mediating position, see Mathison's Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## RamistThomist

If I had to make a decision right now, I would probably hold to the Confessional View. I would like to read more on it, though. I bet doing a Historical and theological study on the Lord's Supper would be worthwhile.


----------



## fredtgreco

It is one of the most dangerous practices seeing revival in Reformed circles. It leads to a host of errors. It has been unanimously rejected by the entire Western (both Protestant and Roman) Church. It is clearly contra-confessional. It has been discussed at length here on the board:



[url=http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5275]Praying Children: should we teach our children to pray?

Paedocommunionist denomination?

Exceptions to the Confession

Paedo question: Covenant inclusion or baptism first?

children at Lords supper

Paedo-Communion

Paedo-communion


----------



## RickyReformed

Here are some more resources on paedocommunion:

Summary against Paedocommunion:
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/paidocom/paidocom.html

John Calvin vs Child Communion (pdf - right mouse click and 'save as'):
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/cvcc/cvcc.pdf

Paedocommunion vs Protestantism (pdf - right mouse click and 'save as'):
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/pvp/pvp.pdf


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by RickyReformed_
> Here are some more resources on paedocommunion:
> 
> Summary against Paedocommunion:
> http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/paidocom/paidocom.html
> 
> John Calvin vs Child Communion (pdf - right mouse click and 'save as'):
> http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/cvcc/cvcc.pdf
> 
> Paedocommunion vs Protestantism (pdf - right mouse click and 'save as'):
> http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/pvp/pvp.pdf



Good resources!


----------



## Me Died Blue

I used to lean strongly toward it. You can see this thread called Confirmation for some light shed on why I was persuaded to reject it.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I used to lean strongly toward it. You can see this thread called Confirmation for some light shed on why I was persuaded to reject it.



I just read it.

I can't say anything persuaded me though. I have done a good study on the issue (which is why I'm asking questions)


----------



## Me Died Blue

In a nutshell, what's your "take" if you will on 1 Cor. 11?


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

My take is that I really have not examined the issue thoroughly. I have not studied that verse enough. I really don't know.


----------



## twogunfighter

Against it for two reasons:

1. The exegesis that the Westminster divines did on the 1 Cor passage appears to me to be unnassailable. As is every other bit of their exegesis that I have seriously studied

2. My daughter, who has shown fruit of regeneration since she was about 2ish, is only right now (8yrs) showing the ability to examine herself in a way that would fulfill Paul's requirements as I (and my denomination) understand them. 

Chuck

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by twogunfighter]


----------



## Puritanhead

Infant communion? What are you presbyterians gonna come up with next?.... hehe


----------



## Me Died Blue




----------



## Puritanhead

"Baby dedication? What are you baptists gonna come up with next?... hehe"... you got me there Paul - funny retort- 

it's all about ...bringing up your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord... whether their consecrated with H20 or not.


----------



## fredtgreco

An encouragement to see the lopsided nature of this poll.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

St. Augustine seems to have been for paedocommunion, or at east acknowledged it took place.

_"They are infants, but they recieve His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in order to have life in themselves."_

[Sermon 174.7 in Augustine, _Works_.]


----------



## Me Died Blue

Well, even if he did, that doesn't really say much, since we already know that his sacramentalism was one of his greatest flaws.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

I've also heard that the Hussites were in favor of the practice. Is this true, or was I dreaming?


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Well, even if he did, that doesn't really say much, since we already know that his sacramentalism was one of his greatest flaws.


But wouldn't that show that practice was in existence around his time?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Well, even if he did, that doesn't really say much, since we already know that his sacramentalism was one of his greatest flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> But wouldn't that show that practice was in existence around his time?
Click to expand...


I can't really speak on that, since I haven't really studied much post-apostolic early Church history yet.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

Neither have I, but it seems support could be lent to the practice in this era, with St. Augustine's approval.


----------



## wsw201

Mark,

Calvin noted in the Institutes that peadocommunion was practiced for a while and also noted that the error was stopped. Actually, there is not a whole lot of evidence that the practice was wide spread or how long it lasted.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

Do you think he was reffering to Huss and the Hussites, or Augustine's time? I don't have a hardback Institutes, so I can't say.


----------



## wsw201

Calvin was referring to the early church. The Hussites were a small sect in Bohemia and it probably wouldn't be wise to use what they may have done as a buttress for peadocommunion.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Calvin was referring to the early church. The Hussites were a small sect in Bohemia and it probably wouldn't be wise to use what they may have done as a buttress for peadocommunion.



Hmm. I always considered Huss to be a martyr for the faith, and a fine Christian to be modeled after. 

If paedocommunion is heresy, then Huss was a heretic (right?).


----------



## wsw201

Mark,

Peadocommunion is a very serious error. The admonition in 1 Cor 11 must be taken seriously. Taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner can have serious consequences. I don't know much about the practices of the Hussites, but if they did practice peadocommunion, usually one error will lead to other errors. Have you checked source documents regarding Huss's position on Peadocommunion? 

Plus it is the Church through Scripture that establishes the practices of the Church not individuals (with all due respect to Calvin, Luther and Huss). As Fred has pointed out, with the exception of some micro-denominations and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (and they have more problems than you can shake a stick at), the Church has rejected peadocommunion.

Though John Huss may have been a good guy along with Calvin, Luther, Owen and the rest of the Puritans, Scripture tells us that our example or model should be Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Just for the record, PC is not heresy, it is (as Wayne stated) error.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Mark,
> 
> Peadocommunion is a very serious error.



I think I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, respectfully.



> The admonition in 1 Cor 11 must be taken seriously. Taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner can have serious consequences.



I agree with you there, however. 



> I don't know much about the practices of the Hussites, but if they did practice peadocommunion, usually one error will lead to other errors.



Perhaps.

Can I ask you sir, if you read Luther? He believed in baptismal regeneration. I guess we should be skeptical of his theology as a whole, because "usually one error will lead to other errors".



> Have you checked source documents regarding Huss's position on Peadocommunion?



No, I have no access to them. I am new to theology, and am 16. 



> Plus it is the Church through Scripture that establishes the practices of the Church not individuals (with all due respect to Calvin, Luther and Huss).



I agree, and anyone who does give their children communion, when the church says other wise, must be excommunited. I repeat, MUST be excommunicated.



> As Fred has pointed out, with the exception of some micro-denominations and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (and they have more problems than you can shake a stick at), the Church has rejected peadocommunion.



I agree.



> Though John Huss may have been a good guy along with Calvin, Luther, Owen and the rest of the Puritans, Scripture tells us that our example or model should be Christ.



That's why I'm for paedocommunion. 

Thanks for your response.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Luther believed in baptismal regeneration



Where? (Be sure you are not mixing this up with a proper view of batpism (a la the WCF).

I'd like to see the quotes.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> Luther believed in baptismal regeneration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where? (Be sure you are not mixing this up with a proper view of batpism (a la the WCF).
> 
> I'd like to see the quotes.
Click to expand...

_"To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever."_ -- Martin Luther (from The Large Catechism)

_"It remains for us to speak of our *two sacraments*, instituted by Christ. Every Christian ought to have at least some brief, elementary instruction in them because *without these no one can be a Christian* ... First we shall take up Baptism through which we are first received into the Christian community. ... Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved"_ (pp. 80-81)

If I am misinterpreting this, please let me know. To see more, go to: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/luther/martin.htm

[Edited on 12-30-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Chapter XXVIII.
Of Baptism.

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(a) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(b) but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,(c) of his ingrafting into Christ,(d) *of regeneration*,(e) of remission of sins,(f) and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.(g) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.(h)

(a) Matt. 28:19.
(b) I Cor. 12:13.
(c) Rom. 4:11 with Col. 2:11, 12.
(d) Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5.
(e) Tit. 3:5.
(f) Mark 1:4.
(g) Rom. 6:3, 4.
(h) Matt. 28:19, 20.

[Edited on 12-30-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Mark,

You are reading too much into the "literal" wording without understanding his thought. Scott, above, posted the WCf. REad it and tell me if you think they said the same thing (they were not baptismal regenerationists).


----------



## wsw201

Mark

Matt makes a very good point. In addition, a few quotes does not a position make. You have to look at the full body of work on the subject. For example, there has been an argument going on for years that Calvin believed in unlimited atonement based on a few quotes and the fact that he never specifically used the term limited atonement or specifically addressed the issue to some folks satisfaction. But it is clear from reading Calvin's work, the Institutes, his sermons and his commentaries, he did advocate limited atonement. Plus when you read Luther you have to remember that his thought changed over time. Luther scholars sometimes compare the young Luther with the old Luther, especially his views after the Peasant Wars. For instance, Lillback argues that with Melanchton's revision to the Augsburg Confession, where he changed the wording regarding the Lord's Supper so it would be more in line with the Reformed position, and Luther did not object, Luther had changed his mind regarding consubstantiation (though later Lutherans did not accept the revised Augsburg Confession and still hold to consubstantiation and the first draft of the Augsburg Confession, which is in their Book of Concord ). So you need to dig a little deeper to establish that Luther believed in Baptismal Regeneration.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

To Matt, Wayne and Scott, whom I greatly admire and respect:



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Mark,
> 
> You are reading too much into the "literal" wording without understanding his thought. Scott, above, posted the WCf. REad it and tell me if you think they said the same thing (they were not baptismal regenerationists).



I read it, but the first part makes very clear that regeneration is what water baptism is a sign and seal of. It does not say that the actual act of water baptism regenerates the believer. 

Luther, however, said that one cannot be a Christian without the sacraments. Is that defensible, and if I am interpreting it wrongly, what did he mean?

*Wayne* said:


> Matt makes a very good point. In addition, a few quotes does not a position make.



There are more than a few quotes:

_"Hence it is well described as a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water, for through the Word Baptism receives the power to become the "washing of regeneration," as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5. ... Thus faith clings to the water and believes it to be Baptism in which there is sheer salvation and life ..."_ (p. 84). (Bold added.)

_"'He who believes and is baptized will be saved,' that is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive the salutary, divine water profitably. ... But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God's command and ordinance, so that, baptized in the name of God, *you may receive in the water the promised salvation*"_ (pp. 84-85). (Bold added.)

_"He always [the Christian] has enough to do to believe firmly what Baptism promises and brings -- victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God's grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts. In short the blessings of Baptism are so boundless ... Now here in Baptism there is brought free to every man's door just such a priceless medicine which swallows up death and saves the lives of all men. To appreciate and use Baptism aright, we must draw strength and comfort from it when our sins or conscience oppress us, and we must retort, "But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body." ... No greater jewel, therefore, can adorn our body and soul than Baptism, for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire"_ (pp. 85-86). (Bold added.)

_"Thus we see what a great and excellent thing Baptism is, which snatches us from the jaws of the devil and makes God our own, overcomes and takes away sin and daily strengthens the new man, always remains until we pass from this present misery to eternal glory. ... As we have once obtained forgiveness of sins in Baptism ..."_ (p. 90). (Bold added.)



> For example, there has been an argument going on for years that Calvin believed in unlimited atonement based on a few quotes and the fact that he never specifically used the term limited atonement or specifically addressed the issue to some folks satisfaction. But it is clear from reading Calvin's work, the Institutes, his sermons and his commentaries, he did advocate limited atonement. Plus when you read Luther you have to remember that his thought changed over time. Luther scholars sometimes compare the young Luther with the old Luther, especially his views after the Peasant Wars. For instance, Lillback argues that with Melanchton's revision to the Augsburg Confession, where he changed the wording regarding the Lord's Supper so it would be more in line with the Reformed position, and Luther did not object, Luther had changed his mind regarding consubstantiation (though later Lutherans did not accept the revised Augsburg Confession and still hold to consubstantiation and the first draft of the Augsburg Confession, which is in their Book of Concord ). So you need to dig a little deeper to establish that Luther believed in Baptismal Regeneration.



Your point is well made. However, I am pretty sure most of the quotes I listed are in his catechism and Table Talk, which I am not aware he retracted. Perhaps he did. And if these quotes show he believed in baptismal regeneration, I hope he did.

My point is, Luther wasn't a heretic for his beliefs in baptismal regeneration (which seem evident to me, or at least, a form of baptismal regeneration), and neither should credocommunionists call paedocommunionists heretics for their beliefs.

I have a friend (woogiewoogie is his user name) who left Lutheranism because of baptismal regeneration. So if Luther didn't believe it, Lutherans do. All the more to your point, Wayne, as Luther retracted consubstantiation, so Lutherans hold to it still.


----------



## fredtgreco

Mark,

Play with fire, and you get burned. It is not a coincidence that those who play with baptismal regeneration come to reject sola fide - even if Luther was able to hold that tension/contradiction (and I am not saying he was). Those who favor paedocommunion are headed down a bad road. It should not surprise you that NT Wright is a fervent paedocommunionist, as are most of those at RefCat.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Mark,
> 
> Play with fire, and you get burned. It is not a coincidence that those who play with baptismal regeneration come to reject sola fide - even if Luther was able to hold that tension/contradiction (and I am not saying he was). Those who favor paedocommunion are headed down a bad road. It should not surprise you that NT Wright is a fervent paedocommunionist, as are most of those at RefCat.



If giving children (who are in the covenant) communion is rejecting sola fide, than we have a problem. However, I don't think R. C. Sproul Jr., James Jordan, Gary North, R. J. Rushdoony, Ray Sutton, St. Augustine, (and possibly) St. John Chrysostom, denied Sola Fide. 

Neither am I altogether certain the link between paedocommunion and baptismal regeneration is just. I do know that paedocommunion is not a heresy. Paedocommunion is logical to me.

I don't know much about N.T. Wright, and what to make of Auburn Avenue theology. I just want to read Calvin and the Puritans right now.

I like to jump over fire on my skateboard.

[Edited on 12-31-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]


----------



## wsw201

Mark,

One of the things you should look for in Luther's view of Baptism is "who is the sacrament effectual for?". That will tell you if he truly believed in Baptismal Regeneration (and I have found no evidence that Luther believed that baptism was effectual for everyone who was baptized.)

Also, you should consider the implications of peadocomunion. Peadocommunion has serious implications regarding the Covenant, which goes to what Fred has pointed out regarding some of the FV guys and Sola Fide.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Mark,
> 
> One of the things you should look for in Luther's view of Baptism is "who is the sacrament effectual for?". That will tell you if he truly believed in Baptismal Regeneration (and I have found no evidence that Luther believed that baptism was effectual for everyone who was baptized.)



No evidence? He said one could not be a Christian without the sacraments. If he did not believe it, then why did he not agree with Calvin on the subject? Then why did my friend leave Lutheranism?



> Also, you should consider the implications of peadocomunion. Peadocommunion has serious implications regarding the Covenant, which goes to what Fred has pointed out regarding some of the FV guys and Sola Fide.


I asked that very question a while back, I even started a thread on it. No one answered me. Giving baptism to an infant does not conflict with sola fide, neither does giving communion ot an infant.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Mark, 




> If he did not believe it, then why did he not agree with Calvin on the subject? Then why did my friend leave Lutheranism?



To question 1) He did agree with Calvin, mostly. Calvin sent him his work on the sacraments after the tension died down between Luther and Zwingli. At no time in the Marburg debates did either Luther or Zwingli assert baptismal regneration. Neither did Calvin. What they did affirm is that one would never baptize someon without assuming they are Christians.

To the second question - I don't have any idea.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

Oh. You win.


----------



## fredtgreco

There is a major difference between the sacraments. In Baptism the thing signified is not tied to the time of administration. In the Supper it is. That is why Paul warns Christians not to "partake unworthily," something he never says with respect to baptism.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> There is a major difference between the sacraments. In Baptism the thing signified is not tied to the time of administration. In the Supper it is. That is why Paul warns Christians not to "partake unworthily," something he never says with respect to baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right, it's a simplistic, fallacious reasoning that begets paedocommunionism (in my opinion, even though some very intelligent men hold to it, e.g., G.I. Williamson). it goes like this: "well, they're both sacrements of the covenant, therefore they must be the same." Or, "our children are members of the covenant, therefore they should receive all the benefits." That's like this: "my five year old is an American citizen, therefore he should be able to drive." Also, I want to find a paedocommunionist church which lets 4 year olds vote on congregational issues (especially a church that has a lot of young children!). Afterall, they are full members of the body and as such should be treated liek all the others. If not you are teaching them theat they are not fully church or covenant members."
> 
> "And on the ballet today, shall sunday school teachers dress up like Barney?"
Click to expand...


----------



## Goosha

I always find it interesting that presbyterians will use the covenant as an argument for baptism and then say the an argument from the covenant is insufficient for paedo communion....why baptize babies? You can't say because they are in the covenant since you guys seem to think that it is insufficient to use covenant as an argument.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> I always find it interesting that presbyterians will use the covenant as an argument for baptism and then say the an argument from the covenant is insufficient for paedo communion....why baptize babies? You can't say because they are in the covenant since you guys seem to think that it is insufficient to use covenant as an argument.



Jayson,
The application of the covenant as it is applied to baptism is totally different in regards to the supper. Both ideas are clearly defined in the scriptures, i.e. whom is to receive the sign and when, whom is able to sit at the table. I assume you believe that it is inconsistant in the non paedo adherant in that we see the infant worthy of the sign, yet not worthy of the table. The sign is placed in obedience. The tables requirement is _[evaluation of self_; the infant cannot evaluate self. This brings to light the idea however, when can a child of the covenant evaluate self properly. This is why we have the comminicant classes, to inquire. 

Here are some links. in my opinion, Nigel Lee deals with this sufficiently. MY second choice would go to R. Bacon

Richard Bacon, "What Mean Ye?"

David A. Bass, "Paedocommunion: A Return to or Departure from Biblical Practice?"

Charles W. Bradley, "Pastoral Perspective on Paedo-Communion"

Buursma, Deppe, De Vries, Hettinger: Committee to Study Clarification of Public Profession of Faith for Covenant Children, Report A to Synod 1995 (CRC)

Leonard Coppes, "Consideration of the Paedocommunion Position: 'The Flesh Profits Nothing'"

Dr. K. Deddens, "May Children Partake of the Lord's Supper?"

Gary S. Flye, "Is Communion for Children? A Defense of Puritan Communion"

Grover Gunn, "A Letter on Paedocommunion"

Gregory Johnson, "Why Paedocommunion is a Bad Idea: Expanding a Blessing or Bringing Down a Curse?"

Francis Nigel Lee, "Paedocommunionism Versus Protestantism: How Trendy Theologizers Have Retreated from the Reformation (A Short History of the Modern Quasi-Protestant Paedocommunion Novelty)"
Note: the above link has disappeared. If you locate it, please let us know.

Francis Nigel Lee, "Summary Against Paidocommunion"

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Commission on Theology & Church Relations: Response to "Truly Worthy & Well Prepared" [pdf]

RCUS Position Papers, Committee to Investigate the Situation at Westminster Seminary in Regard to Infant Communion (also available in PDF).

Rev. Brian M. Schwertley, Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination

Matthew Winzer, "In Meam Commemorationem, or, The Reformed Practice of Discriminate Communion"

Matthew Winzer, "The True History of Paedo-Communion"

The link for the writings can be found here:

http://www.paedocommunion.com/links/

[Edited on 1-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> I always find it interesting that presbyterians will use the covenant as an argument for baptism and then say the an argument from the covenant is insufficient for paedo communion....why baptize babies? You can't say because they are in the covenant since you guys seem to think that it is insufficient to use covenant as an argument.



The covenantal argument for paedobaptism is rooted in circumcision given to children under the Old Covenant as the covenant sign. Therefore, in order to make the covenantal argument applicable to communion as well, one would need to biblically show that all circumcised Old Covenant members partook of the Passover from their circumcision on.


----------



## Goosha

Well...I would like to know where the bible teaches that children should be allowed to receive the Lord's supper. Any takers? Perhaps only adults should receive the Lord's supper.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> Well...I would like to know where the bible teaches that children should be allowed to receive the Lord's supper. Any takers? Perhaps only adults should receive the Lord's supper.



Perhaps better would be to find the verse that allows those to partkae who are incapable of either examining themselves or discerning the Lord's body?

But then again, what do Calvin, Knox, Luther, Owen, Dabney, Hodge, Thornwell, Aquinas, Edwards, every Western Confession in existence, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, and the Romanists know?

I'm sure Calvin, Turretin and Witsius could use a refresher course in basic covenantal theology.


----------



## Goosha

Now that I have clearly oversimplified my opponents position....I would like to know how it is that you guys think that the paedocommunion can be simplified to a simple-your in the covenant you get the sign...can you quote anyone who makes this simple of an argument for paedocommunion?

[Edited on 26-1-2005 by Goosha]


----------



## Goosha

By the way guys....I'm not trying to be short with anyone but I'm at work and so I don't have time to really write...I'll probably continue this on the weekend...


----------



## LadyFlynt

Okay, coming in late here...and feeling REALLY ignorant...and I promise not to highjack the thread...but...
Could someone please explain what is meant by paedocommunion. Are you refering to infants, children, or both? When do you let a child start taking communion...and when do you let a child take it in a church that doesn't hold to Confirmation (I even had to backtrack on the thread as I couldn't remember what you called it!)?
This is something that I (and I'm sure my husabnd) would like to hear from you all on as we have young children...2 of which are believers and have shown fruit, but alas immaturity...yet as adults we also can show immaturity and misunderstand the intensity of what we participate in (I know I did as a teen and yound adult)


----------



## Goosha

Paedocommunion is giving children the Lord's supper not on the basis of their understanding or ability to understand what they are doing but on their ability to physically eat the Lord's Supper. I think this is a fair definition since I don't agree with the idea of grinding up bread and sticking it in the kid's formula. More specifically, paedo means baby or young child. You could say that paedocommunion literally means "infant communion." 

Presbyterians have traditionally been against this practice basically because of Corintians and the command to self-examine oneself. Therefore, presbyterians have two forms of membership-communing member and non-communing member. As to the ins and outs, I think these other guys can give you a load of info...I just wanted to represent the infant communion camp.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> Paedocommunion is giving children the Lord's supper not on the basis of their understanding or ability to understand what they are doing but on their ability to physically eat the Lord's Supper. I think this is a fair definition since I don't agree with the idea of grinding up bread and sticking it in the kid's formula. More specifically, paedo means baby or young child. You could say that paedocommunion literally means "infant communion."



So it would then be fair to say that even on your own terms there must be a difference between baptism and communion? Because while I understand your reasoning (and the fact that you do not go to the extremes many paedocommunionists do - we haven't even touched on the "communion through the placenta" crowd, yep, that's right), you are not being covenantally "consistent" either. Because all you have done, logically, is put a shorter age barrier on communion. That is because it is in fact possible to grind up the bread and give the cup to even a 1 week old.


----------



## LadyFlynt

...I'm Reformed Baptist (though Pat Crockett should be on here in a week and says he's gonna work on the Baptist part) and YIKES! I think NOT!


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> Now that I have clearly oversimplified my opponents position....I would like to know how it is that you guys think that the paedocommunion can be simplified to a simple-your in the covenant you get the sign...can you quote anyone who makes this simple of an argument for paedocommunion?
> 
> [Edited on 26-1-2005 by Goosha]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's pretty much all I've seen, when the argument is boiled down. for example, since ex-communicated peoples don't get to partake then since our kids are in the covenant and we don't let them partake, Tim Gallant, for instance, writes a paper: "Daddy, Why was I excommunicated?"
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree. The argument is basically a visceral, "how could I deny my child the means of grace." Of course, never mind that the infant cannot partake of the means of grace of reading the Word, or prayer, or the preaching of the Word...


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Of course, never mind that the infant cannot partake of the means of grace of reading the Word, or prayer, or the preaching of the Word...



Excellent point here.


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> More specifically, paedo means baby or young child. You could say that paedocommunion literally means "infant communion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wouldn't "brethos" literally mean: "infant."
Click to expand...


Yes...but I'm not trying to make this too complicated 

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Goosha]


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> Now that I have clearly oversimplified my opponents position....I would like to know how it is that you guys think that the paedocommunion can be simplified to a simple-your in the covenant you get the sign...can you quote anyone who makes this simple of an argument for paedocommunion?
> 
> [Edited on 26-1-2005 by Goosha]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's pretty much all I've seen, when the argument is boiled down. for example, since ex-communicated peoples don't get to partake then since our kids are in the covenant and we don't let them partake, Tim Gallant, for instance, writes a paper: "Daddy, Why was I excommunicated?"
Click to expand...


Well...I have never made that argument and never will. I have never seen that argument from anybody who promotes paedocommunion. However, I have not interviewed every person who holds to paedocommunion so I can´t disprove your statement. I don't think the childs covenant relationship is irrelevant but I don't think it alone establishes the argument...I think we all agree that there are some situations where it may be good for some communing members to not take the supper. Consequently, I don´t think anyone could really make such an argument. However, I think it is interesting how the traditional view doesn´t lend itself as a continuation of the Passover practices. In fact, I would like to repeat my question and try to figure out where the non-paedo communion justify giving the Lord´s Supper to ANY children. There are no examples in the new testament"¦and since apparently the Passover that Christ partook of corresponds to a Passover that only included 12 or 13 old circumcised males and their fathers, I would like know to what the standard is for giving the table to children in general. I don't Presbyterians make children wait until they're 12 to receive communion. My argument is pretty simple-

1.) Unless we use the revelation given to us concerning children and the other Passover feasts, we end up creating our own standards for the supper since the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Goosha]

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Goosha]

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Goosha]


----------



## Scott Bushey

I thought that the Greek term was Paidion?


----------



## wsw201

> I don't Presbyterians make children wait until they're 12 to receive communion.



Actually many Presbyterian Churches do.


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> 
> However, I think it is interesting how the traditional view doesn´t lend itself as a continuation of the Passover practices. In fact, I would like to repeat my question and try to figure out where the non-paedo communion justify giving the Lord´s Supper to ANY children. There are no examples in the new testament"¦and since apparently the Passover that Christ partook of corresponds to a Passover that only included 12 or 13 old circumcised males and their fathers, I would like know to what the standard is for giving the table to children in general. I don't Presbyterians make children wait until they're 12 to receive communion. My argument is pretty simple-
> 
> 1.) Unless we use the revelation given to us concerning children and the other Passover feasts, we end up creating our own standards for the supper since the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goosha, it actually was not that simple of an argument. I took the liberty of constructing your argument. You will notice some premises have letters after the number. This denotes a hidden premise in your above argument. I tried to bring them all out so it would be clearer. I attempted to make your argument valid. I attempted to make it as strong as possible, given you above info. All I want to ask you is if my reconstruction is an appropriate reconstrcution of your argument? Before we move on, that is, I'd like you to just give the okay that I have not misrepresented your argument. Or, you may look at the argument and feel that you said to much and it would be to hard to prove some premises (or some are false) and so you may wish to reformulate? Just so you know, logicaly, all the hidden premises that I posted were contained in your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1a.) If the New testament doesn't give hardly any information on a doctrinal issue then we must go to the Old Testament for that information.
> 
> 2.) the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.
> 
> 3.) Therefore we must go to the Old Testament for how the supper relates to children (follows from 1a and 2).
> 
> 4.) If we don't go to the Old Testament, though, for our ideas on how the supper relates to Children then we end up creating our own standards.
> 
> 5.b) The traditional view doesn't go to the Old Testament for their ideas on how the supper relates to children.
> 
> 6.) Therefore, they create thier own standards (from 4 and 5).
> 
> 7c.) It is wrong to create your own standards because then you cannot objectively justify a certain practice.
> 
> 8d.) The traditional view creates their own standards (from 6).
> 
> 9.) Therefore the traditional view cannot objectively justify the practice of giving holy communion the any children.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 1-27-2005 by Paul manata]
Click to expand...



LOL:bigsmile:
I would probably be more bold and suggest that there are no references to the Lord's supper and children but that assumes hermenuetic presuppositions and also my position. I think this is fair enough. I would suggest making the 
1a.) All doctrines must be biblically based.
2.) The Lord's Supper and it's recipients is a doctrinal issue.
3.) The New Testaments lacks material on the Lord's Supper and its recipients etc.


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> I don't Presbyterians make children wait until they're 12 to receive communion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually many Presbyterian Churches do.
Click to expand...


At least they are consistent although I still don't agree.


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> 
> However, I think it is interesting how the traditional view doesn´t lend itself as a continuation of the Passover practices. In fact, I would like to repeat my question and try to figure out where the non-paedo communion justify giving the Lord´s Supper to ANY children. There are no examples in the new testament"¦and since apparently the Passover that Christ partook of corresponds to a Passover that only included 12 or 13 old circumcised males and their fathers, I would like know to what the standard is for giving the table to children in general. I don't Presbyterians make children wait until they're 12 to receive communion. My argument is pretty simple-
> 
> 1.) Unless we use the revelation given to us concerning children and the other Passover feasts, we end up creating our own standards for the supper since the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goosha, it actually was not that simple of an argument. I took the liberty of constructing your argument. You will notice some premises have letters after the number. This denotes a hidden premise in your above argument. I tried to bring them all out so it would be clearer. I attempted to make your argument valid. I attempted to make it as strong as possible, given you above info. All I want to ask you is if my reconstruction is an appropriate reconstrcution of your argument? Before we move on, that is, I'd like you to just give the okay that I have not misrepresented your argument. Or, you may look at the argument and feel that you said to much and it would be to hard to prove some premises (or some are false) and so you may wish to reformulate? Just so you know, logicaly, all the hidden premises that I posted were contained in your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1a.) If the New testament doesn't give hardly any information on a doctrinal issue then we must go to the Old Testament for that information.
> 
> 2.) the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.
> 
> 3.) Therefore we must go to the Old Testament for how the supper relates to children (follows from 1a and 2).
> 
> 4.) If we don't go to the Old Testament, though, for our ideas on how the supper relates to Children then we end up creating our own standards.
> 
> 5.b) The traditional view doesn't go to the Old Testament for their ideas on how the supper relates to children.
> 
> 6.) Therefore, they create thier own standards (from 4 and 5).
> 
> 7c.) It is wrong to create your own standards because then you cannot objectively justify a certain practice.
> 
> 8d.) The traditional view creates their own standards (from 6).
> 
> 9.) Therefore the traditional view cannot objectively justify the practice of giving holy communion the any children.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 1-27-2005 by Paul manata]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL:bigsmile:
> I would probably be more bold and suggest that there are no references to the Lord's supper and children but that assumes hermenuetic presuppositions and also my position. I think this is fair enough. I would suggest making the
> 1a.) All doctrines must be biblically based.
> 2.) The Lord's Supper and it's recipients is a doctrinal issue.
> 3.) The New Testaments lacks material on the Lord's Supper and its recipients etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jayson, I put hardly instead on the stronger claim that there are NO references because you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since the New Testament doesn´t give *hardly* any information on how the Supper relates to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I was just sticking with what you wrote.
> 
> 
> Also, to make the argument flow with what you wrote what if I did this:
> 
> 1a.) If the New testament doesn't give hardly any information on a doctrinal issue then we must go to the Old Testament for that information since our doctrines must be biblically based.
Click to expand...


Go with it....I'm paying less attention to how well or crafted my sentences are cuz I'm at work...I will go ahead and agree with it since I don't have the time to carefully create the argument into a serious of propositions.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Exo 12:24 You shall observe this rite as a statute for you and for your sons forever. 
Exo 12:25 And when you come to the land that the LORD will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this service. 
Exo 12:26 And when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' 
Exo 12:27 you shall say, 'It is the sacrifice of the LORD's Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses.'" And the people bowed their heads and worshiped.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Hahahahahaha

Read Bacon's paper......


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> *Jayson's argument*
> 
> 1a.) If the New testament doesn't give hardly any information on a doctrinal issue then we must go to the Old Testament for that information, since all doctrinal issues must be biblically based.
> 
> 2.) the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.
> 
> 3.) Therefore we must go to the Old Testament for how the supper relates to children (follows from 1a and 2).
> 
> 4.) If we don't go to the Old Testament, though, for our ideas on how the supper relates to Children then we end up creating our own standards.
> 
> 5.b) The traditional view doesn't go to the Old Testament for their ideas on how the supper relates to children.
> 
> 6.) Therefore, they create thier own standards (from 4 and 5).
> 
> 7c.) It is wrong to create your own standards because then you cannot objectively justify a certain practice.
> 
> 8d.) The traditional view creates their own standards (from 6).
> 
> 9.) Therefore the traditional view cannot objectively justify the practice of giving holy communion the any children.
> 
> 
> *Clarifying questions:*
> 
> (1a.) So you go to the OT for inclusion of women partaking of the Lord's supper? Or, it can be argued that the NT doesn't give us any (or at least "hardly any") info on frequency. So, should we therefore base our frequency off the OT? That is, maybe partake yearly!? So, what role does inference play here?
> 
> (2). How does this not beg the question? Isn't one of our claims that some of the most crucial info regarding the proper subjects found in the NT? (Note, I think the NT just reiterates the OT on this point).
> 
> (3) Doesn't follow yet.
> 
> (4) I grant that if ones position is not found in the Bible then he makes it up.
> 
> (5b) I deny this premise. That is, I assert that it is false.
> 
> (6) Doesn't follow yet.
> 
> (7c) Granted.
> 
> (8d). Obviously denied for the above reasons.
> 
> (9). Obviously denied as a non-sequitar for the above reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I reconstructed your argument very fairly. Since you said _it was_ your argument then I must conclude that, as it stands, it has many assumptions that need to be justified. When we see it broken down we see it as a non-sequitar.



Paul, non-sequitar means that my premises do not follow logically from one to the next but you said that originally that you tried to construct my argument to be valid...apparently you failed. Perhaps one or more of my premises are false but if my argument non-sequitar as you claim then its not even worth debating the propositions since even if they were all true the argument would still be false. Maybe we need to work at first making my argument valid and then debating the individual propositions.


----------



## LadyFlynt

(this is one debate that I just can't believe is even going on....)


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> (this is one debate that I just can't believe is even going on....)



I agree....


----------



## LadyFlynt

yeah, but aren't you the one who is standing FOR paedocommunion?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> (this is one debate that I just can't believe is even going on....)



Are you kidding! We love to


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> yeah, but aren't you the one who is standing FOR paedocommunion?



Oh...maybe I misunderstood you...perhaps paedocommunion is too absurd to defend; however, I'm not going to pack it up because I think it true....not to mention...what would you do if people treated your belief on baptism a low as paedocommunion is treated...look over this thread and tell me which position is being treated fairly.


----------



## Goosha

1.) Paedo-communion is founded on practice that whole families participated in the Egyptian Passover feast.
2.) If you apply the Egyptian Passover feast to the Lord´s Supper, then you can make sense of the Lord´s Supper and how it relates to children.
3.) The traditional view does not apply the Egyptian Passover feast to the Lord´s Supper, therefore the traditional view cannot make sense of the Lord´s Supper and how it relates to children.

This is a simpler version of my argument that I believe is easier to refute (if wrong) and perfectly valid. This should help us progress in the debate.


----------



## Goosha

Now...I have posted a challenge in order to demonstrate my argument that the traditional can't consistently argue for why children should even be allowed to participate at all in the Lord's Supper. 

Here it is again-
Why do you allow children to participate in the Lord's Supper and where do you find your principle to give them the Supper? Perhaps only grown adults should take it.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> Now...I have posted a challenge in order to demonstrate my argument that the traditional can't consistently argue for why children should even be allowed to participate at all in the Lord's Supper.
> 
> Here it is again-
> Why do you allow children to participate in the Lord's Supper and where do you find your principle to give them the Supper? Perhaps only grown adults should take it.



Because one of the key passages on the Lord's Supper is 1 Corinthians 11, and thus one of the main reasons we are against participation in infancy is because infants and toddlers cannot examine themselves or discern the body. But when the elders of a church judge that one is old and mature enough to do those things, there is no longer a Scriptural warrant to withold it.


----------



## doulosChristou

Interesting discussion from a Reformed Baptist's perspective. It looks like the paedocommunionists do the same thing with 1 Cor 11 that the paedobaptists do with passages like Mark 16:16. Basically, the latter say that the belief prior to baptism pattern in the NT is applicable only to adults but baptism is not necessarily excluded from infants just like the former say that the examination prior to communion pattern the Corinthian church is applicable only to adults but communion is not necessarily excluded from infants. The paedocommunionists, though doubly in error, are the most theologically consistent.





[Edited on 27-1-2005 by doulosChristou]


----------



## LadyFlynt

okay, please excuse this woman's simple mind...but at first glance the idea of paedocommunion reached my "DUH!" radar.

I do believe you are faulty, and as one who celebrates passover I will tell you why in the simplist of reasons.

Passover and Communion are two separate events. Christ was participating in Passover when he initiated/commanded Communion. He told them to "do this" (bread and wine) in "rememberance of Him". Granted we remember Him in Passover, but passover is a yearly event, not a regular event. Paul goes on and regulates communion in I Cor 11. You must examine yourself. An infant (even though can have saving faith) cannot examine it's sin (as one does not require reasoning and the other does).


----------



## doulosChristou

At least Communion's relationship to the OT Passover ritual can be established from Scripture. The first Communion _was_ the Passover meal. Baptism's relationship to the OT circumcision ritual cannot be established from Scripture. The paedobaptist's theological system tells him that both are the "sign and seal" of the "covenant of grace," but Scripture never says so.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Interesting discussion from a Reformed Baptist's perspective. It looks like the paedocommunionists do the same thing with 1 Cor 11 that the paedobaptists do with passages like Mark 16:16. Basically, the latter say that the belief prior to baptism pattern in the NT is applicable only to adults but baptism is not necessarily excluded from infants just like the former say that the examination prior to communion pattern the Corinthian church is applicable only to adults but communion is not necessarily excluded from infants. The paedobaptists, though doubly in error, are the most theologically consistent.



In Mark 16 (ESV), it simply says, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved," which is a general statement, not a command to always believe before being baptized. 1 Corinthians 11, on the other hand, says, "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."

For lack of a better example in mind at the moment, keep in mind the fact that Ruling Elders are generally not required to have seminary degrees, although some of them certainly do. I basically see the difference between the Mark 16 verse and the 1 Corinthians 11 verse as similar to the difference between saying, "Whoever gets a seminary degree and becomes a Ruling Elder serves his church," and saying, "Let a person get a seminary degree then, and so become a Ruling Elder. For anyone who becomes a Ruling Elder without learning the syllabi does more harm than service."

Do you see the difference I'm trying to point out that I see? In both comparisons (the Bible verses and the seminary/church situations), the former example does not necessarily insist that its first-mentioned practice is necessary for its second-mentioned one, whereas both latter examples do insist that their first-mentioned practice is necessary for their second-mentioned one.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Okay, I guess I am just SHOCKED that it's the Baptists that are going this route. I would have expected it from some extreme Presbyterians, but I think I'm going to need smelling salts on this one...maybe I should change my signature...


----------



## Augusta




----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Do you see the difference I'm trying to point out that I see?



Not precisely. It seems to require that what Paul had specifically in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians was the fencing off the table from infants rather than simply exhorting the adults to examine themselves beforehand so as not to partake with unresolved or unconfessed sin. Let me ask you a question. If those two verses were not in the Bible, would you then be a paedocommunionist?


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Interesting discussion from a Reformed Baptist's perspective. It looks like the paedocommunionists do the same thing with 1 Cor 11 that the paedobaptists do with passages like Mark 16:16. Basically, the latter say that the belief prior to baptism pattern in the NT is applicable only to adults but baptism is not necessarily excluded from infants just like the former say that the examination prior to communion pattern the Corinthian church is applicable only to adults but communion is not necessarily excluded from infants. The paedocommunionists, though doubly in error, are the most theologically consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 27-1-2005 by doulosChristou]



I agree...I may be wrong but at least I'm consistently wrong:bigsmile:


----------



## LadyFlynt

Gregory, Yes you really did confuddle this woman!


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Do you see the difference I'm trying to point out that I see?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not precisely. It seems to require that what Paul had specifically in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians was the fencing off the table from infants rather than simply exhorting the adults to examine themselves beforehand so as not to partake with unresolved or unconfessed sin.
Click to expand...


But he didn't specify infants or non-infants. He simply gave a general command for people to examine themselves before partaking. And that is something that infants cannot do, unless one takes the interpretation that he was merely addressing excessive abuses in the Corinthian church, and not commanding anything in general regarding the Supper, which I see as the only interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 that can save paedocommunion. But I likewise see that interpretation refuted by 2 Chronicles 30:18-20, which specifically likens the preparation before Passover with the one "who sets his heart to seek God." See mine and Scott's discussion on that passage in relation to the Supper here, as well as on the next page.



> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Let me ask you a question. If those two verses were not in the Bible, would you then be a paedocommunionist?



If those were not in the Bible, _and_ specific exegetical evidence could be given to show that infants partook of the Passover in the Old Testament, then I'd have to rethink my position.

Another reason I reject paedocommunion is, as Fred pointed out earlier, just because we see biblical warrant to administer baptism to infants does not mean that they automatically get _all_ the means of grace, unless of course one wants to argue that they can benefit from the Word and prayer. So I see the "if paedobaptism, then paedocommunion" jump as a leap in logic without real warrant, in addition to the two exegetical problems above.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Greg,
> Please explain to me why PaedoBaptism is a sin..............



It seems logical that if the credobaptist position was in fact the truth, that paedobaptism would be a sin as much as we both view paedocommunion as a sin now. If there was in fact no biblical warrant to baptize infants, then surely taking the sacrament beyond God's defined boundaries would be sin.


----------



## doulosChristou

Chris,

I see now. So you don't think children partook of the Passover meal, thus continuity from Judaism to Christianity remains intact.


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Greg,
> Please explain to me why PaedoBaptism is a sin..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems logical that if the credobaptist position was in fact the truth, that paedobaptism would be a sin as much as we both view paedocommunion as a sin now. If there was in fact no biblical warrant to baptize infants, then surely taking the sacrament beyond God's defined boundaries would be sin.
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Chris,
> 
> I see now. So you don't think children partook of the Passover meal, thus continuity from Judaism to Christianity remains intact.



 Indeed.


----------



## fredtgreco

Paul,

I don't have the material in front of me, but aren't there a great many commentators who take the position that it was NOT even held at the Passover?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Paul,
> 
> I don't have the material in front of me, but aren't there a great many commentators who take the position that it was NOT even held at the Passover?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. That's interesting, though. My only point is that the Lord's supper was not *the* passover meal.
Click to expand...


I agree. If I am remembering rightly (and I think I am), that makes your case even stronger.


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> At least Communion's relationship to the OT Passover ritual can be established from Scripture. The first Communion _was_ the Passover meal. Baptism's relationship to the OT circumcision ritual cannot be established from Scripture. The paedobaptist's theological system tells him that both are the "sign and seal" of the "covenant of grace," but Scripture never says so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you forgot to add "AT." You see, the first communion was AT the passover meal.
Click to expand...


Yes, good point. The first Communion was at the Passover meal. Thanks!


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> 
> 
> Paul, non-sequitar means that my premises do not follow logically from one to the next but you said that originally that you tried to construct my argument to be valid...apparently you failed. Perhaps one or more of my premises are false but if my argument non-sequitar as you claim then its not even worth debating the propositions since even if they were all true the argument would still be false. Maybe we need to work at first making my argument valid and then debating the individual propositions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Jayson. Technically, any fallacy is a non-sequitar. Valid arguments can still commit fallacies. Furthermore, there would be a relation issue. So, for example:
> 
> 1. If I do my hair nice then women will love me.
> 
> 2. I did my hair nice.
> 
> 3. Therefore women will love me.
> 
> As we can see, besides the fact that I have no hair, this is a *valid* argument. But since there is no *relation* or *connection* between doing your hair nice and women loving you this would be a non-sequitar. So....
Click to expand...


I see....I have created a smaller form of my argument that you may find valid in form but still non-sequitar. However, you still have not answered my challenge which I think is the best way illustrating my argument. Not to mention, it would provide for you a way to actually prove that my argument is non-sequitar.

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Goosha]


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Where does it say that any and all children ate? What do you mean by "whole familes?" Are you saying that 1 day olds also ate? If not then does "whole family" always mean "whole family?" (note, for you baptists: before you say I'm inconsistant, I'm not a big fan of the tradition oikos argument for infant baptism ).



Aww, my fingers were just itching to type away at that one!


----------



## Goosha

I have to go to my second job so I will have to address this later. I looking forward to this discussion.

I will make one brief remark: If the original passover doesn't give us any indication of whether or not children partook, then I would still like to know then how the Lord's Supper applies to children and also how the passover related to the family in the old testament. In fact...how any festival related to the family at that matter if the language does not satifactorily prove that children participated.


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> you're the asserter baby! I aint gotta prove nothin



I try to avoid wasting time in this debate...in fact I don't know very many people who don't think that at the very least weaned children participated in the first passover...I was hoping you would simply concede that point based on consensus...most of the folks I debate on this topic don't question whether at least weaned children participated. However, I will summarize my argument.

1.) The amount of food was based on each person's ability to eat (Ex. 12:4). 
2.) The corporate term 'family' and 'household' are both used in Exodus 12:3.
3.) The requiremens were simply ones ability to eat and also whether the males were circumcised. Nothing that would even remotely suggest that young children were excluded.

Thus, the Passover was a family meal where everyone who was physically capable (including weaned children) would have most likely participated. Even though Jewish women probably weaned their children much later the way children are weaned now a days, I think the evidence is pretty strong that children ate or at the very least permitted to eat. If the language here doesn't prove it, then there is no way you can prove that children should participate in the Lord's Supper except for maybe inference in which case you have pretty much no idea how children relate to the supper or the passover. You other post appears to try to answer why children should participate and I will try to get around to addressing it this weekend.

[Edited on 28-1-2005 by Goosha]


----------



## Goosha

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> I have to go to my second job so I will have to address this later. I looking forward to this discussion.
> 
> I will make one brief remark: If the original passover doesn't give us any indication of whether or not children partook, then I would still like to know then how the Lord's Supper applies to children and also how the passover related to the family in the old testament. In fact...how any festival related to the family at that matter if the language does not satifactorily prove that children participated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proverbs 22:6 6(A)Train up a child in the way he should go,
> Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 6:7
> 
> 7"(A)You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.
> 
> 
> Genesis 18:19
> 
> 19"For I have (A)chosen him, so that he may (B)command his children and his household after him to (C)keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham (D)what He has spoken about him."
> 
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:15
> 
> 15and that (A)from childhood you have known (B)the sacred writings which are able to (C)give you the wisdom that leads to (D)salvation through faith which is in (E)Christ Jesus.
> 
> 
> I think this provides Biblical warrant for catechizing children. They did this in the OT and the NT. In luke 2 Jesus went to the Passover when he was 12!," And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast." At twelve they became 'a son of the law.' They would be chatechized so that they would know all the law and festivals, etc. The uninspired Talmud tells us: "I am ready to slaughter the Passover for you who shall [now] first go up to Jerusalem"' [Pes. 7:6 & 8:1-7]. I think this lends some support. So, the children must be chatechized.
> 
> Secondly, they must be able to examine themselves. This, coupled with the above evidence that children under 12 did not partake in the Passover meals, makes for a strong case against paedocommunion.
> 
> So, regardless of the interesting questions surrounding me allowing say, a 10 yr. old, we can rest in the fact that these are sophistic attempts to cause possible conceptual headaches within our schema. But(!), we must agree that the counter is false.
Click to expand...


I think its interesting that folks always assume that the Luke is referring to Jesus' first passoever. I don't buy that at all...The text explicity specifies that both Mary and Joseph went every year to passover (verse 41)...Now I suppose Mary and Joseph left Jesus at the local daycare center for all the other times Mary and Joseph went to Passover but I don't find this convincing. Not to mention that Jewish tradition is not at all consisent the age...some say 12 others 13.


----------



## Goosha

Paul Manata writes:


> sure we apply it. Where does it say that any and all children ate? What do you mean by "whole familes?" Are you saying that 1 day olds also ate? If not then does "whole family" always mean "whole family?" (note, for you baptists: before you say I'm inconsistant, I'm not a big fan of the tradition oikos argument for infant baptism ). Why did whole familes partake? Could non-covenant members partake? Any ol' family? So you're really saying that it's founded on the fact that children are in the covenant? Which is what I said above.



First of all, I think the language of Exodus 12 is much more clear than what I wrote in my post. The Lamb was in accordance to what each person was capable of eating. The text actually states the lamb is for the family. Well, I think we all can understand what this means. After all if I go to the grocery store and purchase a stouffer's lasagna for my family, we understand the implied statements. Everyone in the family is welcome to eat it. Infants in the family don’t eat of it because they aren’t capable of eating it not because they aren’t welcome to it…I think this is the same with the Passover. Everyone in the family is welcome but not everyone is capable (i.e. infants). I didn’t think you would contest this so I wasn’t wording it as precise as I could…I hope this paragraph helps.





> Doesn't the Lord's Supper replace ALL the OT meals and not just the Egyptian passover? Furthermore, wasn't the Levitcal passover the one in practice at Jesus' time? Furthermore, wasn't the passover served at home? by the head of the household?? Seems like you pick and choose continuity.



Maybe the Lord’s Supper does replace ALL the OT meals and not just the Eqyptian Passover. Personally, my argument doesn’t rest on this point. My point is that the Eqyptian Passover at least gives us a starting point for communion with respect to its practice…I certainly think that all OT meals were family centered and included children. If so, then maybe we should be arguing on whether OT meals in general included children in which case I think paedocommunion would be even easier to defend. 


Some have argued that because it’s the levitical Passover upon which Christ established the Lord’s Supper that it is irrelevant to consider the Egyptian Passover. If it is irrelevant, then based off of the Levitical Passover the traditional view still can’t justify giving children the Lord’s supper at all. I have asked repeatedly for the justification from you and I still haven’t heard anything…

If you don’t think Exodus 12 gives justification for believing that children (capable of eating the Passover) participated then you most certainly can’t believe there is any justification to believe the children in the New Testament partook. 

In other words, the Old Testament is much more detailed and explicit with whom the Passover should be administered compared to the New Testament and with whom the Lord’s Supper should be administered. 

Concerning the head of the household question and the Passover being served at home, I think this is no different than somebody arguing that paedobaptists are inconsistent because they don’t baptize infants on the 8th day. Its irrevelant to the main thrust of the argument; however, it does illustrate that you really don’t use the Passover as a guide AT ALL for the practice of communion. Should you be surprised that Baptists don’t use circumcision as a guide to the practice of baptism? At least Baptists are consistent even if they are wrong.



> The "what do ye mean by this" language has been used in Scripture in referrence to Joshua 4:6 "That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, 'What mean ye by these stones?'" And we know that only the heads of households carried the stones out.



I love language and language is perhaps one of my favorite subjects. I’m studying Japanese right now and I totally love it…its so much fun and I hope I can live in Japan one day. However, I have learned that language is very flexible and certain phrases can have multiple meanings and implications to them…perhaps if your position is correct then we can better understand why this phrase was used but it certainly doesn’t prove anything. Not to mention that I find it surprising that you find the phrase “what do ye mean by this” to be more convincing than “take a lamb for his family, one for each household.” 



> So, I don't know what you mean by founding a practice on the Exodus Passover? I also don't know why you think children were included?



Since many people seem to think that the Leviticus Passover only included men and 12 year old boys, I really can’t make any appeal to it. However, I think that most people think that women and children were participants of the Exodus Passover so I can use this in my argument. In fact, I don’t really care what anybody’s interpretation is on the Passover because my argument assumes that the traditional view doesn’t consider the participants of the Old Testament Passover anyways (which is why I think the position is false). 

Lets assume for the sake of argument that 
1.) Only 12 year old boys and men took either Passover
2.) That the Passover is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament Laws.

Well, basically the traditional practice has almost nothing to do with the Passover. If God never instituted the Passover, it wouldn’t make any difference. Everything you believe about the practice of communion and how it relates to family is from the New Testament. However, the verse used to establish the requirement of self-examination is an inconsistent hermeneutic. If 1 Corinthians 11:28 implies a command to children, then so should Acts 2:38-39, 1 Peter 3:21 etc must be applied to children as well thus falsifying paedobaptism. Of course, you will say the two are completely different. Well, so what? That doesn’t mean its ok to have a completely different standard of hermeneutics. If all those passages don’t apply to children the same as adults, then neither should you think that 1 Corinthians 11:28 should necessarily apply either. I think at this point every Baptist would agree that its inconsistent to do so. Therefore, you have no material to justify your understanding of the Lord’s Supper. At least the position I am arguing for sees the Old Testament pattern given to us about covenant meals and family and then draws a fairly reasonable inference.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> I certainly think that all OT meals were family centered and included children.



This is where "I think" needs to give way tot he catechistic nature of the Exodus 12 passage. "What do you mean" is not something the children understood, but were required to ask at the meal. Instead, it seems that the children did not eat, and they were instructed (catechized) to be taught what the passover meannt by those who ate it.

Remember that the paedocommunionist argues that since children were admitted to the Passover meal, by analogy they ought to also be admitted to the Lord's Supper. 

Bacon has a good papaer on this issue - some highlights are as follows:

There are numerous other sacrifices throughout the book of Genesis (8:20f.; 12:7f.; 13:4f.; etc.). In each case an adult male brought his sacrifice to the Lord. Thus, the principle was established by the time of the Exodus that these sacrifices were to be made by those males capable of being heads of households.

The paedocommunionist's best argument is a syllogism to this effect:

"[Major:] If infants partook of the Passover, then they are also to partake of the Lord's Supper.
[Minor:] Infants partook of the Passover.
[Conclusion:] Therefore, infants are also to partake of the Lord's Supper."

The paedocommunionist is required to prove either that infants were admitted as participants to the Passover or that they were admitted as participants to the Lord's Supper. 

Verse 44 (chapter 12) expressly tells us that servants were not to partake of the Passover on the basis of their masters' inclusion in the covenant. They were not to partake, in fact, until they themselves were confirmed in the covenant by accepting circumcision as adults

The institution of the "second-month" Passover is found in Numbers 9. It is here that we learn the Passover had a significance which required examination of the would-be participants. The Passover was to be kept when and how God Himself instituted it (v. 3). But certain men had been present at a funeral, so by reason of ceremonial or Levitical uncleanness they were not permitted to keep the Passover (cf. Numbers 5:2-3). Both men and women contracted ceremonial uncleanness (Numbers 5:3), so we must suppose that either (1) no women were at the funeral or (2) that women were not required to keep Passover anyway, so being at the funeral made no difference. Since women were never circumcised in Israel and only the circumcised could partake of the meal, it seems more likely that the latter is the case.

In fact, if women had partaken of the Passover, we should expect roughly twenty-five per cent of the women of Israel to be approaching Moses with the same kind of question that these men had, for twenty-five percent of the women of Israel in each of the four weeks of every month would have been unqualified to partake (if for no other reason) due to their menstrual period (Leviticus 15:19-30). Additionally, because Israel observed a lunar month, the solution that God gave to Moses would have been absolutely no relief for menstruating women. They would have been unclean on the fourteenth of the following month as well.

However, there is no such complaint to Moses in Numbers 9. Are we to believe that these unclean mothers cooked and served the Passover to their Levitically clean infants? Surely this is a thought so completely out of keeping with the nature of the meal that even paedocommunionists will reject it. Rather, it makes much more sense both theologically and hermeneutically to maintain that neither the mothers nor the children ate the meal sacramentally.

What we have learned from Exodus, Numbers, and II Chronicles so far is that Passover was not eaten indiscriminately by every member of the nation. In fact, at least three things could exclude someone from eating the meal: uncircumcision (Exodus 12:48), ceremonial uncleanness (Numbers 9:6; cf. 5:2), and an unyielded heart (II Chronicles 30:8).

This covenantal aspect of the Passover is brought out more fully in Deuteronomy 16:5 ff., where it is moved out of private houses and ultimately to the temple in Jerusalem. The Passover in the land was not to be killed within the gates of the home (v. 5). Rather, it was to be killed and eaten near the tabernacle and later the temple (v. 6). Furthermore, the people who partook were not to return home until the next day (v. 7).

We may now approach the New Testament meal of the Lord's Supper with an Old Testament understanding of the Passover. If our model (hypothesis) regarding the Passover is correct, then we should expect to find certain features surrounding it in the New Testament. Additionally, we would be surprised (based on our model) if we found certain other features incorporated.

For instance, on the basis of Deuteronomy 16:2, we would expect to see participants (covenantal adult males) going to Jerusalem to keep the Passover. Additionally, on the basis of our understanding of Exodus 12:26-27, we would expect to see the children of the participants involved in catechism. Moreover, based on Exodus 12:3-4 and 12:21, we would expect to see a counting of adult males (a.k.a. "men") taking place around the time of the Passover. Finally, based on Numbers 9:1-6 and II Chronicles 30:8, we would expect to see an increased awareness and concern over ceremonial cleanness.

On the other hand, if our understanding of Scripture is correct, we would be surprised to find women partaking of the Passover meal. Additionally, our model would be falsified if we found children partaking of the Passover apart from catechetical activity. We would have cause to suspect our hypothesis if we saw the Passover taking place outside Jerusalem. Finally, if there were little or no concern over ceremonial cleanness on the part of Passover participants we would be required to find a reason for the lack of concern. So then, let us take a look at the New Testament based on our model and see if our hypothesis accounts for the facts that we find there.

We have learned previously that the Passover and subsequent feast of unleavened bread required a detailed knowledge of God's law. The participants were to "examine themselves" for conformity to the law and to refrain from eating if they were in any way ceremonially defiled. Although the Pharisees had polluted this requirement with their own leaven, or impure doctrine, nevertheless they still had respect to the letter of God's requirement. Paul has not added a new requirement of self-examination to the Old Testament sacrament, but has stated the Old Testament principle in New Testament terms.


Paul used the illustration of the Passover to insist that the Church is to discipline those whose lives continue out of accord with the teaching of God's law. Paul asked the Corinthian Church in I Corinthians 5:6, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" All leaven is dangerous, Paul insisted. Even one fornicator in the Church will corrupt the entire Church, just as a little leaven in the house disqualified the ancient Israelite from the feast. The command that Paul then gives us is not a new command, but the obvious application of Exodus 12:15 and Leviticus 2:11. Purge out the leaven and keep the feast! But notice that the unleavened bread of our lives is "sincerity and truth." Sincerity is here used for pure motives, as it is in II Corinthians 2:17. We saw the importance of pure motives in offering sacrifices when we looked at the offerings of Cain and Abel. We saw that one of the things that made the offering of Abel acceptable to God was that it was offered from pure motives. Now here, Paul insists that the Lord's Supper must also be celebrated with the unleavened bread of sincerity or purity of motive. This is an obviously adult requirement, even as it was in the case of Abel's sacrifice.

The word for "truth" is also a term that implies rationality at least to the extent necessary to discern the true from the false. Paul in verse 8 insists that the feast of unleavened bread was and still is to be observed with the adult-like qualities of pure godly motivation and the discernment to know truth from error. If it should be objected at this point that Paul applies sincerity and truth only to adult participants, then we must once again remind the reader that any children present at the Passover were to ask, "What mean ye by this service?"

Any children present at the service were required to be sufficiently rational to ask and, we suppose, understand the meaning of the service. But Paul additionally informs us that the meaning of unleavened bread has to do with motives and discernment. Here then we see the reason for children being held back until such time as they demonstrate sufficient lucidity to inquire into the actual meaning of the ordinance. The men in Numbers 9:1-13 were held back because after examining themselves in light of God's law, they found themselves unclean. They had the years and ability to make that discernment. Paul declared in I Corinthians 5:8 that all who keep the feast must do so with pure motives and discernment.

Paul makes his next reference to the Lord's Supper (table) in I Corinthians 10. He introduces his subject with the reminder, "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say" (v. 15). He begins his reference to the table by speaking of the cup of blessing. This was the third cup of wine at the "Permanent" Passover. Remember that the Passover usually was accompanied by four cups of wine; hardly a beverage or quantity fitting for infants. Although it is not mentioned in Exodus 12, the wine was an integral part of the meal as seen from the institution of the Lord's Supper and from Paul's reference to it here in I Corinthians 10:16. The implication is unmistakable that wine is part and parcel of the Lord's Supper and furthermore that in drinking it we also bless it. This matter of "blessing" is also important for our discussion.

The term "we bless" is present indicative active of the verb eulogeô, "speak well of." The Lord's Supper, in other words, requires rational speech on the part of the participant. This is precisely the sort of rational speech used in the catechetical exercise required in Exodus 12:26-27. When children finally became old enough to take a catechetical role in the Passover, they were required to ask, "What mean ye by this service?" They did not simply ask what their fathers were doing. That would be obvious enough. Rather, they asked about the spiritual significance of what they saw their fathers doing. Then, as the fathers answered that it was the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, the people would bow their heads and worship (or "speak well of" or "bless") the Lord Himself (Exodus 12:27). It is also the rational speech in which our Savior was engaged in Luke 2:47 where "all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers" [emphasis added], at the age of twelve. Therefore, when the apostle Paul provides instruction respecting the Lord's Supper, it is unnecessary for him to state that infants are not participants; rather, he presupposes that they are not.

We come finally to the passage to which anti-paedocommunionists usually and naturally refer first. "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world" (I Corinthians 11:27-32).

It was a general principle of Old Testament Levitical cleanness that the unclean person was to be examined and then undergo whatever ritual was appropriate for his cleansing. This was so much a part of the Old Testament economy that God told Israel through Moses and Aaron, "But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord" (Numbers 19:20).

For example, a suspected leper was brought to the priest for examination. This was not because the priest was a doctor, but because the priest was expected to know the details of the law of God sufficiently to be able to examine and verify a case of leprosy. "When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising . . . then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests . . . then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a leprosy" (Leviticus 13:2, 8).

There are no longer specific persons set aside as priests in the New Testament. Instead, each professor is a priest unto God (I Peter 2:9). Along with this privilege comes the responsibility of knowing the law sufficiently to be able to examine oneself. The laws regarding leprosy have passed with the passing of the ceremonial law, but the weightier matters of God's moral law remain (Westminster Confession, ch. 19). The partakers of the Lord's Supper are now responsible before God to "examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, of their faith to feed upon Him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves" (Shorter Catechism, # 97).

Paul requires the same thing of the partaker of the Lord's Supper that was required of the partaker of the Passover in the Old Testament. There are some differences, obviously, between the Old Testament sacrament and the New Testament sacrament. But the spiritual aspects of the meals are the same and Paul insists throughout the book of First Corinthians that those spiritual aspects be acknowledged. This is not an ordinary meal, but a sacramental meal which points beyond itself. Paul requires that we understand that there is a spiritual significance to the meal and that we be able to understand what the spiritual significance is.

Just as the unrepentant were disqualified from the Passover, they are also disqualified from the Lord's Supper. Just as the uncircumcised were disqualified from the Passover, the unbaptized are disqualified from the Lord's Supper. Just as the uncatechized were disqualified from the Passover, they are also disqualified from the Lord's Supper. Partakers must be able to examine themselves and in order to do that they must have a reasonable understanding of God's law.

In the Old Testament, a priest was required for the examination due to his specialized knowledge of the law of God. Today we are to examine ourselves by the same standard. Such examination presupposes a knowledge of the law and the ability to apply it properly. In short, it requires previous catechetical instruction.

This should not be used as a discouragement to the young children in the church. Rather, it should be an encouragement to them to learn and properly apply the means that God has given for holy living. "But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin" (Numbers 9:13). It is not simply desirable to partake of the sacrament, it is as important as is baptism (Genesis 17:14). Avoiding the sacramental meal does not avoid judgment.

Our children should be encouraged to partake in their appointed season. When the child has learned enough to make a good confession he should fear God and partake of the meal. But how does a session know that the child is truly confirmed in the faith (the session does not confirm, but acknowledges the confirmation of the child)? The answer is that the child must exhibit an understanding of what it is to partake of the sacrament worthily. To the parents of such children, this means catechize, catechize, catechize your children. To the children of the Church this means catechize, catechize, diligently catechize and ask until you understand the answer to the question, "What mean ye by this service?"

On the basis of the Shorter Catechism (# 97), just as adults in the church do, the children should continue to ask themselves these four questions:

(1) Am I a believer?

(2) Do I judge my actions by God's law? 

(3) Do I love God and my neighbor?

(4) Am I dealing with the sin that God has revealed? 

These are the issues of life and it is to these very issues that the Lord's Supper calls each of us: "It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, of their faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves" (Shorter Catechism, # 97).


----------



## Goosha

> _Paul Manata writes_
> So basically you're just going to assert that the whole family ate it because it just seems that way to you? Did the 2 yr. olds also stand with staffs in their hand? The commmand is: This is the way you are to eat it. So, I guess that doesn't applly to the whole family. Special pleading.



No…I am saying the whole family (those capable) were permitted to eat because that’s what the text says…the Lamb is for each “family.” Do you think “family” means only those who could "hold staffs in their hand?” Do you think family only means 12 year boys and men? 

The text also states in Exodus 12:4


> ….you are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat.


Similar phrase used in Exodus 16:16


> Each one is to gather as much as he needs. Take an omer for each person you have in your tent.



Well...since they are similar phrases, it must mean that what is true for one must be true for the other...thus...we can conclude that since everyone ate the manna in Exodus 16 that everyone must have eaten the Passover in Exodus 12. After all, those two verses are alike and we know what that means




> I've already addressed this. First, if the NT says that those who examine themselves may partake then if a child is capable of examining himself he can partake. I also made an argument from the talmud and the practice of chatechising Jewish children. So, basically all you're doing, again, is asserting your position.



I have repeatedly argued that the taking 1 Corinthian 11:28 and implying that children are required to follow the same command as adults creates an inconsistency to other passages with similar language; this would falsify your view of paedobaptism. You may not agree but I don’t believe I have just asserted my position…you have simply denied my argument. For someone who puts a lot of stock in similarities in language usage, I would think you would immediately see the strength of comparing 1 Co. 11:28 with 1 Pe. 3:21, Acts 2:38-39 etc and either concluding that the language either requires a profession of faith from children in both baptism and the Lord ’s Supper or neither. 


Your argument from the Talmud is acceptable…the tradition may have had 12 or 13 year boys participating precisely because of what your arguing for- they had been sufficiently catechized. I’m not convinced that paedocommunion is wrong because of it, but this particular argument does carry reasonable weight.



> I gave an argument that "what do ye mean by this" means that the children who were excluded asked this question, as in Joshua. You then say that language is tricky but you want to make the language in your first argument seem so clear that none should doubt it. I sense confusion.



Yeah, I am confused…I don’t understand why the “what do ye mean by this” argument is so convincing…In Deuteronomy 6:20 “In the future, when your son asks you, "What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?" Does this mean that children weren’t participants in God’s laws because of the “what mean ye by this?” Of course not, that’s because language is flexible…even the “what do ye mean by this” doesn’t prove anything, at least to me.

Not to mention according to Alfred Edersheim (The Temple, Chapter 12 under the heading “Herbs), the Talmud suggests that if the child was too young to ask the question that the father would ask for him. So according to Edersheim, your argument regarding the “what do ye mean by this” doesn’t appear very strong. 




> Apparently you've missed the point that I've argued that the OT tells us that Adults and catechised children partook in the feasts. So why would you say that I'm not arguing from the OT. I have continuity, you don't (according to my argument).



If this is your position, then I respect your position as being at least consistent and if you’re right then your argument is a valid refutation to my argument. However, now the debate is simply on whether weaned children ever participated in the Passover or only those who reached a certain level of understanding partook. 

This, I think is the crux of the debate because it requires us to address what is foundational. Any anti paedocommunion position which argues from this perspective is at least reasonable. However, lets be honest…paedocommunion may be wrong but the position itself isn’t totally unreasonable…you and I may never come to agree on this but at least now you understand where I’m coming from and I understand where you’re coming from…

My argument was basically taking the principles found in the Passover feasts and applying them to the Lord’s Supper. The impression I receive from anti-paedocommunion folks is simply to ignore the Passover feasts or make them irrelevant; however, my argument is that for consistency they MUST be relevant.


----------



## Goosha

Matt,

I would have replied to your post too but I will have to wait until the weekend and then try to go through your post.


----------



## Goosha

Ehhh......be honest....I wish someone else who holds to paedocommunion would debate you guys....I'm busy learning Japanese and debating you guys is too tough....both of you make arguments that I can't just reply with three sentenses or just point to a verse or anything...I have take the time to read and reread and contemplate your arguments for validity and they craft a response and its actually interfering with my japanese studying...so I just say..."I don't agree but you guys win!" Perhaps somebody better than myself could give you guys a run for your money...I have Japanese to study...so...I'll be going back to lurking for awhile. Maybe I'll pick this up sometime in the future when I'm fluent in Japanese. Catch you on the flip side!


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

Wow. This thread went all out!


----------

