# Reprobate Covenant Children and the Lordâ€™s Table



## Peters (Oct 23, 2005)

Is this one of the reasons why some Presbyterians do not have their children eat and drink from the Lord´s Table, namely, that their children my not be those for whom Christ shed His blood?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 23, 2005)

Covenant children are not viewed as "reprobate" until that time they apostasize and break covenant w/ God, and even then, only God knows as they may be a prodigal. If they break covenant and there is no repentance, they are excommunicated.

The supper is delegated upon the premise that the person is able to 'examine' themselves and has made a credible profession to the elders of their respective church.

In any congregation, Presbyterian or credo, there are people whom are partaking for whom Christ did NOT die for. It's just a fact. A profession does not a Christian make.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Is this one of the reasons why some Presbyterians do not have their children eat and drink from the Lord´s Table, namely, that their children my not be those for whom Christ shed His blood?



No, because it seems that Judas partook of the Lord's supper.

Luke 22:14-39. The only way we can remove Judas from the Lord´s Supper is to remove verse 19-20 from the chorological order given here and place it at a later time: with Matthew 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25.

Which I do not think is viable.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peters_
> ...



Mark,
I know you know this, so I am just talking essentially to hear myself:

I don't believe this example is the stalwart for the doctrine. It goes well beyond that rationale.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

Scott check your U2U message.

I think his question might be the difficult dilemma regarding why we paedos say baptized children are christians and disciples and members of the body of Christ, yet they are non-communicant members, and under discipline until they are examined by the elders, to prove by their good works of memorizing the catechism that they are worthy to partake of the Lord's supper.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Scott check your U2U message.
> 
> I think his question might be the difficult dilemma regarding why we paedos say baptized children are christians and disciples and members of the body of Christ, yet they are non-communicant members, and under discipline until they are examined by the elders, to prove by their good works of memorizing the catechism that they are worthy to partake of the Lord's supper.


Saiph,

Scott answered the question right away. Paedobaptists use the following to support their reason:

(1Co 11:28) Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

It has only become a "dilemna" in the minority paedocommunion movement. I know there are those that argue the parallels between Passover and the Lord's Supper (and there are many). I submit to my Church's teaching on the issue and do not consider myself clever enough to overthrow the history surrounding the practice of examing a child before they become communicant members.

To the original point:

Peters,

I know you are a man who loves God and I want to tell you that I used to have a view of the Scriptures similar to your own and had a view of election that became kind of the overriding hermaneutic for every issue. I don't disagree that the issue is important but it is after all an issue we affirm and then leave to the Secret counsel of God's will. The WCF rightly states that it is an issue that needs to be handled with great care. If you are in pastoral training, you ought to consider how you will handle the issue with future congregants.

Think about how many things Paul tells us in his epistles concerning our status in Christ and how we ought to live in accord with that Truth. How many times does Paul command someone to do thus and so and then qualify it with a "...oh, and if you're elect you'll do that and if you're not then you won't...." It simply does not happen because there is a place to understand election for our comfort and then there is a place to instruct in how we love God and not get caught in needless speculation.

Nobody withholds any sacrament in the Church because a person might be reprobate. We would admit the sacraments to nobody if that was the fear. Paul does not appeal to election when he commands the Church regarding the right administration of the sacrament and neither should we.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 23, 2005)

While he does not see the opposite view to be problematic, George Gillespie gives reasons for why Judas may not have been at the first Lord's supper.
Link Here.


----------



## Peter (Oct 23, 2005)

Interesting. Chris, doesn't Rutherford, in answering a separatist, argue that Judas was at the supper and thus in favcor of the admixture of hypocrites with believers in the visible church.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 23, 2005)

Personally, I think that Judas was not at the Supper and I think Gillespie is right in this:

"3. Luke says not that after supper, or after they had done with the sacrament, Christ told his disciples that one of them should betray him; only he adds, after the history of the sacrament, what Christ said concerning the traitor. But Matthew and Mark do not only record Christ´s words concerning the traitor before they make narration concerning the sacrament, but they record expressly that that discourse, and the discovery of the traitor, was [ejsqivontwn ajutw`n]: "œAs they did eat," Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18, "œNow, when the evening was come, he sat down with the twelve," and immediately follows, as the first purpose which Christ spoke of, "œAnd as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me;" which could not be so, if Luke relate Christ´s words concerning the traitor in that order in which they were first uttered; for Luke having told us, ver. 22, that Christ took the cup after supper and said, "œThis cup is the New Testament," &c., adds, "œBut behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." So that if this were the true order, Christ did not tell his disciples concerning the traitor, as they did eat (which Matthew and Mark do say), but after they had done eating. If it be said that [ejsqivontwn ajutw`n] may suffer this sense, when they had eaten, or having eaten, I answer, The context will not suffer that sense; for they were, indeed, eating in the time of that discourse, Matt. 26:23, "œHe that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me;" John 13:26, "œHe it is to whom I shall give a sop after I have dipped it."

"And as they did eat" is the clincher. with Matthew 26:33 and John 13:26.

But in terms of the original question, no, its not just that they think their children are not saved, rather, it is because the Supper surrounds growth, not birth. In other words, baptism is "birth" and the Supper is "growth". The exception to "all" partaking is the qualifier for "growth" which is "self examination." Children cannot do that.

Now Paedocommunionists use 2 Thessalonians 3:10 as an argument that this does not apply to infants. They quote, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." They say, "Paul was writing to the church, but he could not mean the infants. This does not apply to infants. They cannot work. It has nothing to do with them. This idea of working cannot be applied to infants, so infants can eat. They must be fed."

They take this clever idea and apply it to 1 Cor. 11. They say, "In the same way that an infant cannot work, he also cannot examine himself and so since he cannot work, and it does not apply to him there, so it cannot apply to him in 1 Cor. 11 because he cannot examine himself."

This is a hermenuetical error though. It is a misnomer.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 is talking about workers.

1 Cor. 11 is talking about those who partake of the Supper.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 applies to those who work or do not work. It applies to those two classes.

1 Cor. 11 applies to those "eating" the sacrament. It applies to all who eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 doe snot apply to infants because they are unable to work.

1 Cor. 11 applies to infants because Paedocommunionists give them the supper. This overthrows the directive for ALL those who eat to examine themselves. Infants cannot do this. They are excluded.

[Edited on 10-24-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Interesting. Chris, doesn't Rutherford, in answering a separatist, argue that Judas was at the supper and thus in favcor of the admixture of hypocrites with believers in the visible church.


He may; been a while since I read that. Be interesting to see if R brings it up again in his later work _Divine Right of Church Government,_ and if he says anything different. The piece on Judas by G is from _Aaron's Rod_ and both works were written while both were in London and in the same time period I think.


----------



## Peter (Oct 23, 2005)

> 2. But he forbids (says he), all partaking with the wicked in their evils. I distinguish their evils in their evils, of their personal sins in not worshipping the true God in faith, sincerity and holy zeal, that I deny, and it is to be proved, Christ himself and the Apostles ate the Passover, and worshipped God with one whom Christ had said had a devil, and should betray the Son of Man, and was an unclean man, (John 13:11, 12:18). He forbids all partaking with the wicked in their evils, that is, in the unlawful and idol worship, or in their superstitions and will-worship; that is true, but nothing against us, or for your separation.



Which also has implications in this  thread.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > 2. But he forbids (says he), all partaking with the wicked in their evils. I distinguish their evils in their evils, of their personal sins in not worshipping the true God in faith, sincerity and holy zeal, that I deny, and it is to be proved, Christ himself and the Apostles ate the Passover, and worshipped God with one whom Christ had said had a devil, and should betray the Son of Man, and was an unclean man, (John 13:11, 12:18). He forbids all partaking with the wicked in their evils, that is, in the unlawful and idol worship, or in their superstitions and will-worship; that is true, but nothing against us, or for your separation.
> ...


Yep; but the link is a little funky.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

One can hold the view that Judas was at the supper and NOT be paedocommunion. Note my response post said "non-communicate" members NOT "ex-communicate members", which is what I would have emphasized had I been trying to support PC. 

I was pointing out the idea that a reprobate may take part in the eucharist while being in the covenant community. I thought this helped answer the original question.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 23, 2005)

Ditto to Matt.

Considering Luke's account is not chronological and examining the other gospels which were chronoligical, we see that Judas had left by the time the Supper was instituted.

Phillip


----------



## AdamM (Oct 23, 2005)

Marcos, I believe the best way to look at it is that as Presbyterians, we believe that to partake of the Lord's Supper requires an active participation that would exclude most very young children. "Take and eat" requires the mouth of faith. The type of faith that remembers, proclaims and discerns.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

Pastorway, I think I can accept either view. To me, Judas eating is the most natural reading, but Gillespie's points are good also. We just cannot know for sure I guess. It does not affect any major point of theology either way.

If one considers, that Christ was at His own table, he has the authority to administer His meal in any way He sees fit, and therefore, by feeding Judas, showed us a living example of the danger tied to eating it in an unworthy manner, for afterwards it was revealed what Judas was.

Keep in mind Paul even mentions "on the night He was *betrayed*, He took the cup . . ."
This argument is better for the non-paedocommunionist if you ask me.

If you say Judas did not eat, because Christ hedged the table lest he drink judgment upon himself, well, thats kind of silly because he was the son of perdition anyway, already predestined for such destruction. In one sense, eating the eucharistic supper externally sealed his fate.

But the chronology issue is valid.



Adam,



> I believe the best way to look at it is that as Presbyterians, we believe that to partake of the Lord's Supper requires an active participation that would exclude most very young children. "Take and eat" requires the mouth of faith. The type of faith that remembers, proclaims and discerns.



Here is a problem where I side with the credobaptist. Why is the "mouth of faith" not being manifested in an infant, unneccessary for baptism, yet regarding the Lord's supper it is ? Does not the following verse argue for the faith you say "remembers, proclaims, and discerns" by an appeal to God ?



> 1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,





[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

Matt,



> Now Paedocommunionists use 2 Thessalonians 3:10 as an argument that this does not apply to infants. They quote, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." They say, "Paul was writing to the church, but he could not mean the infants. This does not apply to infants. They cannot work. It has nothing to do with them. This idea of working cannot be applied to infants, so infants can eat. They must be fed."
> 
> They take this clever idea and apply it to 1 Cor. 11. They say, "In the same way that an infant cannot work, he also cannot examine himself and so since he cannot work, and it does not apply to him there, so it cannot apply to him in 1 Cor. 11 because he cannot examine himself."



Being a paedocommunion advocate, I want you to know for the record that the argument presented there is absolutely absurd. I would never use that argument. So, I agree with you on that point.

[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## AdamM (Oct 24, 2005)

> Here is a problem where I side with the credobaptist. Why is the "mouth of faith" not being manifested in an infant, unnecessary for baptism, yet regarding the Lord's supper it is ? Does not the following verse argue for the faith you say "remembers, proclaims, and discerns" by an appeal to God ?



Mark, I would first say that in baptism the subject is passive. I think the verses in 1 Peter actually make that point (not by the external performance of the rite, but via union with Christ.) 

Secondly, the WSC Q. 95 & WLC Q. 166 makes the warrant for baptism not the faith or presumed faith of the recipient, but rather the child's relationship to the visible church/covenant community (if you are a member of the covenant, you are entitled to the sign of the covenant.) 



> Q. 95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
> A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; * but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized. *






> Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
> A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, * but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. *


----------



## Peters (Oct 24, 2005)

> I know you are a man who loves God and I want to tell you that I used to have a view of the Scriptures similar to your own and had a view of election that became kind of the overriding hermaneutic for every issue. I don't disagree that the issue is important but it is after all an issue we affirm and then leave to the Secret counsel of God's will. The WCF rightly states that it is an issue that needs to be handled with great care. If you are in pastoral training, you ought to consider how you will handle the issue with future congregants.



I appreciate this, brother, and take the caution to heart. I´m pressing the eternal perspective because I think it may be relevant to the issue.



> Think about how many things Paul tells us in his epistles concerning our status in Christ and how we ought to live in accord with that Truth. How many times does Paul command someone to do thus and so and then qualify it with a "...oh, and if you're elect you'll do that and if you're not then you won't...." It simply does not happen because there is a place to understand election for our comfort and then there is a place to instruct in how we love God and not get caught in needless speculation.



Brother, Paul uses our election as a motivation for our walk with Christ all over the place. 



> Nobody withholds any sacrament in the Church because a person might be reprobate. We would admit the sacraments to nobody if that was the fear. Paul does not appeal to election when he commands the Church regarding the right administration of the sacrament and neither should we.



Why is it wrong to assume that someone may be reprobate if they can´t examine themselves before the table? Maybe I should have directed the question to Peadocommunionists.


----------



## Peters (Oct 24, 2005)

Hello there, brother.



> I think his question might be the difficult dilemma regarding why we paedos say baptized children are christians and disciples and members of the body of Christ, yet they are non-communicant members, and under discipline until they are examined by the elders, to prove by their good works of memorizing the catechism that they are worthy to partake of the Lord's supper.



In other words, they must have a good profession of faith before they are considered a believer and are therefore able to eat the Lord´s Supper. Correct?


----------



## Peters (Oct 24, 2005)

> But in terms of the original question, no, its not just that they think their children are not saved, rather, it is because the Supper surrounds growth, not birth. In other words, baptism is "birth" and the Supper is "growth". The exception to "all" partaking is the qualifier for "growth" which is "self examination." Children cannot do that.




Is this not a somewhat individualistic view of salvation and the Lord´s Table? 

Don´t you want your covenant children to grow? If their positioning around gracious benefits is one of the things that distinguishes them from heathen children, then why do you keep this means of "œgrowth" from them? You will say: "œBecause they cannot examine themselves." But why don´t you do that for them? Do you not presuppose that your covenant children are believers until they prove to be unbelievers by breaking the covenant? 

Trying to understand"¦


----------



## Peters (Oct 24, 2005)

> Marcos, I believe the best way to look at it is that as Presbyterians, we believe that to partake of the Lord's Supper requires an active participation that would exclude most very young children. "Take and eat" requires the mouth of faith. The type of faith that remembers, proclaims and discerns.



We have common ground here, brother.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 24, 2005)

> > Think about how many things Paul tells us in his epistles concerning our status in Christ and how we ought to live in accord with that Truth. How many times does Paul command someone to do thus and so and then qualify it with a "...oh, and if you're elect you'll do that and if you're not then you won't...." It simply does not happen because there is a place to understand election for our comfort and then there is a place to instruct in how we love God and not get caught in needless speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, Paul uses our election as a motivation for our walk with Christ all over the place.


Yes, he uses election many times as a motivation to remind us of our status and call us to be true to that election. I didn't dispute that. What I said was that, where the Apostles remind us of our election it is appropriate to do so but where they do not bring election into the discussion, we ought to consider whether it is appropriate for us to do so. 

In the issue of the Lord's Table, there is nowhere any warrant where the command to the Church is to be sure not to administer the sacrament to the reprobate members of the congregation. As I stated, if that was the fear, then Elders could only truly administer the Sacrament to themselves based on their own assurance for they do not have the mind of God to test anyone else's assurance. They have only external evidences of the members' credible profession and external evidences of Godly living.

To base any decision in the visible Church on dividing the Elect from the Reprobate is not only something unwise but something we are specifically commanded *not* to do. (Matt 13:29)



> > Nobody withholds any sacrament in the Church because a person might be reprobate. We would admit the sacraments to nobody if that was the fear. Paul does not appeal to election when he commands the Church regarding the right administration of the sacrament and neither should we.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it wrong to assume that someone may be reprobate if they can´t examine themselves before the table? Maybe I should have directed the question to Peadocommunionists.


Because nowhere are we told to do so. When Paul commands Corinth to put somebody out of the Church, the purpose is to protect the Church but also to bring repentance. The person put out might be a true believer and, if so, will be "woken up" by his discipline. How long might a person be Prodigal? The Bible doesn't give us a rule. Assuming reprobation is NEVER our purview and is very dangerous. We treat people put out of the Church like pagans but not because we know they are reprobate. Only God knows that.

[Edited on 10-24-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

Adam, you are right the I Peter verse subject is passive. But the gift of faith received, expresses itsef in active obedience. And, I do not think the verse is asking for a confession before the administration of the sign.

Marcos,

I simply do not take Paul's command to "examine" as a universal rule for all eucharistic meals. The church at Corinth was involved in gross abuse of worship in many areas. He is giving them strict guidelines to get back on track. That is the context. If we start to see that kind of abuse, we apply those wise restrictions.

[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Peters (Oct 24, 2005)

> In the issue of the Lord's Table, there is nowhere any warrant where the command to the Church is to be sure not to administer the sacrament to the reprobate members of the congregation.



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

[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Peters]


----------



## Peters (Oct 24, 2005)

> Marcos,
> 
> I simply do not take Paul's command to "examine" as a universal rule for all eucharistic meals. The church at Corinth was involved in gross abuse of worship in many areas. He is giving them strict guidelines to get back on track. That is the context. If we start to see that kind of abuse, we apply those wise restrictions.



This is an interesting point, Mark. I will think on it.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

Marcos, a few more points to ponder.

In John 6, when Christ calls himself the new manna, He also refers to his blood. In verse 45, right before He says He is the bread that gives real life, Christ specifically quotes Isaiah 54:13

Isa 54:13 
And all thy children [shall be] taught of the LORD; and great [shall be] the peace of thy children. 


Also, Paul in I corinthians 10, one chapter before addressing gluttony and drunkeness at the Lord's table says this:



> The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
> 1Cr 10:17 For we, though many, are one bread and *one body; *for we *all partake of that one bread.*
> 1Cr 10:18 Observe Israel after the flesh: *Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?*



So should not all Israel after the Spirit, partake of the one bread also ?
Are baptized children considered to be part of the body of Christ ?

*Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. *

We should bring our children to Christ for blessings should we not ?

[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## AdamM (Oct 24, 2005)

> I simply do not take Paul's command to "examine" as a universal rule for all eucharistic meals. The church at Corinth was involved in gross abuse of worship in many areas. He is giving them strict guidelines to get back on track. That is the context. If we start to see that kind of abuse, we apply those wise restrictions.



Mark, I think by taking that position, you are excluding what appears to me to be the most likely option, which has Paul using the opportunity of the problems at Corinth to address not only the abuses there, but to lay out general guidelines for the celebration of the Lord´s Supper. In other words the choice isn´t an either - or, but instead a both - and. 

I think the "œwhoever," "œanyone" and "œlet a man" language Paul uses 
indicates that the instructions Paul gives have application beyond just the specific abuses at Corinth (while certainly not excluding them either.) 



> 27Therefore, * whoever * eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For *anyone * who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > I simply do not take Paul's command to "examine" as a universal rule for all eucharistic meals. The church at Corinth was involved in gross abuse of worship in many areas. He is giving them strict guidelines to get back on track. That is the context. If we start to see that kind of abuse, we apply those wise restrictions.
> ...



Excellent answer, as usual, Adam.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

Adam,

By the context would not "unworthy manner" be gluttony, or drunkeness, or total disregard for the poor and children ?

What translation did you use ? 

Can we really protect people from drinking judgment on themselves by questioning them before the elders ?

As we mature into adults, we become experts at sin. Children have a simple childlike faith, and a simple idea of their own sin. How are we held accountable at the table for not discerning the body ? What does it mean to discern the body ?

By context, I take it to mean that discerning the body involves propriety, and consideration of others when coming to the table. Do little infants and children really have an issue with that ?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

For the non-PC. 

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

I want to keep this an irenic dialogue. I am not trying to convert anyone to my opinion. I seriously came to believe in Paedo-Baptism never understanding any of the arguments for non-paedocommunion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> > In the issue of the Lord's Table, there is nowhere any warrant where the command to the Church is to be sure not to administer the sacrament to the reprobate members of the congregation.
> ...


Yes, it is the ability to examine themselves. That takes some maturity and understanding that an infant or very young child does not have.

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

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


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

Rich, no contention here, just curious. 

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

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Rich, no contention here, just curious.
> 
> How do you feel about administering the Lord's supper to the feeble-minded, retarded, comatose, or faithful and aged Christian suffering from alzheimer's ?



Mark,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

Excellent response Rich. Good point about folly vs. immaturity, and senility vs. incapacitance. 

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

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

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

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

Thank You.





[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_Attending an Anglican church gives me the liberty to bring my kids to the feast. Two of them can articulate their faith, as well as the deity and atoning work of Christ.
> 
> When we attended a PCA church before this, they simply could not partake. So we opted for the nursery (ecclesiastical daycare). As we seek God's guidance towards a new church home, the Anglican parish is enticing, but I do not want to be a single issue christian. There is a good PCA church near us as well, that would probably stick closer to reformed doctrines than the Anglican church. We were even considering visiting a Lutheran assembly. (definitely not PC)


Does the Anglican Church allow for PC? When I was a Roman Catholic, we had to get a class at about age 6 before we could accept communion. I just assumed the Anglican Church would carry that tradition over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Peters (Oct 25, 2005)

> Yes, it is the ability to examine themselves.



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



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



What is the purpose of the self-examination? 



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



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



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



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



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



Amen!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Is this kind of self-examination possible only for Christians? Do you consider covenant children Christians?


Yes, true self-examination is possible only for Christians. Yes I consider covenant children to be Christians but the young ones incapable of self-examination but not because they're non-Christians but because they are immature.



> What is the purpose of the self-examination?


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



> > Just because we don't allow our children to vote for the Elders and Deacons doesn't mean we don't consider them part of the body. It is a matter of maturity.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not agree with you here, brother. The Table is a matter of obedience and a means of grace. The youngest of Christians can come and eat and drink and understand what´s going on *because* of the power of the Table. The Table preaches Christ in a profound way. I don´t think the principles of the Table and voting equate.


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


----------



## Saiph (Oct 25, 2005)

Rich,



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



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

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

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



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



Thank you. I really appreciate this.



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



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

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 27, 2005)

Good question Marcos.


----------



## Peters (Oct 28, 2005)

> Yes, true self-examination is possible only for Christians. Yes I consider covenant children to be Christians but the young ones incapable of self-examination but not because they're non-Christians but because they are immature.


Ok, true self-examination is only possible for mature Christians. But you must infer that, right? The fact is, infants *can´t* remember that Christ has shed His blood for them, because He may not have. As I see it, the "œcovenant children" idea has dangerous implications on the Atonement. 



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



What would that unworthy manner be?



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



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


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

Marcos, an unworthy manner, by the context of I Cor. 11, would be gluttony, drunkeness, disregard for the poor, etc . . .




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



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


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



> "The warning in v.29 about 'discerning the Lord's body' almost surely refers to this failure to maintain the unity of the church as the body of Christ... Because some of the believers in Corinth were celebrating the Supper in a way that destroyed the unity it represents, God had brought judgment upon the community."
> 
> R.C. Sproul, ed., New Geneva Study Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 1815.



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

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





[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## AdamM (Oct 28, 2005)

Marcos,

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

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

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



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



[Edited on 10-28-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## AdamM (Oct 28, 2005)

Hi Mark,

For what it's worth, I find the paedocommunionist position in regard to "discerning the body" in 1 Corinthians to be rather weak, because I can grant that their interpretation may be correct (the problem in terms of discerning the body that Paul refers to at Corinth was one of practice), but how can orthopraxy be separated from orthodoxy? Wouldn't a proper understanding of the relationship of believers to one another, presuppose a proper understanding of meaning of Christ's sacrifice and the significance of it for the believer and the Church?


----------



## Peters (Oct 28, 2005)

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



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

I appreciate the Edwards quote, Adam. Thanks.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Wouldn't a proper understanding of the relationship of believers to one another, presuppose a proper understanding of meaning of Christ's sacrifice and the significance of it for the believer and the Church?



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

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

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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 28, 2005)

I would keep the _imbecile_ from partaking.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I would keep the _imbecile_ from partaking.





And that is, in my opinion, who Paul's warning is for.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 28, 2005)

Mark,
Who is the supper for?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

The supper is for all disciples of Jesus.


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


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

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 28, 2005)

No. It is for disciples whom are able to _examine_ themselves.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

No big deal we disagree. 


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

Many commands are given that children do not understand. There are many that I do not understand. I fail in examining myself before the table.
I do not judge myself rightly. I eat in FAITH. It is a table of blessing not malediction.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 28, 2005)

Mark,
That same table you speak of, because of NOT examining themselves, 'many sleep'. The command is specific: Examine! It does not say, "Eat in faith". Do I eat in faith, yes! Does that free me from my responsibility to examine myself, no!

The fact that a child has no idea of adultery only substantiates my position. The table must be taken by them that are able to understand not only adultery but to understand the command to reflect and examine.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

I simply think that was a contextual instance where the Corinthians were totally out of line. When Jesus initiated it, there was no warning.

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

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

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

Like I said. It is no big deal that we disagree.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 28, 2005)




----------



## Peters (Oct 28, 2005)

Would anyone in this thread tell an unbeliever that Christ died specifically for them?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Would anyone in this thread tell an unbeliever that Christ died specifically for them?



No. But I have said to an unbeliever, "the question you need to ask yourself is, Did Christ die for you?" Then I usually dare them to read the gospel of John, and pray to God to reveal Himself in His word.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Would anyone in this thread tell an unbeliever that Christ died specifically for them?



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


----------



## Peters (Oct 28, 2005)

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



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

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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 28, 2005)

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



My covenant children will not partake of Christs table until:
1) they have made a profession and 
2) are able to examine themselves.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 28, 2005)

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





When I was studying this issue a few months back, this was one of the "clincher" passages for me. 1 Cor. 10:17 makes it clear that the body of Christ and the Lord's Table are coextensive. 

Are believers' children part of the Lord's body? Yes.
Then should they partake of the one bread? Yes, according to this passage.


I wonder if there are any Presbyterian denominations that permit PC? I have considered looking for a Calvinistic Anglican church, but I'm not all that thrilled with their form of church government.





[Edited on 10-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



Then Church discipline, faith and union with Christ mean nothing, which is why if you do find such a denomination, you will find that they have a warped view of assurance, justification and faith.

It is no surprise that virtually every FV advocate is a paedocommunionist, and virtually every branch of Christendom (save the EO, which have their own warped view of salvation) rejects paedocommunion.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

> Then Church discipline, faith and union with Christ mean nothing, which is why if you do find such a denomination, you will find that they have a warped view of assurance, justification and faith.



Church discipline is very important to me. Could you explain this more ?

And FV tries to redefine the idea of "covenant", denies the "covenant of works" and borders on Pelagianism. I do not know why you insist on bringing that up. Is Rc Sproul Jr. into FV ? ? I doubt it.

Augustine was by no means Pelagian, and he evidently had no problem with Paedocommunion.



> While preaching on 1 Timothy 1:15, against the Pelagians (Sermon 174,7), Augustine remarks:
> 
> "Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn't save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn't Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I'm not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they're infants, but they are his members. They're infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they SHARE IN HIS TABLE, in order to have life in themselves."
> 
> Saint Augustine, The Works of Saint Augustine, trans. Edmund Hill, ed. John E. Rotelle, 11 vols. Part III-Sermons. (New Rochelle, New York: New City Press, 1992)


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

> I wonder if there are any Presbyterian denominations that permit PC? I have considered looking for a Calvinistic Anglican church, but I'm not all that thrilled with their form of church government.



There are no Presbyterian denominations that will allow this. And that is their prerogative. They need to stick to the WCF, and I support them in that. And, you are right, the Anglican churches I have visited are not Calvinistic at all. Which is worse than not being paedoeucharist.

I am considering going with a PCA (non-pc) church because the gospel is misrepresented in the Anglican and non-denominational churches I have visited.

(I will simply continue to drill the shorter catechism into my kids and have the Elders question them weekly until they can partake)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I simply think that was a contextual instance where the Corinthians were totally out of line. When Jesus initiated it, there was no warning.


Mark,

Nor was there an explicit warning to not circumcise converts as the Pharasaical sect later did. We obviously understand that the Apostles shed some light on certain things that were not explicitly spelled out.

I won't re-state my main position but I would only critique your inference from 1 Corinthians. It is true that 1 Corinthians speaks of a multitude of ways in which the Supper was being mistreated - gluttony, drunkenness, and selfishness. In fact, it appears that when Paul is speaking of discerning the "Lord's Body" he is referring to the Church body in which we all form "parts" of that body. One of the reasons it is called Communion is that it is part of the mysterious communion of the Saints as we are one in Christ and part of one another.

Do Christians today that are suddenly in the paedocommunion camp really think that the Church never considered the context of 1 Corinthians until they discovered it? Just because a particular abuse is in mind does not mean that a parrallel lesson about the weightiness of the meal is in mind here. Both self-examination and a discernment of the mystical union are in mind here. This is simply not possible with an infant.


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Ok, true self-examination is only possible for mature Christians. But you must infer that, right? The fact is, infants *can´t* remember that Christ has shed His blood for them, because He may not have. As I see it, the "œcovenant children" idea has dangerous implications on the Atonement.


Marcos,

I say this without malice but you really need to work on your polemics. A basic rule of polemics is that you must first understand and refute a doctrine as it is understood by your opponent. You repeatedly either ignore the arguments being presented, misrepresent them, or interpret them as you understand them and mis-state the position according to your model.

I don't need to "infer" from anything that infants cannot truly self-examine in the sense it appears plain that the text warrants. Both Scripture and plain reason teach us that children do not have such an ability.

Again, there is no "inconsistency" in the paedobaptist position. It is only inconsistent because you misrepresent it. We both agree that only discerning believers ought to receive the Sacrament. The fact that you don't believe children are believers does not make the opposing position inconsistent. If a child is a believer but unable to discern and a believer must be able to discern in order to be admitted to the table then it follows, with ruthless logic, that he ought not to be admitted. I do not buy into your other assumptions regarding the hidden counsel of God and the reason why you "think" we do not admit them.

Regarding your statement about "dangerous" implications for the Atonment. This is really the heart of the matter for you and this is why you asked the question to begin with. You're trying to show, through a series of questions about the "danger of a reprobate child being baptized in the camp and assumed a believer" that we're just running rough shod all over the nature of Christ's atonement. After all, since the New Covenant is a "perfect" covenant there is nobody baptized into the Covenant or that participates in the Sacraments unless they are Elect. That's right isn't it? Credo-baptists only baptize the Elect and they only admit the Elect to the Lord's table unlike paedo-baptists who admit and baptize the reprobate.

Problem is that credo-baptists baptize the reprobate and admit the reprobate to their Table. I've never understood their line of reasoning on this and admit I must be dense because I've never understood credo-baptist concerns regarding baptizing the potential reprobate as if they escape from the "danger".

The "dangerous" implications must not have occured to God who commanded the circumcision of all in Israel, including the reprobate. All the sacrifices and the sign and seal itself were types and shadows of Christ so God Himself was dangerously implying that a sacrament that was a type and shadow of Christ should be applied even to those that "might" be reprobate.

Of course, the whole "...he might be reprobate..." line of thinking is completely extra-biblical and nowhere are we commanded to think like that when it comes to our participation in the visible Church.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 29, 2005)

> I say this without malice but you really need to work on your polemics. A basic rule of polemics is that you must first understand and refute a doctrine as it is understood by your opponent. You repeatedly either ignore the arguments being presented, misrepresent them, or interpret them as you understand them and mis-state the position according to your model.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

Rich,



> Nor was there an explicit warning to not circumcise converts as the Pharasaical sect later did. We obviously understand that the Apostles shed some light on certain things that were not explicitly spelled out.
> 
> I won't re-state my main position but I would only critique your inference from 1 Corinthians. It is true that 1 Corinthians speaks of a multitude of ways in which the Supper was being mistreated - gluttony, drunkenness, and selfishness. In fact, it appears that when Paul is speaking of discerning the "Lord's Body" he is referring to the Church body in which we all form "parts" of that body. One of the reasons it is called Communion is that it is part of the mysterious communion of the Saints as we are one in Christ and part of one another.
> 
> Do Christians today that are suddenly in the paedocommunion camp really think that the Church never considered the context of 1 Corinthians until they discovered it? Just because a particular abuse is in mind does not mean that a parrallel lesson about the weightiness of the meal is in mind here. Both self-examination and a discernment of the mystical union are in mind here. This is simply not possible with an infant.



The non pc side has endured. It is the majority view as well. I would not argue that. Paul seemd to be warning them from the history of Israel, saying that history was an example. (10:1-12) Emphasis on verses 6 and 11.

I can see it both ways. Paul is clarifying that nothing has changed between the propriety in worship under the old covenant and the new covenant. (chapter 11,12). And he explains the agape factor of determining what is the proper way to discern the body in chapter 13.
Note, though, that he understands the immaturity of children in a very general way in 13:11. He is basically saying to the Corinthians, quit acting like selfish and self centered children. 

So, should we infer from that idea that children should be barred from the communion of the Church, because they are unable to disern with maturity the mechanics of worship ? Maybe.

Or, do we realize that what they were doing was setting a horrible example to the children, and by that example teaching the children irreverent worship practices, and therefore "forbidding" (suffer the children) the children from coming to Christ, in a proper manner.

That is a minority interpretation. By holding up the idea of the manna and passover as the old covenant examples of the feast, we find justification for allowing our children to participate. But is it a deplorable hermeneutic ?

If I violate any hermeneutic principles in my interpretations, I would appreciate those of you who are more well educated in such things to outline it, step by step for me. I am trying to remain teachable in all things.


[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

This is a request for the elders here.

Please post the list of questions you are supposed to ask when a father brings his children before the session to be approved to take communion.

I would like to know what knowledge they need to have in order to discern the body.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Rich,
> 
> {quote]Nor was there an explicit warning to not circumcise converts as the Pharasaical sect later did. We obviously understand that the Apostles shed some light on certain things that were not explicitly spelled out.
> ...



The non pc side has endured. It is the majority view as well. I would not argue that. Paul seemd to be warning them from the history of Israel, saying these things were an example. (10:1-12) Emphasis on verses 6 and 11.

I , can see it both ways. Paul is clarifying that nothing has changed between the propriety in worship under the old covenant and the new covenant. (chapter 11,12). And he explains the agape factor of determining what is the proper way to discern the body in chapter 13.
Note, though, that he understands the immaturity of children in a very general way in 13:11. He is basically saying to the Corinthians, quit acting like selfish and self centered children. 

So, should we infer from that idea that children should be barred from the communion of the Church, because they are unable to disern with maturity the mechanics of worship ? Maybe.

Or, do we realize that what they were doing was setting a horrible example to the children, and that by that example teaching the children irreverent worship practices, and therefore "forbidding" (suffer the children) the children from coming to Christ, in a proper manner.

That is a minority interpretation. By holding up the idea of manna and passover as the old covenant examples of the feast, we find justification for allowing our children to participate. But I hardly think it is a bad hermeneutic.

If I violate any hermeneutic principles in my interpretations, I would appreciate those of you who are more well educated in such things to outline it, step by step for me. I am trying to remain teachable in all things.
[/quote]
Mark,

Your questions are not unreasonable. I didn't mean to sound too strident against you with some of my challenges. I merely wanted to deal with the specific argument that, since 1 Corinthians is dealing with a specific abuse that it is contextually unreliable as an example for the issue in general. We seem to learn best from Paul when he is refuting error and having to re-explain things (i.e. Galatians).

I would agree that the issue of paedocommunion could be, arguably, unclear based solely on the hermaneutical evidence. I am satisfied that 1 Cor serves as a general warning against immaturity at the table of the Lord because of the history surrounding the doctrine. I am unconvinced that the evidence for the minority view is enough for me to overthrow the history of the issue and break fellowship with the denominations I find to be most orthodox in every other respect.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

Far enough Rich. What do you think of my post regarding the questions presented to the child for admittance to the table ?

How do the Elders know the child can discern ? What would those questions be ? My 7 and 5 year old confess their sins, and know that Christ died for them, and know it is by faith that God forgives us because of Christs sacrifice on the cross.

Is there anything else they need to know ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 29, 2005)

BCO/RPCGA

Sec B/2

The following vows are to be required of each individual publicly before the congregation for a public profession of faith, baptism of an adult, or church membership:

1. Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inerrant Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
2. Do you confess that because of your sinfulness, you abhor and humble yourself before God, and that you trust for salvation, not in yourself, but in the Lord Jesus Christ alone?
3. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve Him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, to mortify the deeds of the flesh, and to lead a godly life?
4. Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or practice, to heed its discipline?


E. The following vows are to be required of the parents at the baptism of their child:

1. Do you acknowledge that although our children are conceived and born in sin and therefore are subject to condemnation, they are to be set apart unto the Lord and as children of believing parent(s), they ought to be baptized?
2. Do you promise to instruct your child in the principles of our holy religion as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and as summarized in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly;
3. Do you promise to pray with and for your child, to set an example of piety and godliness before him1her, and to endeavor by all the means of God´s appointment to bring him1her up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

Wow, that is great Scott. Very concise. I thought it would be much longer and more rigorous. I especially like that it questions the father/parents as well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Far enough Rich. What do you think of my post regarding the questions presented to the child for admittance to the table ?
> 
> How do the Elders know the child can discern ? What would those questions be ? My 7 and 5 year old confess their sins, and know that Christ died for them, and know it is by faith that God forgives us because of Christs sacrifice on the cross.
> ...


I think those questions are exactly the same in the OPC and PCA BCO's.

I would say that the answer to the question "How do the elders know..." is an issue of prudence. No firm answer. I've seen 7 year olds admitted by some Sessions.


----------



## Peters (Oct 29, 2005)

> Marcos,
> 
> I say this without malice but you really need to work on your polemics. A basic rule of polemics is that you must first understand and refute a doctrine as it is understood by your opponent. You repeatedly either ignore the arguments being presented, misrepresent them, or interpret them as you understand them and mis-state the position according to your model.



No, I am simply trying to workout some of the consequences of your doctrine along the way. 



> I don't need to "infer" from anything that infants cannot truly self-examine in the sense it appears plain that the text warrants. Both Scripture and plain reason teach us that children do not have such an ability.



How can you say that? Where does the Scripture teach that Christian children can´t examine themselves (and you still haven´t told me what that means yet) and therefore can´t eat from the Table? It doesn´t say anything like that in any passage on the Lord´s Supper. When you talk about reason, which is fine, you let the cat out of the bag. You do infer, you must infer, because the Scripture says no such thing.



> Again, there is no "inconsistency" in the paedobaptist position. It is only inconsistent because you misrepresent it. We both agree that only discerning believers ought to receive the Sacrament.



Again, define "œdiscerning". What must we discern? Why is no mention of "œdiscerning" when the ordinance was introduced by the Lord Himself? 



> The fact that you don't believe children are believers does not make the opposing position inconsistent.



Do you mean to say "œcovenant children"? Children can be Christians by grace through faith alone. 



> If a child is a believer but unable to discern and a believer must be able to discern in order to be admitted to the table then it follows, with ruthless logic, that he ought not to be admitted.



Discern what? When the Supper was introduced why didn´t Jesus say anything about discerning?



> I do not buy into your other assumptions regarding the hidden counsel of God and the reason why you "think" we do not admit them.



Ok.





> Regarding your statement about "dangerous" implications for the Atonment. This is really the heart of the matter for you and this is why you asked the question to begin with.



No it wasn´t. It became a consequence that I wanted to explore with a question. This is probably why you accused me of not understanding the nature of debate. 



> You're trying to show, through a series of questions about the "danger of a reprobate child being baptized in the camp and assumed a believer" that we're just running rough shod all over the nature of Christ's atonement.



No, but I kind of do now. 



> After all, since the New Covenant is a "perfect" covenant there is nobody baptized into the Covenant or that participates in the Sacraments unless they are Elect. That's right isn't it?



I´m afraid not.



> Credo-baptists only baptize the Elect and they only admit the Elect to the Lord's table unlike paedo-communionists who admit and baptize the reprobate.



I find this quite incredible after you have just made the *public point* (about me) about the importance of understanding the opponent´s position when engaging in debate. 



> Problem is that credo- baptists baptize the reprobate and admit the reprobate to their Table.



When this proves to be the case we take responsibility for it and are saddened. 



> I've never understood their line of reasoning on this and admit I must be dense because I've never understood credo-baptist concerns regarding baptizing the potential reprobate as if they escape from the "danger".



Then maybe you ought not to debate against the position until you do, brother.



> The "dangerous" implications must not have occurred to God who commanded the circumcision of all in Israel, including the reprobate.



Sarcasm AND humor? We may end up friends after all! 





> All the sacrifices and the sign and seal itself were types and shadows of Christ so God Himself was dangerously implying that a sacrament that was a type and shadow of Christ should be applied even to those that "might" be reprobate.



We can start a baptism thread if you like.



> Of course, the whole "...he might be reprobate..." line of thinking is completely extra-biblical and nowhere are we commanded to think like that when it comes to our participation in the visible Church.



Well, if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck"¦


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...





Key word here " PRUDENCE"!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 29, 2005)

Marcos,
Again, was Judas an apostle? Was he a disciple? Was Demas an apostle? Was he a disciple? Did they perform miracles in Christs name? Did Demas, Ananias and Saphira take the supper? Did Abraham see both his children as covenant members?

You need to think outside of your box. Go back and think like Abraham. Go back in time and ask Peter, is Judas a disciple? A believer? The ultimate outcome of each of these is only known by God. Our estimations should not be any more strict than our forefathers were with their members.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...



There is a world of difference between examining a child to see if he has a credible profession and allowing him to partake based on that evidence, and shoving the elements down the throat of an infant because some how his parentage makes him a full communing member of the Church.

If a credible profession is not required of an infant, it cannot be required of an adult, and hence "consistent" (to use the hobgoblin word of the paedocommunionists) discipline would mean that we never discipline someone for not having a credible profession or showing fruit.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

Fred, Scott,

As I said I am considering the PCA church in my area. Do the elders there need to question my 7 and 5 year old kids again, or can the membership from the PCA church in Boulder be transfered ? Just curious.

Even though I embrace paedoeucharist, we were members of the PCA church in Boulder for 4 years. We simply put our 2 and 3 year olds in the nursery (ecclesiastical daycare) to avoid the issue. But my 7 and 5 year olds were allowed to partake based on their profession. We want to keep all our kids in the worship service with us. But I do not know what to say to my 3 year old when he gives me a wierd look because he is excluded from the table.

This transition period is tough. It is difficult to find a reformed church with good teaching. We might try the CRC church near us next week. As much as I like the liturgy and PC at the Anglican church here, there are several other problems that sting my conscience.

(I have listeed to a few of your sermons online Fred, and find them very insightful and encouraging. I wish I could find similar here.)

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Fred, Scott,
> 
> As I said I am considering the PCA church in my area. Do the elders there need to question my 7 and 5 year old kids again, or can the membership from the PCA church in Boulder be transfered ? Just curious.
> ...



Mark,
If they were communicated at the last PCA church for the table, I don't believe you would have to go through that again. I wouldn't be offended if the pastor wanted to sit with them and you again though. It is never a bad thing to hear your children confess Christ as Lord as well as finding comfort in the fact that your new pastor IS concerned about who sits.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Fred, Scott,
> 
> As I said I am considering the PCA church in my area. Do the elders there need to question my 7 and 5 year old kids again, or can the membership from the PCA church in Boulder be transfered ? Just curious.
> ...



Mark,

If your children are communioning members of the Boulder PCA church, I would say that their membership should be transferred per the BCO. Unless the Boulder PCA church were paedocommunionist (which I doubt), they should be considered in exactly the same category as a 12 year old who was made a member of a PCA church on profession.

It might be that the (new) church might balk at that, but that would be _the church_ acting uncustomarily, not _you_.

I hope that helps.

Thanks for the kind words - I'm sorry that I may not be as insightful on the Board, but time management and priorities don't allow it.

If you are able, I would appreciate any specific comments you might have on what was helpful, what was confusing, illustrations that helped illumine the text/or didn't, etc. You can send them to me by email. 

I'm much more concerned with cultivating my gifts than resting in them.


----------



## Peters (Oct 31, 2005)

> Marcos,
> 
> Again, was Judas an apostle? Was he a disciple? Was Demas an apostle? Was he a disciple?



How a person answers that question depends on where they stand in the unfolding of redemptive history. I´m sure Judas was considered a disciple at some point, but that doesn´t mean he was one in the truest sense. He certainly wasn´t a disciple the way Paul was a disciple. It seems as though you want me to answer these questions as though our understanding now is the same as then. It is not. I think the apostles understood things far more clearly after the resurrection and Pentecost. 



> Did they perform miracles in Christ´s name? Did Demas, Ananias and Saphira take the supper? Did Abraham see both his children as covenant members?



I don´t know what you think this proves. Again, with respect to our understanding of the unfolding purposes of God, now is not the same as then. Let me ask you, do you think that the miracles performed in the first century may be performed today? (I´ll assume you´ll answer no) Why not? 



> You need to think outside of your box. Go back and think like Abraham. Go back in time and ask Peter, is Judas a disciple? A believer?



I don´t need to ask them, we have a bigger picture. I do not have to think or observe the ordinances according to a lesser light when we have a brighter one. It sounds like you´re saying, "œbecause Abraham saw things this way, therefore, so must we." I don´t buy that. 



> The ultimate outcome of each of these is only known by God. Our estimations should not be any more strict than our forefathers were with their members.



I respectfully disagree. Regarding the redemptive purposes of God revealed in Christ, to live post fulfillment is not the same as living pre-fulfillment.

[Edited on 10-31-2005 by Peters]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 31, 2005)

Was the Gospel preached to Abraham, and is he the father of our faith?

Its interesting to me that Paul, "understanding" these things as the ultimate expositor of the Scriptures (besides Jesus who ONLY quoted the OT), did NOT use Peter, or James, or John as "models" but Abraham, and the patriarchal fathers. Did Abraham have a less true Gospel preached to him than I? In my humble opinion, I think not. As a matter of fact, if I really want to understand MY faith, I need, according to Paul, to understand Abraham.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 1, 2005)

webmaster said:


> As a matter of fact, if I really want to understand MY faith, I need, according to Paul, to understand Abraham.




 You certainly do.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Peters (Nov 1, 2005)

> Was the Gospel preached to Abraham, and is he the father of our faith?



Yes, the Gospel was preached to Abraham. I think the Scriptures speak of him as the father of the faithful, not of the faith. Is that correct? Abraham is the father of those who have faith in Christ. Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith. 



> Its interesting to me that Paul, "understanding" these things as the ultimate expositor of the Scriptures (besides Jesus who ONLY quoted the OT), did NOT use Peter, or James, or John as "models" but Abraham, and the patriarchal fathers.



If Paul was with us today do you think He would use all of the Scriptures? Did Paul´s divine exposition bring greater clarity to what was already in the O.T? 



> Did Abraham have a less true Gospel preached to him than I? In my humble opinion, I think not.



Who is arguing that? This has nothing to do with the *truth* of the Gospel, but how clearly the individuals who received it understood it. Do you really think that Abraham understood the Gospel the way we do? 



> As a matter of fact, if I really want to understand MY faith, I need, according to Paul, to understand Abraham.



Yes, Abraham is a category for understanding faith, but you need Paul to explain that to you. Paul is the one who works it out for us. You have made my point, brother.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> > Marcos,
> ...



Yes, but in the process you keep ignoring what we're saying and mis-characterize our position.



> > I don't need to "infer" from anything that infants cannot truly self-examine in the sense it appears plain that the text warrants. Both Scripture and plain reason teach us that children do not have such an ability.
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say that? Where does the Scripture teach that Christian children can´t examine themselves (and you still haven´t told me what that means yet) and therefore can´t eat from the Table? It doesn´t say anything like that in any passage on the Lord´s Supper. When you talk about reason, which is fine, you let the cat out of the bag. You do infer, you must infer, because the Scripture says no such thing.


1. I have stated what I believe self-examination is but I assume you are reading more than my replies to you. 

2. The Scriptures are replete with statements that tell us about children, the folly of youth, and our need to instruct them in the things of God. Besides that, even if I can't find a proof text that my 19 month old girl is incapable of the spiritual discernment and self-examination I believe the Scriptures require, it is self-evident. I pray your theology is not such that you need to find a prooftext that infants are immature.



> > Again, there is no "inconsistency" in the paedobaptist position. It is only inconsistent because you misrepresent it. We both agree that only discerning believers ought to receive the Sacrament.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, define "œdiscerning". What must we discern? Why is no mention of "œdiscerning" when the ordinance was introduced by the Lord Himself?


I assume you read more than the red letters in your Bible since Christ said nothing about Jacob and Esau with respect to the design of election (that's recorded in the Gospels) and you seem perfectly willing to accept Apostolic teaching on that as do I. I didn't think I would have to develop that more.

I don't know why Christ chose not to say a lot of things He left to His apostles to explain. Maybe He did and it wasn't recorded. I'm not given to speculation about such things.

As a general principle, however, here is something Christ _did_ say about approaching a sacrament:
_(Mat 5:23-24) So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift._



> > The fact that you don't believe children are believers does not make the opposing position inconsistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean to say "œcovenant children"? Children can be Christians by grace through faith alone.


Yes I meant Christian children or covenant children if you like. I do not consider the children of pagans to be believers.



> > If a child is a believer but unable to discern and a believer must be able to discern in order to be admitted to the table then it follows, with ruthless logic, that he ought not to be admitted.
> 
> 
> 
> Discern what? When the Supper was introduced why didn´t Jesus say anything about discerning?


He also didn't warn them about getting drunk either. 



> > I do not buy into your other assumptions regarding the hidden counsel of God and the reason why you "think" we do not admit them.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.


Why you! I ought to! Oh, OK. Well then. 



> > Regarding your statement about "dangerous" implications for the Atonment. This is really the heart of the matter for you and this is why you asked the question to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn´t. It became a consequence that I wanted to explore with a question. This is probably why you accused me of not understanding the nature of debate.


I think the substance of the issue always distills the same way whether you really think it does or not. The whole "reprobate Covenant children" line of thinking is, at its heart, a way you see the New Covenant and who you baptize.



> > After all, since the New Covenant is a "perfect" covenant there is nobody baptized into the Covenant or that participates in the Sacraments unless they are Elect. That's right isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> I´m afraid not.


I quite agree. _That's_ an example of polemics. I'm heartened to hear that you disagree with the sentiment because the main line of argumentation by many Reformed Baptists is that, because the New Covenant is perfect and cannot fail that the Covenant includes only the elect. Ergo, when we Presbyterians talk about the New Covenant in a way that includes a mixture of sheep and goats (oh and children of believers too) they cry foul.



> > Credo-baptists only baptize the Elect and they only admit the Elect to the Lord's table unlike paedo-communionists who admit and baptize the reprobate.
> 
> 
> 
> I find this quite incredible after you have just made the *public point* (about me) about the importance of understanding the opponent´s position when engaging in debate.


Polemics again.



> > Problem is that credo- baptists baptize the reprobate and admit the reprobate to their Table.
> 
> 
> 
> When this proves to be the case we take responsibility for it and are saddened.


Yes, and we shun that responsibility and are overjoyed. 

My point is that both "camps" have the problem of mixture in the Church and Covenant. The Baptists delay formal entry but the consequences and "dangers" are the same. Christ told us their would be a mixture. We aren't cavalier about letting the pagans in but it happens in spite of our best efforts to determine credible profession.

I also assume that when you say your Church takes responsibility for it and is saddened that you mean at the Last Judgment because then, and only then, will you know who the reprobate are. Until then, you operate within the context of visible covenant.



> > I've never understood their line of reasoning on this and admit I must be dense because I've never understood credo-baptist concerns regarding baptizing the potential reprobate as if they escape from the "danger".
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you ought not to debate against the position until you do, brother.


Or, maybe, I can keep engaging in debate to help them understand where our presuppositions collide. I don't "understand" your position because I believe your starting point about the nature of the New Covenant (and children's place in it Acts 2:39) is not a Biblical presupposition however much else we agree on.



> > The "dangerous" implications must not have occurred to God who commanded the circumcision of all in Israel, including the reprobate.
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm AND humor? We may end up friends after all!


I hope so. I consider you a brother in Christ and extend the right hand of fellowship to you.

I also believe in rigorous debate and assumed you had the fortitude to withstand withering _reductio ad absurdum_ criticism of your position.



> > All the sacrifices and the sign and seal itself were types and shadows of Christ so God Himself was dangerously implying that a sacrament that was a type and shadow of Christ should be applied even to those that "might" be reprobate.
> 
> 
> 
> We can start a baptism thread if you like.


I thought you already started one here? 



> > Of course, the whole "...he might be reprobate..." line of thinking is completely extra-biblical and nowhere are we commanded to think like that when it comes to our participation in the visible Church.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck"¦


I'm uncertain which Apostolic duck you are referring to. My point is that, as an example, the author of Hebrews can write an entire lengthy letter warning the visible Church not to fall away and all the while not using "...and you reprobate surely will..." language. It's just not biblical or pastoral thinking when you're dealing with discipline and participation in the visible Church.

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Peters (Nov 7, 2005)

Well, brother, i certainly hear you loud and clear.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 8, 2005)

Our Session requires that non-members meet with the Session to give a profession of faith/testimony before they can partake of communion. It isn't a presbytery exam or anything, just a simple profession of faith and being able to tell brothers in Christ how God has been gracious to you in your life.


----------

