# Confirmation



## twogunfighter (Mar 12, 2004)

Why do some reformed churches practice confirmation at a certain age? This seems to suggest that certain age and depth of theology is necessary in order to be a full member of the covenant community. But if an adult converts we do not ask him to be catechized for a year do we? Yet around age 13 some denominations have a &quot;confirmation class&quot; for around a year so that the catechumen can get his doctrine straight prior to communion. I don't get it. Where biblically does this come from?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 12, 2004)

I agree. I wrestle with the same rationale.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 12, 2004)

Agreed. I really don't even know when and why the practice of confirmation within the Reformed community originated. I see multiple problems with it:

For one, it is not biblical by any means. This does not [i:18fb593b37]necessarily[/i:18fb593b37] mean it is anti-biblical, but it certainly [i:18fb593b37]is[/i:18fb593b37] completely extra-biblical. We never find mention of the term or its equivalent.

Second, it degrades the value of God's promises to covenant children as signified by their baptism. It's like the child is being told, &quot;God gave you many spiritual blessings and promises as a child in His covenant, and we accepted those promises and presumed your election in His kingdom, and baptized you signifying such, but nonetheless we're saying that you don't [i:18fb593b37]really[/i:18fb593b37] become a member of God's community until this confirmation.&quot; While I think that a child's initial profession and explicit realization of faith should be acknowledged, confirmation makes that event into more of a rite of passage, rather than rightly acknowledging it as simply being further evidence of that which was already presumed and celebrated.

Chris


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 12, 2004)

What reformed churches practice confirmation?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 12, 2004)

They would not call it confirmation, but catechumen class. 



[Edited on 8-4-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 12, 2004)

I have always heard it referred to a communicants class. This class is meant to prepare children to come before the Session to become communing members of a particular church by making their credible profession of faith and be admitted to the Lord's Table.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 12, 2004)

Actually, I've known a few people who got &quot;confirmed&quot; (they referred to it with that term) in the PCUSA. But really, I guess that may not even be relevant, since so much of the PCUSA isn't even Reformed by any stretch of the imagination any more...

Chris

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 12, 2004)

I agree with your concerns, guys. &quot;Confirmation&quot; is inane and is the result of the very flawed doctrine sometimes called the &quot;half-way covenant&quot;, which basically means our children are not full members of the church until they have made some kind of profession of faith to satisfy the elders. I think this is unfortunate, but it is all because the church is trying to follow 1 Corinthians 11. Of course, I'm not going to criticize the church for trying to follow Scripture. I just don't think Scripture requires everything the church requires sometimes.

But I am not a schismatic. I'm going to follow the lead of my Reformed forefathers and NOT break away from the church just because I disagree on something. I'll just try to grin and bear it when communion is served and my children are bypassed until they have proven to the session that they are really truly converted. I long for a day in which the WLC is ammended so that my children won't have to go through all this. But yeah, like that's gonna happen.


----------



## Galahad (Mar 12, 2004)

I guess the question I would ask: What is the purpose of the catechumism (sp?) class? As best as I can gather, it is a form of education where children are taught the basic tenants of the faith. 

One possible option - should not adult members who desire to enter the church go through something similar? Would that help remove the disparity that has been mentioned?

Some thoughts,
Jeffrey Brannen


----------



## yeutter (Mar 12, 2004)

*presumptive regeneration & confirmation*

I have often thought it is inconsistant for those Reformed men who stand in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper to not talk about confirmation. Instead the terminology they use is profession of faith.
If we believe Baptism is a means of Grace, in which God actually works on our children, then what is wrong with the Church confirming this work in confirmatiion? Low Church Anglicans have this understanding. So do those who stand in the old German Reformed tradition, [Reformed Church U.S. Eureka Clasis]

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:730036f0c7][i:730036f0c7]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:730036f0c7]
I have often thought it is inconsistant for those Reformed men who stand in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper to not talk about confirmation. Instead the terminology they use is profession of faith.
If we believe Baptism is a means of Grace, in which God actually works on our children, then what is wrong with the Church confirming this work in confirmatiion? Low Church Anglicans have this understanding. So do those who stand in the old German Reformed tradition, [Reformed Church U.S. Eureka Clasis] [/quote:730036f0c7]

Because if so often the primary emphasis would be placed on the confirmation step, implying that when children are confirmed, they [i:730036f0c7]just then[/i:730036f0c7] enter into the status of full, real members of the covenant community, and God's earlier promises and blessings to them as signified by their baptism would likely be downplayed. A simple acknowledgment of their growing, explicit realization and acceptance of the faith would be fine--but as I've heard about it, confirmation usually gives it more emphasis than that.

[quote:730036f0c7][i:730036f0c7]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:730036f0c7]
One possible option - should not adult members who desire to enter the church go through something similar? Would that help remove the disparity that has been mentioned?[/quote:730036f0c7]

Agreed. Without taking it to the level of the modern confirmation step, we have reason to catechize our Christian children because of God's covenantal promises of spiritual favor and blessing to them, which provide the basis on which to presume that catechizing them will be fruitful. Likewise, we have reason to catechize new-professing adults because of their willing profession of faith in Christ, which provides the basis on which to presume that catechizing them will be fruitful. It is indeed the church's responsibility to educate in the faith all new members of the external covenant, both young child and adult.

But a distinction would still need to be made. In the case of the professing adult, that process [i:730036f0c7]would[/i:730036f0c7] indeed correspond with the very beginning of their entrance into the covenant community, and should be recognized as such. However, with children who have been baptized and raised in church, that is precisely the emphasis it must [i:730036f0c7]not[/i:730036f0c7] be given--as if it marked their [i:730036f0c7]entrance[/i:730036f0c7] into the real covenant community. I agree that both groups should go through that same process when making their profession of faith, but care should be taken to ensure that the two processes are not viewed as identical--since one of them (adult) marks entrance into the covenant cummunity, while the other (child) should simply serve to further confirm that already-existent status.

Chris

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Galahad (Mar 13, 2004)

I have some friends who are pursuing membership in the Eastern Orthodox Church - they have to go through about a year of training before they can become members. I realize that the Reformed churches don't have something like this, but one constant thing that is brought up here and elsewhere is that most members of Reformed churches were brought up either Arminian or Charismatic. Because of our various backgrounds (and necessarily various theological assumptions), shouldn't some form of adult catachism be necessary?

Because so many professing Reformed have come from non-Reformed backgrounds, doesn't it place a requirement or responsiblity on the church to instruct these neophytes in the faith that they are professing?

Maybe this is worth another thread, but what do you think should be taught?


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:3fbc6b1731][i:3fbc6b1731]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:3fbc6b1731]

However, with children who have been baptized and raised in church, that is precisely the emphasis it must [i:3fbc6b1731]not[/i:3fbc6b1731] be given--as if it marked their [i:3fbc6b1731]entrance[/i:3fbc6b1731] into the real covenant community.[/quote:3fbc6b1731]

Exactly. Our children are not &quot;lesser&quot; members of the covenant community because they have not yet made a profession of faith. They are full covenant members, just like any of us. Besides, requiring a profession of faith doesn't prove anything conclusive anyway. I know all kinds of people who have made professions of faith, but live like demons. The fact that the children are born to believing parents is just as credible as evidence of conversion as requiring them to make a profession of faith.

Furthermore, for some reason, the Reformed church has interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:28, &quot;let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup&quot;, to mean, &quot;let the church interrogate you until you've convinced them you are worthy to take the supper.&quot; Self-examination, not church-interrogation is a requirement of the Lord's supper. And as I have said in the past, I do not believe 1 Corinthians 11 excludes my children from the supper, since I am supposed to teach them and instruct them in the gospel and personal holiness from their birth.

Having said all of this, I am not against catechism classes and such. But they are not necessary to make a person worthy to come to the Lord's table.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:a6808b2106][i:a6808b2106]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:a6808b2106].

Having said all of this, I am not against catechism classes and such. But they are not necessary to make a person worthy to come to the Lord's table. [/quote:a6808b2106]

Craig,
From what I get, they do not use it to determine &quot;worthiness&quot;. They use it to validate that which has already been done by Gods grace. To me, this flies right in the face of faith.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:cde380b0be]
Furthermore, for some reason, the Reformed church has interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:28, &quot;let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup&quot;, to mean, &quot;let the church interrogate you until you've convinced them you are worthy to take the supper.&quot; Self-examination, not church-interrogation is a requirement of the Lord's supper. And as I have said in the past, I do not believe 1 Corinthians 11 excludes my children from the supper, since I am supposed to teach them and instruct them in the gospel and personal holiness from their birth. 
[/quote:cde380b0be]

First off, the Church &quot;interrogates&quot; no one  A Session is not the &quot;Inquisition&quot;. 

All of the Sacraments are for the Church and it is the responsibility of the Church to guard the means of grace given to her. Can I assume that the Church should no longer ask for a profession of faith from a parent when they want to baptize their children? Or does it fly in the face of faith??

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 13, 2004)

Scott,

[quote:a203425cc5]
[i:a203425cc5]Originally posted by Scott Bushey.[/i:a203425cc5]

From what I get, they do not use it to determine &quot;worthiness&quot;. They use it to validate that which has already been done by Gods grace. To me, this flies right in the face of faith.
[/quote:a203425cc5]

Right. That was the sense in which I was using the term &quot;worthy&quot;. I guess I could have chosen a better word, but your words reflect what I intended to say.

Wayne,

Sorry. I didn't mean to anger you. My point was just to show that I that (1) the way Presbyterians have traditionally attempted to &quot;guard the table&quot; is unnecessary, and (2) the halfway covenant idea is unbiblical. This has resulted in the church being too exclusive in the administration of the sacrament.

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:5fc91308f7][i:5fc91308f7]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:5fc91308f7]
[quote:5fc91308f7]
Furthermore, for some reason, the Reformed church has interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:28, &quot;let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup&quot;, to mean, &quot;let the church interrogate you until you've convinced them you are worthy to take the supper.&quot; Self-examination, not church-interrogation is a requirement of the Lord's supper. And as I have said in the past, I do not believe 1 Corinthians 11 excludes my children from the supper, since I am supposed to teach them and instruct them in the gospel and personal holiness from their birth. 
[/quote:5fc91308f7]

First off, the Church &quot;interrogates&quot; no one  A Session is not the &quot;Inquisition&quot;. 

All of the Sacraments are for the Church and it is the responsibility of the Church to guard the means of grace given to her. Can I assume that the Church should no longer ask for a profession of faith from a parent when they want to baptize their children? Or does it fly in the face of faith?? [/quote:5fc91308f7]

Wayne, 
Isn't your church baptizing the infants of members only? If so, why would the church have to ask for a profession of faith from one of it's members?

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:5ea40273e5][i:5ea40273e5]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:5ea40273e5]
[quote:5ea40273e5][i:5ea40273e5]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:5ea40273e5].

Having said all of this, I am not against catechism classes and such. But they are not necessary to make a person worthy to come to the Lord's table. [/quote:5ea40273e5]

Craig,
From what I get, they do not use it to determine &quot;worthiness&quot;. They use it to validate that which has already been done by Gods grace. To me, this flies right in the face of faith. [/quote:5ea40273e5]

Precisely. Do we or do we not hold fast to God's covenantal promises of spiritual favor and blessing to our children? We cannot consistently answer &quot;Yes&quot; to that question if we are not willing to treat them as if they are just as right-standing with God as ourselves (unless of course they break the covenant and thus show themselves to be apostate). We exercise that faith consistently with baptism, but not with the Lord's Supper. Scripture commands that people &quot;[i:5ea40273e5]repent[/i:5ea40273e5] and be baptized,&quot; and we rightly treat God's covenantal promises to our children as sufficient to fulfill the first part for them. But for some reason, when Scripture commands that a person &quot;examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup,&quot; we do not likewise rightly treat God's covenantal promises to our children as sufficient to fulfill the first part for them.

Nonetheless, I also see the wisdom in making members (young children [i:5ea40273e5]and[/i:5ea40273e5] newly-converted adults) go through a catechism class, since God works through means, and the Church is His primary ordained means for instructing His people in the faith. But I totally agree, Scott, that making such a class a validation for the child's real covenant status (or admission to the Lord's Table, for that matter) flies right in the face of faith.


[quote:5ea40273e5][i:5ea40273e5]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:5ea40273e5]
All of the Sacraments are for the Church and it is the responsibility of the Church to guard the means of grace given to her. Can I assume that the Church should no longer ask for a profession of faith from a parent when they want to baptize their children? Or does it fly in the face of faith??[/quote:5ea40273e5]

No, it does not, and the two scenarios are like apples and oranges. Of course a profession of faith is required from a [i:5ea40273e5]parent[/i:5ea40273e5] in order to consider their children covenant children, since that is precisely the definition of a covenant child--a child of believing parents. A believing parent is the biblical grounds on which a child's covenant status is declared, and a profession of faith [i:5ea40273e5]is[/i:5ea40273e5] required by adults in order to consider them believers, since, unlike young children, they can show themselves to be apostate.

Young children of believing parents, on the other hand, do not need a profession of faith to be considered of covenant status, since that is presumed on the basis of their parents' profession. And once that is presumed, it does not need to be &quot;validated&quot; by a &quot;credible profession of faith&quot; or a catechism class, since it is rightfully presumed [i:5ea40273e5]until[/i:5ea40273e5] they show themselves to be apostate by a rejection of the faith.

Chris

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Me Died Blue]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 13, 2004)

Chris,
The command is to &quot;examine oneself&quot;.
Can an infant or 1 year old &quot;examine&quot; themselves?

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:1253d859c6][i:1253d859c6]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:1253d859c6]
Chris,
The command is to &quot;examine oneself&quot;.
Can an infant or 1 year old &quot;examine&quot; themselves?

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:1253d859c6]

Likewise, in Acts 2:38, the command is to &quot;repent and be baptized.&quot; Can an infant or a one-year-old &quot;repent&quot;?

Chris


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:2ec4276ab0]
likewise, we are told to &quot;repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be saved.&quot; 

Can an infant &quot;repent?&quot; Guess one can be saved then.
[/quote:2ec4276ab0]

Paul, did you mean that you guess one CAN or CAN'T be saved? It seemed like you were intending to suggest that if we believe infants cannot repent then they cannot be saved. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:74b846eb2d][i:74b846eb2d]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:74b846eb2d]
I meant can'T...sorry guys.

So, if an infant cannot be baptized because the Bible says &quot;repent and believe&quot;

then one cannot be saved since the Bible says, repent and believe, and you shall be saved.

_paul [/quote:74b846eb2d]

I wasn't trying to argue against infant baptism...I was in fact trying to argue for paedocommunion (already assuming paedobaptism to be true) by using the same logical method you just used: that if 1 Corinthians 11:28 bans infants from partaking in the Lord's Supper, that Acts 2:38 would also have to be taken to ban them from baptism if one is to be consistent.

Chris


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2004)

Chris et. al.
It has been said:

1) The call to believe is associated with repentance. It follows then that all salvations do require repentance and eventually, along the lines of the ordo salutis, every true conversion will repent.

a) Since infants cannot repent, none can be saved.

We know the above is not true.

2) The command to patake of the Lords supper is that each individual, prior to partaking, &quot;examine&quot; themself. 

a)Since infants cannot examine themselves, it follws then that they should not partake. 

The above is true. 

To try and force an analogy between these two doctrines in erred. This premise cannot be used to disable that which God commands in regards to the table.

Infants of covenant families are baptised based upon the covenant promise and command of God. The petition in Acts to repent is directed to those persons whom are able to repent. Those adults whom repent and are baptised speak in proxy for their infants. Baptism occurs at the family level based upon the federal headship of the parent.

The regeneratory power of God can and does save whomever and whenever it wills, even in infancy. The regeneration of an infant does not necessarily imply conversion; this will happen later in life, under the sound preaching of Gods word. Understanding is essential (in my opinion). In that time, the regenerated person WILL repent and then conversion WILL take place. 'Understanding' will also play a part in the command to &quot;examine&quot; oneself. Without understanding, how can one examine themself; in the light of what? Misunderstanding??? No, understanding!

If we the reformed fence the table, whom are we fencing? Outsiders who visit? Those whom sit amongst us? (For those of you whom believe in paedo-supper) At what age shall we allow the children to partake? As soon as they are able to ingest? 1 year olds?

If 1 years old, how do you know the &quot;self-examination&quot; has taken place? Are you not tying a millstone around your neck by allowing this little one to stumble and even possibly &quot;sleep&quot;?

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 14, 2004)

[quote:64608f951c][i:64608f951c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:64608f951c]
Chris et. al.
It has been said:

1) The call to believe is associated with repentance. It follows then that all salvations do require repentance and eventually, along the lines of the ordo salutis, every true conversion will repent.

a) Since infants cannot repent, none can be saved.

We know the above is not true.

2) The command to patake of the Lords supper is that each individual, prior to partaking, &quot;examine&quot; themself. 

a)Since infants cannot examine themselves, it follws then that they should not partake. 

The above is true. 

To try and force an analogy between these two doctrines in erred. This premise cannot be used to disable that which God commands in regards to the table.[/quote:64608f951c]

I agree that one cannot make this analogy between salvation and sacrament, since the two are redically different in nature. I only made the analogy between sacrament and sacrament, comparing 1 Corinthians 11:28 with Acts 2:38.

[quote:64608f951c][i:64608f951c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:64608f951c]
Infants of covenant families are baptised based upon the covenant promise and command of God. The petition in Acts to repent is directed to those persons whom are able to repent. Those adults whom repent and are baptised speak in proxy for their infants. Baptism occurs at the family level based upon the federal headship of the parent.[/quote:64608f951c]

You say that the command to &quot;repent&quot; before being baptized in Acts 2 is only directed at those who are capable of such, and further that those people speak in proxy for their infants. I agree, and also think that the command in 1 Corinthians 11 is analogous. For one thing, I think it was speaking to a particular problem in the Corinthians church at that time, but that's another issue altogether. Even if I grant that it [i:64608f951c]is[/i:64608f951c] in fact a general command, what in the text is there to say it is not analogous to the command in Acts 2, and that it was thus speaking to those who are capable of heeding it, and that those people speak in proxy for their children?

[quote:64608f951c][i:64608f951c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:64608f951c]
The regeneratory power of God can and does save whomever and whenever it wills, even in infancy. The regeneration of an infant does not necessarily imply conversion; this will happen later in life, under the sound preaching of Gods word. Understanding is essential (in my opinion). In that time, the regenerated person WILL repent and then conversion WILL take place. 'Understanding' will also play a part in the command to &quot;examine&quot; oneself. Without understanding, how can one examine themself; in the light of what? Misunderstanding??? No, understanding![/quote:64608f951c]

Agreed. Again, I am with you that this analogy between salvation and sacrament is non-sequitor.

[quote:64608f951c][i:64608f951c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:64608f951c]
If we the reformed fence the table, whom are we fencing? Outsiders who visit? Those whom sit amongst us? (For those of you whom believe in paedo-supper) At what age shall we allow the children to partake? As soon as they are able to ingest? 1 year olds?[/quote:64608f951c]

Once they are baptized, and their physical development allows for its safety.

[quote:64608f951c][i:64608f951c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:64608f951c]
If 1 years old, how do you know the &quot;self-examination&quot; has taken place? Are you not tying a millstone around your neck by allowing this little one to stumble and even possibly &quot;sleep&quot;?

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:64608f951c]

See my comments above on the nature of the 1 Corinthians command as compared with Acts 2.

In Christ,

Chris

P. S. If I could convince myself that the 1 Corinthians 11 passage really does warrant what it has come to be taken as in the church, I would gladly change my view. However, as of yet, I simply can't see what makes the command different from that in Acts 2.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 14, 2004)

[quote:f04c67050a]
Wayne, 
Isn't your church baptizing the infants of members only? If so, why would the church have to ask for a profession of faith from one of it's members? 
[/quote:f04c67050a]

True. And a Profession of Faith is required to become a communing member of a particular Church. Therefore, because of their profession, we can baptize their children.


[quote:f04c67050a]
Sorry. I didn't mean to anger you. My point was just to show that I that (1) the way Presbyterians have traditionally attempted to &quot;guard the table&quot; is unnecessary, and (2) the halfway covenant idea is unbiblical. This has resulted in the church being too exclusive in the administration of the sacrament. 
[/quote:f04c67050a]

Craig,

Sorry if I over reacted. These words took me back to a very unpleasant situation our Session had to deal with and these words were used to discribe what we were doing.

The half-way covenant is not a good analogy to the requirement for a child to make a profession. As I am sure you are aware there was more to the half-way covenant as practiced in the New England Churches.


[quote:f04c67050a]
Chris wrote:
Young children of believing parents, on the other hand, do not need a profession of faith to be considered of covenant status, since that is presumed on the basis of their parents' profession. And once that is presumed, it does not need to be &quot;validated&quot; by a &quot;credible profession of faith&quot; or a catechism class, since it is rightfully presumed until they show themselves to be apostate by a rejection of the faith. 
[/quote:f04c67050a]

This is where you &quot;presume&quot; to much and go beyond Scripture and where the concept of Presumptive Regeneration starts running amuck. The child is under the authority of the parent, therefore the parents profession is required (1 Cor 7:14, Rom 10:9-11) to show that they are Christians. But when the child comes to an age when they can speak for themselves and discern the Body and Blood of Christ, they must then stand on their own and profess Christ. Making a profession is not a bad thing!! All should be more than willing to profess Christ everywhere and under any circumstance. 

The purpose of this is not to determine &quot;covenant&quot; status. This is a serious mistake. When a person is baptised they are baptised into the visible church and have all the rights afforded to them but with limits based on Scripture. Of course a child does not have all the rights that an adult has in the Church. Age is a factor. The church does not grant a child the covenant right to hold office in the church. Scripture sets restrictions as to who can hold office, just as it sets restrictions as to who can come to the Lord's Table. Because children cannot hold office does that mean the church only considers children as &quot;half-way&quot; members? Of course not. To say that a child does not have full rights of the covenant because the Church does not want to feed them damnation is very short sighted. The admonition in 1 Cor 11 has been held by Reformed churches for centuries as the biblical position. I would suggest you read the Puritans, Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Machen and other great teachers of the faith who have all come to the same conclusion.

The problem with your comparison of 1 Cor 11:28 and Acts 2:38 is that you leave off a very important part of Peter's statement, which is verse 39. Verse 39 is integral as to why we do baptise infants in that the &quot;promise is to you and your children&quot;. If the promise is not to our children, then baptizing them becomes pointless. Therefore, comparing the requirements of baptism to the Lord's Supper is comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 16, 2004)

Paul,

These are good questions and there are others that peadocommunionist need to answer. Unfortunately one of the problems that I have yet to see from peadocommunionists is any real exegetical evidence for this practice.


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 17, 2004)

Confirmation (However it is called) is just the recognition that the Presbyterians practice baptism in two steps instead of one, first they put the water on (step 1) then they have the confession or confirmation (Part 2). baptist just view the sacrament as something that should not be divided. 

[Edited on 3-17-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 17, 2004)

[quote:16a8dbbbdb][i:16a8dbbbdb]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:16a8dbbbdb]
Confirmation (However it is called) is just the recognition that the Presbyterians practice baptism in two steps instead of one, first they put the water on (step 1) then they have the confession or confirmation (Part 2). baptist just view the sacrament as something that should not be divided. 

[Edited on 3-17-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:16a8dbbbdb]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:1f7fedf895][i:1f7fedf895]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:1f7fedf895]
Though i am not convinced, or well studied on the issue of paedocommunion I have a couple of question:

don't you need to show a link between that and passover?

Now, did infants partake of the passover? I mean, could they digest lamb chops? As far as I know they can't.

Doesn't &quot;they asked what was the meal about&quot; assume that they had to be aware of what was going on?

Is there any verse that says &quot;infants partook?&quot; Because if one can't show that there were infants there then doesn't that cause problems.

And, all the above questions i can get around regarding baptism (or at least i think I can) so it won't do good to say, &quot;all those could be applied to infant baptism.&quot;

thanks,
-Paul [/quote:1f7fedf895]

No takers on Paul's questions?????


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2004)

I haven't really thought about the issue with regard to the passover/communion analogy that much. It just seems contradictory to me to take God's spiritual promises to your children seriously (i.e. in baptism), but then deny them the sacrament that signifies the very thing by which those promises are purchased.

So in that sense, that's why I think the burden of proof would logically stand on those who want to withold the sacrament from infants. And to that people will respond, &quot;OK, fair enough - and our proof is 1 Corinthians 11.&quot; But I just don't think that passage restricts the sacrament in the general sense people think it does today, and I haven't heard anyone ably refute the claim that Paul was specifically speaking about the problem in Corinth, about the class disregard when partaking of the Supper. In light of that, 1 Corinthians 11 seems far from conclusive enough to shift the burden of proof from the &quot;credocommunionist&quot; to the paedo.

If anyone has a good refutation of that interpretation of the passage, or if someone sees a hole in my logic, please speak. I'm really trying to understand the reasons for the rejection of the doctrine.

In Christ,

Chris

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by Me Died Blue]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## twogunfighter (Mar 18, 2004)

Wow didn't know that I would start a paedocommunion thread. :bigsmile:


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:214bf5f943][i:214bf5f943]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:214bf5f943]
Wow didn't know that I would start a paedocommunion thread. :bigsmile: [/quote:214bf5f943]

Don't worry, it'll turn out to be a thread on baptism :yes:


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:efd3373169][i:efd3373169]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:efd3373169]
[quote:efd3373169]
So in that sense, that's why I think the burden of proof would logically stand on those who want to withold the sacrament from infants
[/quote:efd3373169]

well, I'm sure the OC parents withheld it from their infants.....because it is [i:efd3373169]physilogically[/i:efd3373169] impossible for infants to digest lamb chops.

Also, the phrase &quot;they asked what it was about&quot; implies that they had some level og cognative awareness. So, one could say that I am not necessarily against [i:efd3373169]paedo[/i:efd3373169] communion-since a paedo/child may take communion if they have that level. Now, what we are really talking about, if we want to get technical, is [i:efd3373169]brethos[/i:efd3373169] communion. That is, [i:efd3373169]infant[/i:efd3373169]. If you cannot prove that [i:efd3373169]infants[/i:efd3373169] partook then what link do you have for [i:efd3373169]infant[/i:efd3373169] communion? I have that link with baptism.

Also as B.B. Warfield has said, contrary to me died blue, is that they are for our children...BUT at their appointed time. That is, though they are members of the church, just as Israelite children were, there are certain priviledges that come when they are older. An analogy might help. My child was born in America, thus he is an American citizen. But, does he have all the priviledges of American citizens? No. He cannot vote, drive, by beer, etc. He is still a citizen and is no less a citizen than others. Those rights are for him as long as he continues to uphold his obligations as an American.

Some might protest: Ex. 12 says that it is for your children. Well, not everytime the Bible talks about &quot;your children&quot; does it mean infants. In II Tim we read that an elder is to have believing children. So, does anyone think that means that we must wait until a canidate's children are old enough to believe before he can be ordained? Again, here, we have language which presupposes cognative understanding applied to the children, just as we do in Ex. 12. My paedobaptist brothers might object: well, there is cognative language applied to baptism but you say that presupposes adults; not infants. But I can show, and they agree, with the link between circumcision and baptism-which is undistuped that infants were subjects of. So, we now come full circle, where is the evidence that [i:efd3373169]infants[/i:efd3373169] partook of the passover?

-Paul [/quote:efd3373169]

Again, I haven't really thought about the issue with regard to the passover/communion analogy that much, and linking those two is not why I believe in it. My main issue with paedocommunion (or brethos-), again, is that it seems contradictory to me to take [i:efd3373169]God's spiritual promises[/i:efd3373169] to our children seriously (i.e. in baptism), yet not regard them as proper recipients of the sacrament that signifies [i:efd3373169]the very thing by which those promises are purchased[/i:efd3373169]. [b:efd3373169]THIS[/b:efd3373169] is why I believe the burden of proof is on the credocommunionist, and I already explained above why I do not yet see 1 Corinthians 11 as a sufficient passage to shift that burden.

Chris


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:119d40d185][i:119d40d185]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:119d40d185]
[quote:119d40d185]
again, is that it seems contradictory to me to take God's spiritual promises to our children seriously (i.e. in baptism), yet not regard them as proper recipients of the sacrament that signifies the very thing by which those promises are purchased. 
[/quote:119d40d185]

First, I do regard my child as a proper recipient...at his appointed time.[/quote:119d40d185]

This doesn't really get at the issue. A credobaptist could just as easily respond with the same answer regarding baptism when we ask them why they don't consider their children proper recipients of it. What I'm trying to show is that our baptized children are eligible for the Lord's Supper [i:119d40d185]once they are baptized[/i:119d40d185].

[quote:119d40d185][i:119d40d185]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:119d40d185]
Second, explain the promises of baptism and the promises of communion.[/quote:119d40d185]

The promises of baptism are that 1) the recipient is a member of God's external covenant community, and 2) thus is likely (in the same sense that one who makes an external profession is &quot;likely&quot; to actually be a true Christian) to be a member of His internal covenant community as well (hence presumptive regeneration). The promises of the Lord's Supper is that one has received forgiveness of sins, and been united with Christ and counted righteous with Him--in other words, the promises signified in the Lord's Supper are those that all members of the invisible covenant are guaranteed. And membership in the external covenant along with God's promises (related to baptism) give grounds for presuming membership in the internal, grounds that are just as reliable as a &quot;coming forward for salvation&quot; or an external profession of faith. This is why I think all baptized people are from that point forward eligible for the Lord's Supper.

[quote:119d40d185][i:119d40d185]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:119d40d185]
Third, it is not contradictory. I am not saying A and ~A.[/quote:119d40d185]

Maybe that wasn't quite the right word to use. I basically mean it seems [i:119d40d185]inconsistent[/i:119d40d185] to me.

[quote:119d40d185][i:119d40d185]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:119d40d185]
Fourth, I baptise my child based on the command of the Bible (I hope I don't have to explain that necessary inference counts as a command to a paedobaptist). Where is the command to give them the Lord's supper? What you need to do is to show a link between communion and passover.[/quote:119d40d185]

Let me start by giving the primary reason I believe we should baptize our children, which is because of verses like the following (ESV):

Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and you [Abraham] and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you."
Deuteronomy 30:6 (emphasis mine) "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."
Psalm 103:17-18 (emphasis mine) "But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments."
Proverbs 3:33 (emphasis mine) "The LORd's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous."
Proverbs 11:21 (emphasis mine) "Be assured, an evil person will not go unpunished, but the offspring of the righteous will be delivered."
Isaiah 54:13 "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children."
Isaiah 59:21 (emphasis mine) "'And as for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD: 'My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring,' says the LORD, 'from this time forth and forevermore.'"
Isaiah 65:23 "They [God's people] shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them."
Jeremiah 32:39 (emphasis mine) "I will give them [the elect] one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them."
Acts 2:39 "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.'"
1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."
Psalm 22:9-10 "Yet you [God] are he who took me [David] from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God."
Luke 1:14-15 (emphasis mine) "And you [Zechariah] will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his [John the Baptist's] birth, for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."

We cannot know anyone's election but our own for sure, so we can only presume it based on educated evidence. For adult converts, we take their profession of faith to be evidence that God has regenerated them. For our children, we take God's promises like those above to be evidence that God has (or will) regenerated them, evidence that is at least as reliable as outer profession.

The Lord's Supper signifies the engrafting into Christ by His death on the Cross, and the reception of the benefits purchased at the Cross. My argument for paedocommunion is the same as that for paedobaptism: We cannot know for sure whether someone else is truly worthy to take the Lord's Supper, but can only presume based on educated evidence. For adults, an external profession of faith is evidence that God has regenerated them and thus that they are worthy to take the Supper. Likewise, for infants, why would the above promises of God not be sufficient evidence that they are worthy recipients at that time?

[quote:119d40d185][i:119d40d185]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:119d40d185]
Fifth, I view communion as an active process. We are to take it in &quot;rememebrence&quot; of [b:119d40d185]Him[/b:119d40d185] (I am not geting into the innate knowledge children have of God here, but rather that specific knowledge of Him and His sufferings). The Lord's supper is for &quot;those displeased with themselves.&quot;[/quote:119d40d185]

This is a good point. Still, I think that whether Jesus did or did not intend for His disciples to give the Supper to their children when He instituted it, He would have said this either way. For instance, if He did in fact intend for them to do so, He still could have said this directing it at the church body and each family in general. In such a case, even if a specific infant doesn't intellectually understand the Supper any better than they initially understood their baptism, the family and church as a whole would still be taking the Supper in remembrance of Christ.

[quote:119d40d185][i:119d40d185]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:119d40d185]
Sixth, No less a exegete as John Calvin said that if you give infants/young children the Lord's supper you may as well be poisoning them. I mean, we should at least be very, very, cautious with a practice that can cause people to &quot;sleep&quot; if taken in an unworthy mannor.[/quote:119d40d185]

I realize Calvin took the opposite position in this case, but as has been said by others on this board, we must at least be open to the fact that one generation (yes, even one as wise and godly as the Reformers) may not have gotten [i:119d40d185]everything[/i:119d40d185] right the first time.

[quote:119d40d185][i:119d40d185]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:119d40d185]
Seventh, it seemed individualistic in the NT, i.e., there were NO &quot;household&quot; Lord suppers.
-Paul

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by Paul manata]

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by Paul manata]
[/quote:119d40d185]

This is a great point. I'll have to think about this a little. It is indeed to note that there are examples of household baptisms but bot household communions. But actually, are there many recorded specific instances of communion at all? I don't recall at the moment. Let me know of any recorded specific instances you can think of.

Chris

P. S. Truth be told, I actually [i:119d40d185]want[/i:119d40d185] to believe that the Bible inevitably teaches [i:119d40d185]against[/i:119d40d185] paedocommunion, and that the Lord's Supper is only for [i:119d40d185]professing[/i:119d40d185] Christians. This is because presently, it is a major exception I have to take to the WCF, and while I of course believe Sola Scriptura, I would like to be able to believe that the WCF is as close to Scripture as I can. But right now, I simply can't yet say in good conscience that I honestly believe there to be biblical evidence for limiting the Lord's Supper to professing people. I truly hope that I eventually realize something I haven't yet noticed, but as of yet I can't simply tell myself I intellectually and Scripturally believe in credocommunion, because...well, I don't.

[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2004)

Paul, you keep trying to bring up the link between passover and communion, saynig that I can't show a link...let this be heard clear once more: &quot;I AM NOT BASING MY ARGUMENT ON THAT!&quot; Right now, I'm not so much trying to argue in favor of paedocommunion anymore as I am trying to show you what objections to credocommunion remain in my mind. As I said in my last post, I in fact [i:86c1638ed9]want[/i:86c1638ed9] to take the same position on the Lord's Supper as the WCF does. But there are still a few issues and arguments that seem to me to favor paedocommunion, and I am trying to clearly state them in hopes that some of you here will be able to help me refute them in my own mind, if that makes sense. And the link between passover and communion is not one of them. I agree with you that one cannot show that infants partook of the passover, and thus cannot claim a link between the two. But I still cannot get over the arguments for paedocommunion I gave above, relating to the external/invisible covenants and presumptive regeneration and election. [i:86c1638ed9]That[/i:86c1638ed9] is the argument in my mnid right now that won't allow me to let go of paedocommunion in my mind, and [i:86c1638ed9]it[/i:86c1638ed9] is the argument to which I'm trying to understand the credocommunionist rebuttal, so that I can perhaps understand it in a new light myself, and can abandon paedocommunion in good intellectual conscience. But as of yet, you (or anyone else) haven't once responded to that argument and explained why and/or how it is refuted from Scripture.

Chris


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2004)

[quote:52ef2da9af][i:52ef2da9af]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:52ef2da9af]
[quote:52ef2da9af]
Paul, you keep trying to bring up the link between passover and communion, saynig that I can't show a link...let this be heard clear once more: &quot;I AM NOT BASING MY ARGUMENT ON THAT
[/quote:52ef2da9af]

I think your missing my point. I am saying that you HAVE TO. It is fine if you want to show why you think it should be practiced, but(!) if the Bible doesn't teach it...so much for your opinion. You need to show that children took it...or that it can be inferred that they [i:52ef2da9af]did[/i:52ef2da9af]. Your argument does not do that. I don't need to address your argument because if the Bible doesn't teach that they did then your argument means nothing. You are close to committing the [i:52ef2da9af]intentional fallacy[/i:52ef2da9af]. I also believe that your argument is based on eisogesis. My point, again, you HAVE TO show that they partook or that it is inferred that they DID. If you cannot do either then you have nothing but a constrcuted argument without any biblical support.[/quote:52ef2da9af]

How I view the argument I kept referencing is that it's one from inference - but so is the paedobaptism argument, as there are no direct commands to baptize our children in the New Testament. The inferencial argument for paedobaptism is basically, &quot;God gives our children many spiritual promises of blessing in Scripture. Elsewhere in Scripture, He commands us to baptize those for whose election we can find good grounds. One such ground is profession of faith, but God's spiritual promises of blessing are certainly just as reliable a ground. Therefore, by inference, God Scripturally wants us to baptize our children.&quot; I basically saw the inferential argument for paedocommunion in a similar light. And that's why I think that paedocommunion would be the biblical practice by inference, [i:52ef2da9af]unless[/i:52ef2da9af] a passage elsewhere could be shown to forbid it.

The passage pointed to by opponents of paedocommunion was always 1 Corinthians 11. However, I always bought the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 that Paul is not referring to thorough self-examination in a general sense, but simply addressing the problem of selfishness, haste and division that was going on at the Corinthian church at that time, and thus that he was only instructing us to make sure actions like that do not accompany our taking of the Supper. 

However, I must admit, the verses you reminded me of in your above post and the one before it shed light on the 1 Corinthians 11 passage for me. For instance, the 2 Chronicles passage, after mentioning the error of the people, does [i:52ef2da9af]not[/i:52ef2da9af] correct it by saying, &quot;May the good LORD provide atonement for everyone who [i:52ef2da9af]refrains from acting with greed, haste and vanity at the Table[/i:52ef2da9af],&quot; but rather, &quot;May the good LORD provide atonement for everyone who [i:52ef2da9af]prepares his heart to seek God[/i:52ef2da9af].&quot; This, the Numbers passage and your comparison of the language surrounding the sacraments in the Old and New Covenants makes me realize that 1 Corinthians 11 is in fact not merely correcting the problem of open greed, haste and vanity at the Lord's Supper, but is in fact admonishing people to do a general self-examination.

Well, this is the second time someone on this board has persuaded me to change my view on a theological issue (the first being the second commandment with regard to images of God). 1 Corinthians 11 had for awhile been the &quot;problem text&quot; that wouldn't allow me to let go of paedocommunion, since I didn't see any Scriptural evidence that it was a general examination being referred to, rather than a specifically Corinthian-church problem. So thanks for pointing out how 1 Corinthians is not to be interpreted in the narrow sense I was thinking in, since Scripture is its own best interpreter, and those OT verses clearly show what Paul had in mind with the words &quot;examine himself.&quot;

[quote:52ef2da9af][i:52ef2da9af]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:52ef2da9af]
btw, do you think that infants should be able to vote at congragational meetings? O.k. that wasn't fair. How bout 2 yr olds?

-Paul

[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:52ef2da9af]

Even if I still had the same objections to restricting children from the Supper, I would definitely answer &quot;no&quot; to this question. Obviously they don't have the discernment and understanding necessary to do so, and after all, my whole argument for paedocommunion was based on the claim that they didn't need that discernment to come to the Supper, not that they already had it.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 19, 2004)

Nice job Paul.

Unfortunately, the majority of modern peadocommunionist would agree that infants should not partake of the Supper. They would argue that because the command is to &quot;take and eat&quot; a person would have to be able to chew, and infants can't do that. So they usually say the child should be admitted to the table at say 12 or 18 months when they are capable of chewing food. So its not true &quot;peado&quot; communion.

Of course one of the big issues in the argument in my mind goes to the issue of authority. Who decides when the child is ready to partake of the Supper? The Church or the parent? and what should be required of a child in order to partake of the Supper?


----------

