# Paedocommunion....? for paedobaptists only



## LadyFlynt (Jul 21, 2005)

May I ask, out of curiousity and study, why you would be against paedocommunion even though you believe in paedobaptism? I'm just trying open conversation on the subject as I'm searching this out.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2005)

Medically speaking,
Infants cannot digest wine/bread crackers/grape juice!

Ok, more serious reasons are forthcoming.

Covenant membership does not automatically entail full covenant priveleges. If it does why not allow the infants/wee lads to vote in church meetings? today, we will vote on the Sunday school teachers dressing up as Barney!

Ok, I stole that last one from Paul Manata.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> May I ask, out of curiousity and study, why you would be against paedocommunion even though you believe in paedobaptism? I'm just trying open conversation on the subject as I'm searching this out.





The clear command of 1 Cor. 11
The unanimous history of the Western Church
The fact that along with the doctrines of Resurrection, the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, that profession before communion is the most central and embraced doctrine of the Western Church
It encourages rejection of need for conversion

There are more, but those are the basic ones

[Edited on 7/21/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 21, 2005)

Though they are both sacraments they are different.

Per WLC Q177:

Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord´s supper differ?

A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord´s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ,[1142] and that even to infants;[1143] whereas the Lord´s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul,[1144] and to confirm our continuance and growth in him,[1145] and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.[1146]

[1142] Matthew 3:11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Titus 3:5. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Galatians 3:27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[1143] Genesis 17:7, 9. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.... And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. Acts 2:38-39. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 1 Corinthians 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

[1144] 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

[1145] 1 Corinthians 10:16. 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?

[1146] 1 Corinthians 11:28-29. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 21, 2005)

For one extended argument which has been around for a while against Paedocommunion see:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 21, 2005)

Okay...some more questions....

Households were baptized (I believe including infants). It was pointed out to me that it states that the church took communion together as a meal...this would not have left out the children (but of course the infants...in refering to paedocommunion I am refering to participation of young children/but old enough to hear and have it explained to them). Also, that the father, as head of the household is to be the one to discern for his children (for those children too young to discern for themselves) whether they should participate or not.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 21, 2005)

If the Passover was replaced by the Communion table then it needs to be noted that though the Passover was a ceremonial meal, children of all ages participated.

(I'm reading that article right now, thanks!)

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> If the Passover was replaced by the Communion table then it needs to be noted that though the Passover was a ceremonial meal, children of all ages participated.
> 
> (I'm reading that article right now, thanks!)
> ...



This is a presumption not warranted by the text. Dr. F.N. Lee has an excellent paper on the subject:

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/pvp/pvp.pdf


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay...some more questions....
> 
> Households were baptized (I believe including infants). It was pointed out to me that it states that the church took communion together as a meal...this would not have left out the children (but of course the infants...in refering to paedocommunion I am refering to participation of young children/but old enough to hear and have it explained to them). Also, that the father, as head of the household is to be the one to discern for his children (for those children too young to discern for themselves) whether they should participate or not.



I don't know who pointed this out to you but this is not the Reformed position. A lot of folks point to 1 Cor 11 17-22 to say that the Lord's Supper was a meal or a part of a meal. What the Corinthians were doing was mixing a "love feast" (also mentioned in Jude) with the Lord's Supper. Some commentators have noted in their commentaries that the love feast was a hold over of pagan feasts (Calvin refers to it as a "profane" banquet). Children would not have been left out of this type of meal, but as Paul notes, this meal was not the Lord's Supper, which he describes the proper administration of in verses 23-26 and the proper partaking of in verses 27-34. 

It is true that the Lord's Supper is for the whole Church. And God has appointed men to oversee His Church, which are the officers of the Church. Part of overseeing Christ's Church is overseeing to the proper administration of the Sacraments. A father may be the head of his household, but God has not made the position of father an officer of the Church. It is true that the parents of a child who has reached the age of discretion will have great insight into the spiritual life of the child and may feel that their child is ready to be examined by the Session. But the final decision as to who may become a communing member of Christ's Church belongs to those whom God has appointed.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

The argument I always here from people I know who are suckered into FV theology is that Paul's argument in 1 Cor 10-11 is one of "unity" and getting rid of divisions in the Church ... so to say that he's wanting to fence the table makes no sense, as that would create dis-unity.

Then, they like to appeal to emotive arguments and say "why would you want to exclude infants? do you hate children?", etc.

Obscurity, muddy responses, and emotive arguments seem to be a FV staple.

I love and agree with about 85% of what Doug Wilson believes and stands for, but that other 15% and the rest of the people he hangs around really ... rub me the wrong way.

It just doesn't make any sense to change the definitions of standard theological terms for centuries so that you can explain nuances in theology. That CERTAINLY doesn't promote unity, being so obscure and vague in terms and explanations, as these people argue we should strive for in Communion. What hypocrisy, in my opinion.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> If the Passover was replaced by the Communion table then it needs to be noted that though the Passover was a ceremonial meal, children of all ages participated.
> 
> (I'm reading that article right now, thanks!)
> ...



Even in the O.T. sacrament of the Passover there was no blanket participation by children just because they were circumcised or members of the covenant in any other sense. In fact, there was a very real implicit O.T. test of discernment for children to participate in the Passover, which would be equal to the explicit discernment that is required of 1 Cor. 11. In Exodus 12:25ff we read,



> And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD´S Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 21, 2005)

Gabriel, my questions have nothing to do with FV theology. From what I have read on FV...hubby and I agree that it smacks of heresy. My questions are coming from another area and event.

Fred, you are looking at this from a church viewpoint of those that HAVE a Session in which a child can be interviewed and catechism classes are offered. We do not have a session...only elders. Catechisms are taught in the homes by the fathers. So you would say, when a child professes?

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## AdamM (Jul 21, 2005)

A few quick thoughts:

1. Does the work of Christ as represented in the Lord´s Supper *only* fulfill the Old Covenant Passover, or does the Lord´s Supper represent the fulfillment of *every* Old Covenant rite and ceremony? 

2. I think if people read the passage copied below from Exodus 24, we can agree that it has at least some relevance to the Lord´s Supper (notice the words of institution), so who participated in this feast? The whole family? 

3. Since the Lord´s Supper is New Covenant sacrament (it is a new sacrament), shouldn´t the New Testament instructions function as our controlling paradigm? 



> Exodus 24
> 
> 1Then he said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship from afar. 2Moses alone shall come near to the LORD, but the others shall not come near, and the people shall not come up with him."
> 
> ...


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 21, 2005)

Colleen,

You might also want to check out Brian Schwertley's paper on this issue. 

You can find it HERE.

Schwertley as others points out that peadocommunionists point to the "Egyptian Passover" as the model for the Lord's Supper. The problem is that we have to look at the Levitical Passover that replaced the Egyptian Passover to determine who should participate, assuming the connection between the Passover and the Lord's Supper.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> breast milk is not a sacrament



I'll need chapter and verse on this one!


----------



## Puddleglum (Jul 21, 2005)

Colleen,

The session = elders. 

The elders are the ones that God has called to determine who can and who can't partake of the Lord's Supper. Even if your church doesn't have some sort of communicants class (i.e. they think that the family can do all the instruction of the kids), it's still the elder's job to make the decision. This doesn't negate the role of the family in teaching their kids. Neither does having a communicants class. It's just recognizing the authority structure God has put in place.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 21, 2005)

The elders have decided to leave it up to the parents to discern if and when the children take communion. Thus back to the main question of when to allow a child to participate. I have no problem with my older two...they are both professing. My question is for my 4 and 5 yr olds who have not professed yet (the other two both professed at age 4 of their own accord).

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## AdamM (Jul 21, 2005)

Here is a link to an excellent article written by a PCA pastor on the subject:

http://tinyurl.com/bp3un

Note the questions he suggests at the end which I think are exactly the type that indicate the maturity of faith that can remember, proclaim and discern. 




> Deciding Whether Your Child is Ready to Receive the Lord's Supper
> By Andrew J. Webb
> 
> In determining whether your child is ready to receive the Lord's Supper, there is no magical age at which they are suddenly "ready." Rather, children will be ready to come to the table based on their own spiritual development and maturity. Sadly, some children who never own the Covenant for themselves and thus make good their Baptism, will never be qualified for communion due to their lack of faith. Others will be considerably delayed or perhaps never be able to come to the table because they are not able to meet the requirements such as the ability to examine themselves or discern the Lord's body (1 Cor. 11:28-29) due to some serious mental or physical impediment.
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Gabriel, my questions have nothing to do with FV theology. From what I have read on FV...hubby and I agree that it smacks of heresy. My questions are coming from another area and event.



They are the same arguments FV'ers use or paedocommunion. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



Yes, but the implication was that we might be following FV teachings...this is not so.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Paedocommunion _is_ FV teaching. I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Sorry.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 21, 2005)

Just because the FV believe in paedocommunion does not make everyone who has questions about paedocommunion prey to the rest of the FV teachings.

In fact, I did not even know that was one of the beliefs of the FV till you mentioned it. Again, my questions have come about due to a very specific set of circumstances that have NOTHING to do with the FV and I seriously doubt the other persons involved have even heard of the FV. So there is no use in arguing that because the FV believe it then it's worthless. I'm wanting more logical reasons why, which I believe others have kindly provided.

My husband is reading over the articles presented.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Poimen (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



Would that more of us willingly submit ourselves to our sessions/consistories instead of imbibing and promoting a party spirit (as it pertains to our families). 

The family is important, but they too are under the Headship of Christ as signified in the office of ruling elder.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 21, 2005)

BTW, it was mentioned to me that RC Sproul, Jr is a paedocommunionist, but also is NOT FV. Thoughts.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Paedocommunion _is_ FV teaching. I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Sorry.



Of the Big Four, Steve Schlissel is not a peadocommunionist. I'm not sure about Barach. This is one of the problems with FV. There is no monolithic, systematic view.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Yeah, but Schlissel, on the other hand, rejects the RPW among other things.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Yeah, but Schlissel, on the other hand, rejects the RPW among other things.



But he is a big FV guy and a bigger supporter of NT Wright.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Yep. No bueno.


----------

