# covenant succession & paedocommunnion



## Preach (Jan 16, 2006)

I have not read the book recommended by Joseph Gleason, but I have read the article that was recommended under that book listing which argues for coveannt succession. 

My question is, based on that article, my sense was (though the topic never came up), it seems as though the logical extrapolation to covenant succession (as portrayed in the article-see the Library forum) would be paedocommunion.

If we treat our covenant children as believers (although they may not be), then what or why should we not allow them to the Lord's Table?

I have read the argument sfor and against paedocommunion, I was just hoping there could be interaction on the connection between covenant succession & paedocommunion. Thanks.
"In Christ",
Bobby


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

You would have to believe in more than presumptive regeneration and covenant succession to advocate paedocommunion without doing harm to your children (causing them to partake unworthily and bring judgment upon them as unbelievers), spiritually. You would have to believe that they are regenerate and presume election as well, by virtue of their baptism and covenant succession, in order to justify the necessity and warrant to give them communion. The sacraments do no good (and only harm) unless given to the elect, so unless you had a covenantal paradigm that believed your children were regenerated in baptism and presumed elect by virtue of covenantal succession, paedocommunion would be a lot harder to maintain and defend Biblically.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

I seem to recall a vigorous debate on covenant succession on the OPC list last spring around the time that book came out.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 17, 2006)

You would also have to believe that infants have the ability to examine the body of the Lord.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 17, 2006)

FYI For what it's worth. The reviewer, Jack Bradley, if I recall correctly from his posts to the Presbyterians-OPC forum, is pro Paidocommunion; I think Rayburn may be as well, the OPC pastor he refers to at the end of the review.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> I have not read the book recommended by Joseph Gleason, but I have read the article that was recommended under that book listing which argues for coveannt succession.
> 
> My question is, based on that article, my sense was (though the topic never came up), it seems as though the logical extrapolation to covenant succession (as portrayed in the article-see the Library forum) would be paedocommunion.



It may help the paedocommunion case. But it does not logically result in paedocommunion. There is still the question of how to exegete 1 Cor. 11. As Matt said:



> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> You would also have to believe that infants have the ability to examine the body of the Lord.



Thus, the standard Reformed view of 1 Cor. 11 would require not only a person's covenant membership and presumed regeneration, but also that person's demonstrated ability to examine the body and blood of the Lord.

However, I disagree with the standard Reformed view of 1 Cor. 11. I think that exegesis is in error. I do believe in paedocommunion, and I do NOT think that they have any need or command of "examining themselves". I could tell you why I think this, but then I would be starting another paedocommunion war-thread, and I don't want to open that can of worms right now.



> _Originally posted by Preach_
> If we treat our covenant children as believers (although they may not be), then what or why should we not allow them to the Lord's Table?



 I agree! The logical conclusion _should_ be paedocommunion, if we can first exegete 1 Cor. 11 correctly.



> _Originally posted by Preach_
> I have read the arguments for and against paedocommunion, I was just hoping there could be interaction on the connection between covenant succession & paedocommunion. Thanks.
> "In Christ",
> Bobby



Well, there are some _ad hominem_ connections, to be sure. A number of covenant succession advocates are also paedocommunion advocates.

_However_, since there are a number of covenant succession advocates who _do not_ practice paedocommunion, it is not a one-for-one parallel track. I don't think all the authors of that "To You and Your Children" book advocate paedocommunion. In fact, I'd wager that most of them don't.

Plus, remember the rich catina of quotes from the book, quoting a number of Reformers and Puritans. . . . And none of those Reformers and Puritans advocated paedocommunion.


----------



## Preach (Jan 17, 2006)

Thanks.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Do the retarded then never exercise enough ability to partake of the Supper as a means of grace?
> 
> This is not any polemical attempt, but a true question...
> ...



That has been my question for ages. No one ever answers it.

I say, Paul is writing to people who should be discerning. If they are reading his words and understanding them then they should examine themselves. Children are under the care and guidance of their parents, and should be taught about the table, and exaination, but by no means excluded from it.

The mentally handicapped are like children.

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Do the retarded then never exercise enough ability to partake of the Supper as a means of grace?
> 
> This is not any polemical attempt, but a true question...
> ...



It does not do anyone any 'good' to partake of the Lord's Supper apart from faith. In other words, the sacraments are only efficacious to the elect, and are to be received by faith - otherwise, they are bread, wine, and water (and worse, judgment, in particular cases).

Note Calvin,

*BOOK IV. Chapter XIV.
7. The reception of the sacraments by the wicked is no evidence against their importance*

It is irrational to contend that sacraments are not manifestations of divine grace toward us, because they are held forth to the ungodly also, who, however, so far from experiencing God to be more propitious to them, only incur greater condemnation. By the same reasoning, the gospel will be no manifestation of the grace of God, because it is spurned by many who hear it; nor will Christ himself be a manifestation of grace, because of the many by whom he was seen and known, very few received him.

It is certain, therefore, that the Lord offers us his mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his sacred word and in the sacraments; but it is not apprehended save by those who receive the word and sacraments with firm faith: in like manner as Christ, though offered and held forth for salvation to all, is not, however, acknowledged and received by all. Augustine, when intending to intimate this, said that the efficacy of the word is produced in the sacrament not because it is spoken, but because it is believed.


*BOOK IV. XIV.
9. The Holy Spirit in the sacraments*

Wherefore, with regard to the increase and confirmation of faith, I would remind the reader, (though I think I have already expressed it in unambiguous terms,) that in assigning this office to the sacraments, it is not as if I thought that there is a kind of secret efficacy perpetually inherent in them, by which they can of themselves promote or strengthen faith, but because our Lord has instituted them for the express purpose of helping to establish and increase our faith.

The sacraments duly perform their office only when accompanied by the Spirit, the internal Master, whose energy alone penetrates the heart, stirs up the affections, and procures access for the sacraments into our souls. If he is wanting, the sacraments can avail us no more than the sun shining on the eyeballs of the blind, or sounds uttered in the ears of the deaf. Wherefore, in distributing between the Spirit and the sacraments I ascribe the whole energy to him, and leave only a ministry to them; this ministry, without the agency of the Spirit, is empty and frivolous, but when he acts within, and exerts his power, it is replete with energy.

It is now clear in what way, according to this vies, a pious mind is confirmed in faith by means of the sacraments, viz., in the same way in which the light of the sun is seen by the eye, and the sound of the voice heard by the ear; the former of which would not be at all affected by the light unless it had a pupil on which the light might fall; nor the latter reached by any sound, however loud were it not naturally adapted for hearing. But if it is true, as has been explained, that in the eye it is the power of vision which enables it to see the light, and in the ear the power of hearing which enables it to perceive the voice, and that in our hearts it is the work of the Holy Spirit to commence, maintain, cherish, and establish faith, then it follows both that the sacraments do not avail one iota without the energy of the Holy Spirit; and that yet in hearts previously taught by that preceptor, there is nothing to prevent the sacraments from strengthening and increasing faith. There is only this difference, that the faculty of seeing and hearing is naturally implanted in the eye and ear; whereas, Christ acts in our minds above the measure of nature by special grace.


*BOOK IV. Chapter XIV.
14. The error of a magical conception of the sacraments*

On the other hand, it is to be observed, that as these objectors impair the force, and altogether overthrow the use of the sacraments, so there are others who ascribe to the sacraments a kind of secret virtue, which is nowhere said to have been implanted in them by God. By this error the more simple and unwary are perilously deceived while they are taught to seek the gifts of God where they cannot possibly be found, and are insensibly withdrawn from God, so as to embrace instead of his truth mere vanity. For the schools of the Sophists have taught with general consent that the sacraments of the new law, in other words, those now in use in the Christian Church, justify, and confer grace, provided only that we do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. It is impossible to describe how fatal and pestilential this sentiment is, and the more so, that for many ages it has, to the great loss of the Church, prevailed over a considerable part of the world. It is plainly of the devil: for, first, in promising a righteousness without faith, it drives souls headlong on destruction; secondly, in deriving a cause of righteousness from the sacraments, it entangles miserable minds, already of their own accord too much inclined to the earth, in a superstitious idea, which makes them acquiesce in the spectacle of a corporeal object rather than in God himself. I wish we had not such experience of both evils as to make it altogether unnecessary to give a lengthened proof of them. For what is a sacrament received without faith, but most certain destruction to the Church? For, seeing that nothing is to be expected beyond the promise, and the promise no less denounces wrath to the unbeliever than offers grace to the believer, it is an error to suppose that anything more is conferred by the sacraments than is offered by the word of God, and obtained by true faith.

From this another thing follows, viz., that assurance of salvation does not depend on participation in the sacraments, as if justification consisted in it. This, which is treasured up in Christ alone, we know to be communicated, not less by the preaching of the Gospel than by the seal of a sacrament, and may be completely enjoyed without this seal. So true is it, as Augustine declares, that there may be invisible sanctification without a visible sign, and, on the other hand, a visible sign without true sanctification, (August. de Quest. Vet. Test. Lib. 3.) For as he elsewhere says, "Men put on Christ, sometimes to the extent of partaking in the sacrament, and sometimes to the extent of holiness of life," (August. de Bapt. Cont. Donat. cap. 24.) The former may be common to the good and the bad, the latter is peculiar to the good.

&tc...

Those who argue for the 'necessity' of paedocommunion, in an effort to ensure/secure the faith of covenant children argue from two erroneous premises (whether admittedly or not, and in most cases - not):

1. That the sacraments can work _ex opere operato_(sp?) to distribute grace to receivers, whether their faith is manifestly evident or not (in the case of infants or invalids, for example, as inquired about above).

2. That the proper spiritual nourishment and growth of covenant children (or invalids) _depends_ on the reception of the sacraments, whether faith is present or not. In other words, if a child has not yet reached the age of conversation and is born into a Christian house, they should receive the Supper so that they will receive spiritual nourishment and grace, despite never having uttered the words "Christ is Lord" and without any reasonable exhibition of faith or trust in the Lord in any way, shape or form.

I have even heard a PC advocate go so far as to assert that the reason so many covenant children apostatize from the faith in our day and age is because they were not treated as believers from birth, not receiving the grace of the Supper from their reception into the Church as baptized infants. This is clearly operating on a Roman view of the sacraments and, as Calvin clearly asserts, is at the very least, stupid.

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

> It does not do anyone any 'good' to partake of the Lord's Supper apart from faith. In other words, the sacraments are only efficacious to the elect, and are to be received by faith - otherwise, they are bread, wine, and water (and worse, judgment, in particular cases).



We are referring to baptised retarded people, and baptised children, who presumed to be elect, have made no outward betrayal of faith and proven to be apostate.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> ...



If they are not able to exercise discernment, they should not partake.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > It does not do anyone any 'good' to partake of the Lord's Supper apart from faith. In other words, the sacraments are only efficacious to the elect, and are to be received by faith - otherwise, they are bread, wine, and water (and worse, judgment, in particular cases).
> ...



Again, if they are not able to discern, the supper should be withheld. It is nopt a disadvantage to them if they do not partake.......God understands their situation.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > It does not do anyone any 'good' to partake of the Lord's Supper apart from faith. In other words, the sacraments are only efficacious to the elect, and are to be received by faith - otherwise, they are bread, wine, and water (and worse, judgment, in particular cases).
> ...



I know who you are referring to, Mark. Yet, Calvin, and the vast majority of the entire Western Christian traditioin rejects such a practice as absurd and, at the very least, unnecessary.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> FYI For what it's worth. The reviewer, Jack Bradley, if I recall correctly from his posts to the Presbyterians-OPC forum, is pro Paidocommunion; I think Rayburn may be as well, the OPC pastor he refers to at the end of the review.



I don't know whether Bradley is pro paedocommunion or not, but he does seem to have some affinity with them on some issues, posts comments to pro-FV blogs (like Barb Harvey), etc. 

Rayburn is in the PCA, not OPC, and my understanding is that he is a paedocommunion advocate. Both are ministers in Washington state.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

Interesting Scott and Gabriel.

I assumed most antipaedoeucharist advocates would still allow the mentally handicapped to partake.

So how does a reformed mind escape the claim that by adding examination to the feast we are approaching His table by some merit of our own, (ie. the ability to examine) ?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Interesting Scott and Gabriel.
> 
> I assumed most antipaedoeucharist advocates would still allow the mentally handicapped to partake.
> ...



We approach the table by the merit of Christ. Only those who are in Christ can partake of Christ and His benefits.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

> We approach the table by the merit of Christ. Only those who are in Christ can partake of Christ and His benefits.



What you mean to say I think, to be fair to Calvin, is:

We approach the table by the merit of Christ. Only those who are in Christ can partake of Christ and His benefits. And those benefits are made efficacious only to those who are able to examine themselves and discern the body.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Interesting Scott and Gabriel.
> 
> I assumed most antipaedoeucharist advocates would still allow the mentally handicapped to partake.
> ...



Mark,

The problem only comes about from those who view the Supper as some sort of magical talisman that has benefits apart from faith. We might just as easily say that there is something wrong with the Word as a means of grace, since the mentality incapable cannot benefit from it. The same could be said of prayer. Why would God give us a means of grace that requires "merit" or "ability."

What of the man who is stranded in a place where there is no minister? What of the place where bread is not readily available? Or a man in prison?

The point is that the Supper is a _means_ of grace. It is not _necessary_ for grace. Most paedocommunionists act as if not being able to partake of the Supper damns their children. Surprisingly, they do not view the Word in the same way, and the Supper is inferior to (i.e. dependent upon) the Word.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > We approach the table by the merit of Christ. Only those who are in Christ can partake of Christ and His benefits.
> ...



In the words of Calvin, those benefits are only made efficacious to the ELECT by FAITH.

"... it is an error to suppose that anything more is conferred by the sacraments than is offered by the word of God, and obtained by true faith."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 17, 2006)

Here's how I see it. Not that I disagree with gabriel. We are commanded to repent, to ask forgiveness for our sins. Does this mean that it is because we ask that we are forgiven? No! We are commanded to examine before partaking. Is it because we examine? No! It is because of Christ. Does the infant that is converted have this benefit? Or the retarded? Yes, when they can examine and fulfill the command in view of those whom Christ commanded to distribute the sacrament.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

More Calvin:

*15. Matter and sign to be distinguished*

Hence the distinction, if properly understood, repeatedly made by Augustine between the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament. For he does not mean merely that the figure and truth are therein contained, but that they do not so cohere as not to be separable, and that in this connection it is always necessary to distinguish the thing from the sign, so as not to transfer to the one what belongs to the other.

*Augustine speaks of the separation when he says that in the elect alone the sacraments accomplish what they represent*, (Augustin. de Bapt. Parvul.) Again, when speaking of the Jews, he says, "Though the sacraments were common to and the grace was not common: yet grace is the virtue of the sacraments. Thus, too, the laver of regeneration is now common to all, but the grace by which the members of Christ are regenerated with their head is not common to all," (August. in Ps. 78.) Again, in another place, speaking of the Lord's Supper, he says "We also this day receive visible food; but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. Why is it that many partake of the altar and die, and die by partaking? For even the cup of the Lord was poison to Judas, not because he received what was evil, but being wicked he wickedly received what was good," (August. in Joann. Hom. 26.) A little after, he says, "The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is in some places prepared every day, in others at certain intervals at the Lord's table, which is partaken by some unto life, by others unto destruction. But the thing itself, of which there is a sacrament, is life to all, and destruction to none who partake of it." Some time before he had said, "He who may have eaten shall not die, but he must be one who attains to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; who eats inwardly not outwardly; who eats with the heart, and not with the teeth." Here you are uniformly told that a sacrament is so separated from the reality by the unworthiness of the partaker, that nothing remains but an empty and useless figure. Now, in order that you may have not a sign devoid of truth, but the thing with the sign, the Word which is included in it must be apprehended by faith. Thus, in so far as by means of the sacraments you will profit in the communion of Christ, will you derive advantage from them.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



We still preach and read the word to the mentally handicapped.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> In the words of Calvin, those benefits are only made efficacious to the ELECT by FAITH.
> 
> "... it is an error to suppose that anything more is conferred by the sacraments than is offered by the word of God, and obtained by true faith."



I agree with Calvin. I simply think he grants faith to infants, children and the retarded.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



This is because the Word of God is a necessity for faith and repentance. Romans 10.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

I did not mean to get the paedoeucharist ball rolling again. I can see the argument from both sides and remain torn. I continue to teach my children what it means and that they ought to examine and confess sin.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

> This is because the Word of God is a necessity for faith and repentance. Romans 10.



Yes indeed. And participation in the Eucharist meal is a command of Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > This is because the Word of God is a necessity for faith and repentance. Romans 10.
> ...




Correct, for those whom can examine.....


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

I see that as being added later because of abuse.
And as a matter of ceremony not necessity.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> I see that as being added later because of abuse.
> And as a matter of ceremony not necessity.



Well, that probably isn't the safest hermeneutic to have, brother.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

What, the same hermeneutic used with tongues, and head coverings ?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> What, the same hermeneutic used with tongues, and head coverings ?



The fact remains that it is not a suggestion or a good idea, but a command of God. That is, examination before communion.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

Head coverings for women, and interpretations of tongues are also commands, but given the contex we both agree they are not universal.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Head coverings for women, and interpretations of tongues are also commands, but given the contex we both agree they are not universal.



I fail to see the significance. This was a command pertaining to the Lord's Supper, a universal practice in the Christian Church.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

A universal practice being abused in a unique way at Corinth.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> A universal practice being abused in a unique way at Corinth.



Were Paul's letters distributed among the Churches as universal, or limited to one congregation alone? The fact that you can open your Bible to 1 and 2 Corinthians should answer that one for you. I find your 'logic' troubling.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

Gabriel, I respect you on this. I could be off the mark here. It just seems to me like he is making a rule to keep things from getting crazy in the Eucharistic meal. Not making a hard fast requirement for it. I hope you do not think I am applying a hermeneutic to fit my paedoeucharistic leanings.

I respect both sides.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...
> 
> It does not do anyone any 'good' to partake of the Lord's Supper apart from faith. In other words, the sacraments are only efficacious to the elect, and are to be received by faith - otherwise, they are bread, wine, and water (and worse, judgment, in particular cases).



Why not say that it only does harm to partake of the sacraments without examining "the body and blood of Christ" if one is able to do so. But if one is too young, or feeble minded, to examine oneself, then no harms comes to them.

It makes more sense to me that the danger is to those who willfully ignore the warnings and partake of the Lord's Supper. But children and the mentally handicap are not at risk.

I am wary of any view of the sacraments as some sort of magical talismans. The harm in taking the sacraments unworthily is not due to some power imbued in the bread and wine, or some power they have to convey some sort of curse or blessing. It is that the one who willfully ignores the warnings of Scripture to confess our sins is offending God. It is our thoughts that condemn us. The Lords Supper serves to reinforce what we believe - that is the blessing. It is not some mystical-superpower-soul-booster.

But I don't think it has anything to do with "covenant secession" either. My view is the sacraments are signs of what we believe. It seems we should not baptize our children if we think communion is a danger for them.

That's my view right now. I would be happier if I agreed with the historical and present orthodox positions - so please help me out. How can these basic elements harm us? Can this be explained without using terms like spiritual as a kind of mysticism?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Why not say that it only does harm to partake of the sacraments without examining "the body and blood of Christ" if one is able to do so. *But if one is too young, or feeble minded, to examine oneself, then no harms comes to them*.
> 
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

Are baptism and the supper the same?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Are baptism and the supper the same?



No, but they BOTH do point to union with Christ.

Baptism symbolizes regeneration, which is synonymous with union with Christ.

Communion symbolizes the faith message of John 6, where Jesus says that no one has eternal life unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood. Well, if we don't give our little children communion, what message are we sending via that symbolism?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



The problem with this approach, Anthony, is that it denies the distinction between the sacraments. They are not the same, and were not practiced to be the same. Baptism (like circumcision) is an initiatory rite. The Supper (like Passover) is a nourishing and participatory rite. There is a very real and practical danger to allowing those who can not discern to partake of the Supper. It says to them that there is no need to profess Christ, for they already are considered believers. There is no need to profess Christ or even show fruit, because they already have full participation. That is why FV advocates say that no positive fruit of faith is necessary for anyone (including adults), but instead only the _absence_ of apostasy. In this instance, Church discipline is non-existent.

That is why every Western branch of Christendom has rejected paedocommunion. They see the incredible danger. Only the East, with a *completely* different view of salvation (apotheosis) allows it. They can because they do not view salvation as the Western Church does (even the Roman Catholics).


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

Innocent until proven guilty Fred. 

Explain how the absence of outward apostasy therefore condemns those who are baptized. There is fruit even in the smallest child, or the weakest mind. I seem to remember the brother of Christ sayin that mercy triumphs over judgment. It is not an issue of orthodoxy with those who are simpletons, it is an issue of consistent connection with the covenant people of God. Orphans and widows might be uneducated and/or senile. God seems to care quite a bit that we shelter and FEED the abandoned or fatherless and those bereft of love and care.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> The problem with this approach, Anthony, is that it denies the distinction between the sacraments. They are not the same, and were not practiced to be the same. Baptism (like circumcision) is an initiatory rite. The Supper (like Passover) is a nourishing and participatory rite.



True. But you are forgetting what they both do share. 

BOTH are the same in at least ONE respect:

They BOTH represent something without which you _cannot be saved_.

1) You cannot be saved without regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
2) You cannot be saved without eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood (John 6:53). 

Baptism signifies #1.
Communion signifies #2.

If a person is not regenerate, then they don't have the Holy Spirit. This is the picture Baptists paint when they refuse baptism to their children.

If a person is not regenerate, then they have not partaken of the blood and body of Christ. This picture of being unregenerate is what Presbyterians paint when they refuse communion to their children.

You see, Presbyterians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to give their children baptism, which signifies something necessary for regeneration. But they do not want to give their children communion, which ALSO signifies something necessary for regeneration.

It is double-speak . . . a mixed-message.


Jesus is clear: "*I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you*" (John 6:53).

And of course the Lord's Supper symbolizes the truth of John 6.

The imagery is crystal clear --- *when we deny the Supper to our little children, we are telling them that they have no life in them.*



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> There is a very real and practical danger to allowing those who can not discern to partake of the Supper. It says to them that there is no need to profess Christ, for they already are considered believers. There is no need to profess Christ or even show fruit, because they already have full participation.



That is a straw-man.

I would like you to show me one paedocommunion advocate who believes this. On the contrary, I would argue that paedocommunion advocates are generally MUCH MORE avid about making sure that their children make a profession of faith once an appropriate age is reached. The covenant-succession teachers do not advocate complacency. Far from it! Rather, they say that we should constantly catechize our children and pray for them fervently, to give them the best environment possible for bringing them to the point of having an active, open, verbal, living confession of faith.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> That is why every Western branch of Christendom has rejected paedocommunion.



This is flatly untrue. 

On the contrary, the Anglican church accepts paedocommunion. And the Episcopalian church accepts paedocommunion. Also, a small presbyterian denomination, the Federation of Reformed Churches, accepts paedocommunion.

And are G.I. Williamson, R.C. Sproul Jr., Vern Poythress, etc. not members of the Western Branch of Christendom?


----------



## Civbert (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> There is a very real and practical danger to allowing those who can not discern to partake of the Supper. It says to them that there is no need to profess Christ, for they already are considered believers.


 Isn't that the same "practical" message we give when we baptize infants? And if they can not discern this, then it doesn't say anything to them. One could say that if you determine you do not believe, then you should stop taking communion. But the same could be said for going to church - you are already fully liable for rejecting the Word of God if you continue to listen to the Gospel preached and fail to believe it. 

And if you are discerning, then taking communion is in effect a confession of your faith - for we always assert before communion that it is given for believers to participate. A discerning participant is confession faith by partaking. And since taking communion _is_ done in obedience, it _is_ an outward fruit. 

I'd like to explore the angle of being a member of the visible or the invisible church. I suppose baptism makes you member of the visible church. This would be formal membership only. Communion then is given to those who are members of the invisible church. ... That doesn't satisfy the situation - a mere confession is not good evidence of true faith. Communion is still only an outward sign of membership. 

You said "the Supper (like Passover) is a nourishing and participatory rite. " How is it nourishing? What does that mean?

Honestly, I really do want to disagree with paedocommunnion - but I don't see it. It's rather frustrating - but I refuse to follow traditions or customs of faith blindly - I need to prove them out. I think Scripture is my only hope in this, and I'm not certain at this point what it is saying on the issue.

Sort of an aside (not meant as a red herring), but how many of you were true believers when they began taking communion? This would be for those who first took communion at a young age, say 10 to 15 years. Me, I'm not sure when I was born again.

I do recognize that communion is different than baptism. They signify different things. And both are matters of obedience. But neither saves us. Both are signs. But the Baptist baptism seems to have the same function as the formal introduction of a person as a communing member. Does this invalidate the Baptist baptism?

My arguments are not very good because I haven't given any Scriptural support to them. I am convinced of the legitimacy of infant baptism from the scriptural arguments I've heard. But I rarely hear communion given that kind of biblical treatment.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Actually, unless you are a Roman Catholic, you are wrong. John 6 does not refer to the Lord's Supper. You keep saying it does, against all exegesis that has been offered to you - on numerous threads. Simple volume does not make your point.

Even if it _were_ true that John 6 is a reference to the Supper, it does you absolutely no good, because the Vatican itself is vehemently anti-paedocommunion.



> Baptism signifies #1.
> Communion signifies #2.
> 
> If a person is not regenerate, then they don't have the Holy Spirit. This is the picture Baptists paint when they refuse baptism to their children.
> ...



No, Presbyterians desire to be Biblical, just as teh rest of the Western Church.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> There is a very real and practical danger to allowing those who can not discern to partake of the Supper. It says to them that there is no need to profess Christ, for they already are considered believers. There is no need to profess Christ or even show fruit, because they already have full participation.



That is a straw-man.

I would like you to show me one paedocommunion advocate who believes this. On the contrary, I would argue that paedocommunion advocates are generally MUCH MORE avid about making sure that their children make a profession of faith once an appropriate age is reached. The covenant-succession teachers do not advocate complacency. Far from it! Rather, they say that we should constantly catechize our children and pray for them fervently, to give them the best environment possible for bringing them to the point of having an active, open, verbal, living confession of faith.


> You need to read Paedofaith. You need to read Rich Lusk in his chapter of _The Federal Vision_. It is there in black and white.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is not untrue. The portion of the Anglican Church that allows paedocommunion is tiny. Same for the Episcopal Church. The FORC could meet in my backyard. That is a ridiculous argument. I could name larger "denominations" that believe space aliens are coming back.

Because some _individuals_ within a church think something is true, does not make it true. Some Presbyterians believe infant baptism is something to be ashamed of. Some believe that there is no free offer of the gospel... uh, so what? The respective Churchs that each of those men you cite belong to declares _emphatically_ that paedocommunion is unbiblical, unconfessional and dangerous. I think I will side with a church rather than 4 guys, no matter who they are.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

> Those blessings could not reach us, did not Christ previously make himself ours. I say then, that in the mystery of the Supper, by the symbols of bread and wine, Christ, his body and his blood, are truly exhibited to us, that in them he fulfilled all obedience, in order to procure righteousness for us, first, that we might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, *we might feel the result of this fact in the participation of all his blessings.*
> 
> Institutes IV.17.11



Do children have a right to experience the result of what Christ has promised to them in His covenant ?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > Those blessings could not reach us, did not Christ previously make himself ours. I say then, that in the mystery of the Supper, by the symbols of bread and wine, Christ, his body and his blood, are truly exhibited to us, that in them he fulfilled all obedience, in order to procure righteousness for us, first, that we might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, *we might feel the result of this fact in the participation of all his blessings.*
> ...



Not without examination and faith, according to the same author of your quote above.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

True, Calvin is a veritable charybdis of contradictions.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> True, Calvin is a veritable charybdis of contradictions.



He doesn't contradict himself. Calvin clearly states that only the elect can receive the benefits of the sacraments by faith. Not all covenant children are elect and of faith.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

> For we do not eat Christ duly and savingly unless as crucified, while with lively apprehension we perceive the efficacy of his death.
> 
> Institutes IV.17.5




A rather bold statement, that we cannot find mirrored in scripture.
Followed by the safety net:



> Nay, I rather exhort my readers not to confine their apprehension within those too narrow limits, but to attempt to rise much higher than I can guide them. For whenever this subject is considered, after I have done my utmost, I feel that I have spoken far beneath its dignity. And though the mind is more powerful in thought than the tongue in expression, it too is overcome and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the subject. All then that remains is to break forth in admiration of the mystery, which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to comprehends or the tongue to express.
> 
> Institutes IV.17.7





Ok Calvin, thanks for sharing.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



I never said that John 6 refers to the Lord's supper.

And you are misrepresenting me when you say, "You keep saying it does".

On the contrary, I say that the Lord's supper refers to John 6.


In John 6, Jesus talks about the feeding on him which results in salvation and ongoing spiritual nourishment.

In the Lord's supper, our feeding on bread and wine is a PICTURE of John 6.

And I think it would take a chucklehead to disagree. John had been taking the Lord's Supper for years before penning his gospel. Do you _really_ think it was even _remotely possible_ for him to take the Lord's Supper without thinking about Christ's words that were eventually penned in John 6? Do you think it was even _remotely possible_ for him to pen John 6 without seeing how the Lord's Supper is a SYMBOL of what Christ was talking about there?





> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> You need to read Paedofaith. You need to read Rich Lusk in his chapter of _The Federal Vision_. It is there in black and white.



I have not read "Paedofaith". Are you actually claiming that Rich Lusk condones _complacency_ with our children, and _discourages_ the active training of children, to raise them up in godliness? I find that accusation utterly incredible. But I will read the book to see if what you say is true.

However, even if it is true, it would merely demonstrate what Rich Lusk believes, not what any other paedocommunion advocate believes. I am _quite_ confident that Poythress, Wilson, Augustine, etc. would be aghast at anyone who would suggest complacency with our children's faith.




> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> The portion of the Anglican Church that allows paedocommunion is tiny. Same for the Episcopal Church.



Go to the Anglicans Online website, click on their page of beliefs, and then click on "sacraments". Regarding Holy Communion, they say:



> *Any baptized person* is welcome to share in this meal of bread and wine.



I have also found claims that paedocommunion is actually the _majority_ practice of the Episcopalian church.

But if you are correct that the part of the Anglican/Episcopalian church practicing paedocommunion is "tiny", can you present any evidence to back this up? Is there some research that has been done, some document that has been published?

Whether you are right or wrong, it would be interesting to know definitely how prevalent paedocommunion is in the Anglican/Episcopalian church.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 18, 2006)

One cannot ignore the Passover context for the feeding of the multitude (v 4): he who is the Living Bread is to die as the Lamb of God for the sin of the world (1:29). Also the inversion of the Exodus narrative:

He feeds them bread - He walks on water
They pass through the Red Sea - He feeds them bread

The Walking on the Sea is portrayed by the Evangelist as a sign of Jesus, Master of the threatening waters, coming to his followers in distress, and so a revelation of Jesus exercising sovereignty over the seas which appertains to God. Hence the climactic "œI am," which prepares for the later "œI am the living bread which came down from heaven."



> Accordingly it is not necessary to interpret the statement exclusively in terms of the body and blood of the Lord´s Supper. Nevertheless it is evident that neither the Evangelist nor the Christian readers could have written or read the saying without conscious reference to the Eucharist; to say the least, they would have acknowledged it as supremely fulfilled in the worship event. This twofold reference of the words, however, should guard us against deducing from them the unconditional necessity of eating and drinking the eucharistic elements in order to "œhave eternal life in yourselves" (a view maintained alike by many Catholics and by certain critical exegetes who reject the teaching as contrary to that of the Evangelist).
> 
> Beasley-Murray, George R., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 36: John, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998.





I agree with Joseph that the Eucharist looks back to John 6, not contrariwise.





> The difficulties in relating the two sections of the discourse have encouraged a variety of approaches to it. Some have interpreted the whole discourse as purely metaphorical, with no relation to the Lord´s Supper; others have proceeded in the reverse direction and affirmed that the entire discourse is sacramental in nature; the majority of interpreters have viewed the discourse as progressing from a metaphorical to a sacramental understanding of Jesus as the Bread of life. It seems to us that the material we have reviewed demands a fourth approach, admittedly close to the last one mentioned, namely that the entire chapter, including signs and discourse, exhibits metaphorical and sacramental features, while yet manifesting a progression to an increasingly sacramental emphasis. This is by no means a new approach (see, e.g., C. H. Dodd, Interpretation, 333"“45, and esp. X. LÃ©on-Dufour, "œLe MystÃ¨re du pain de vie," 481"“523), and it has the merit of being able to embrace the historical context of the ministry of Jesus and the interpretation needful for the church of the Evangelist´s day. H. Thyen stated tersely, "œThe theme of John 6 is Christology" (TR 44, 109). That is manifestly true of the Feeding Miracle ("œThe miracle is above all the occasion of manifesting the mystery of the person of Jesus"; so LÃ©on-Dufour, 494); it is equally true of the Walking on the Lake, with its climactic ´Ã†Egwv eijmi; and it is the central meaning of the entire discourse. The metaphorical interpretation of Jesus as the living Bread come down from heaven is transparent; it is related not only to Jewish thought, but to other cultures of the nearer and remoter east. While its typological background is evident, that should not be allowed to blind us to a fundamental element in the concept; bread is necessary for life! E. M. Sidebottom cites Appasamy´s observation that for the Indian, Bhaktas God is milky sugar-cane, nectar, luscious fruit, the finest delicacies, whereas for John, Christ is water and bread; "œWhat the Bhaktas desire is rapture, ecstasy, flights of emotion reserved for the few and that in extraordinary hours. What the Fourth Evangelist emphasizes is the moral strength which all men and women need to exercise every day of their lives" (Christianity as Bhakti Marga, 145"“46, cited in Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, 130 n.6). The acknowledgment of this is fully consonant with the naturalness of meditating on John 6:32"“35 in the Christian Lord´s Supper. So also we readily acknowledge the pertinence of vv 52"“58 to the Supper. Christians of today can hardly read the passage without thinking of that supreme moment of worship, and it is altogether fitting that they should do so in the service itself, as we may be sure the churches of the Evangelist´s day did. Nevertheless it must be recognized that hearers of those words in the first century were well able to make sense of them without knowledge of the Christian Eucharist (despite John 6:52!).
> The standard rabbinic interpretation of Eccl 8:15, "œNothing is better than for man to eat and drink and enjoy himself "¦," related the saying to the study of the law and engaging in good works (Str-B, 2:485). A closer parallel to the heart of John 6 is a statement of a certain Rabbi Hillel, son of Gamaliel III (not the famous teacher of that name), which outraged his contemporaries. He said, "œThere shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah" (Sanh. 99a). What motived Hillel to say that is uncertain; he may have wished to counteract the apocalyptic enthusiasm of some of his fellow Jews, or the beliefs of the Christians, but it would appear that he denied a future Messiah for Israel by identifying him with King Hezekiah. For our own interest it is noteworthy that Jewish translations of the Talmud into English substitute the term "œenjoyed" for "œhave eaten"; the blessings awaited from the Messiah were enjoyed by Israel through King Hezekiah´s rule.
> It is well to bear in mind, in connection with the discourse, that modern man is more acquainted with the metaphor of eating and drinking than we sometimes allow; we "œdevour" books, "œdrink in" a lecture, "œswallow" a story (if we swallow an insult we forbear to reply!); we may "œruminate" on an idea or poem (ruminate = chew the cud), we "œchew over" a matter, we "œstomach" something said, or find ourselves unable to do so (cf. John 6:60, neb), and sometimes we have to eat owr own words! I have heard fond grandmothers declare they could "œeat up" their grandchildren (i.e., love them to death!), whereas to bite someone´s head off conveys a different notion! Further examples of these metaphors will cooe to mind. It is, however, significant that the profound saying in the heart of the so-called sacramental discourse, i.e., v 57, interprets the language of eating the Son of God in terms of ultimate koinonia such as exists between the Father and the Son. LÃ©on"“Dufour therefore appears to have ground for his affirmation that chap. 6 deals not successively with faith and the Eucharist, but simultaneously with both ("œPain de vie," 489).
> 
> Beasley-Murray, George R., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 36: John, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 18, 2006)

Wait, the Lord's Supper looks BACK to John 6? I don't get that. Jesus didn't wait for John's gospel to be written, go back in time, and institute the Supper. Please explain.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> This is because the Word of God is a necessity for faith and repentance. Romans 10.



Not "necessary". 

"The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and *is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word*, ..." ( WCF XIV:1).

Otherwise no infant in the womb or mentally/physically defective person could ever be saved.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 18, 2006)

Tom,
'is ordinarily wrought....'. This does not mean that the infant does not require the _word of God_ for faith and repentance. What the WCF is saying is that normally, it is by the outward administration of the word, which comes through Christs ministers. In the instance of the infant or mentally handicapped, Christ Himself brings that word to them and regenerates, converts and justifies them.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 18, 2006)

Elect infants are still regenerated by the Word of God.

*John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.*


----------



## Saiph (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wait, the Lord's Supper looks BACK to John 6? I don't get that. Jesus didn't wait for John's gospel to be written, go back in time, and institute the Supper. Please explain.



You lost me. Christ new He would institute the Eucharistic meal in John 6, and spoke metaphorically of it while at the same time spoke literally of His flesh and blood. The Last Supper, looks back to many symbolic references and types of eating with God. What is the problem ?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wait, the Lord's Supper looks BACK to John 6? I don't get that. Jesus didn't wait for John's gospel to be written, go back in time, and institute the Supper. Please explain.



i.e. The SYMBOL of the Lord's Supper REPRESENTS the truth conveyed in John 6.

Jesus spoke the words recorded in John 6, a long time before he implemented the Lord's Supper recorded in Matthew 26. Thus, when Jesus implemented the Lord's Supper, it would have reminded his disciples of the words He had spoken before in his preaching. Those words he spoke happen to be recorded in John 6, but he spoke them *before* He ever inaugurated the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper hearkens back to Christ's words in John 6.


----------

