# Paedocommunion by Rayburn



## AV1611

What do you make of the arguments here?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> First, the early church practiced paedocommunion and, so far as the evidence goes, practiced it from the earliest times. Reformed and other paedobaptists have always argued that the evidence for paedobaptism in the early church is a strong argument that paedobaptism was the teaching of the apostles and the practice of the apostolic church. But the early church also practiced paedocommunion. I confess that I didn’t know that – that the early church practiced paedocommunion – until years into my ministry. When I discovered that this was true, it set me to thinking new thoughts. Surely the evidence that the church’s children received the Lord’s Supper in early Christianity serves as a powerful argument that paedocommunion was the teaching of the apostles and the practice of the apostolic church. Indeed, paedocommunion was the general practice of the church until the 12th century, when superstitious ideas about the sacrament – the wine actually becoming the blood of Christ and so on – began to work against the full participation of anybody but priests in the sacrament. The children lost the Supper when everyone else lost it; they just didn’t get it back at the Reformation. Now, in the interests of fairness, I should tell you that some have tried to argue that the evidence for paedocommunion as a widespread practice in early Christianity is inconclusive, but it is important to point out that almost all opponents of the practice both during the Reformation era and in our own day have admitted that it was the practice of the early church. That, obviously, is something to consider.


Bunk. The earliest writings about "paedocommunion" are, in fact, condemnatory of the practice. Please read _The True History of Paedo-Communion_ By Matthew Winzer in CPJ 3. You can get it here: The Confessional Presbyterian » Welcome


----------



## S. Spence

I think this article is quite helpful - I'm not sure if I agree with all of it but it has arguments against paedocommunion I had not seen before. 


Reformed Answers: Anti-Paedocommunion


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

The problem with paedo-communion is that it is based on conjecture; there simply is not enough evidence to substantiate the claim that covenant children took the passover. However, we do clearly know that they received circumcision.


----------



## S. Spence

Has anyone read, 'The Case for Covenant Communion,' by Gregg Strawbridge? 
I quite liked his book on infant baptism and was wondering if I should buy this book to give me a better understanding of all the arguments for paedocommunion. (By the way I agree with Daniel, it is unclear as to whether or not children partook of the Passover but I think they probably didn’t.)


----------



## Stephen

Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that. Richard Bacon wrote a great little booklet entitled *What Mean Ye By This Service*. He argues that there is a relationship between the Passover and The Lord's Supper and that under the O.T. economy every participant of the Passover had to be able to understand the significance of the celebration. This is the best refutation of Paedocommunion.


----------



## Stephen

Robert Rayburn has been known as advocating Paedocommunion, but does not admit children to the table until they are examined and make a public confession. This is rather strange. I have Schenck's book on *Children in the Covenan*t and it is an excellent book. He did not advocate Paedocommunion, but did deal with the issue of the half-way covenant that was strongley opposed by Jonathan Edwards.


----------



## Robert Truelove

I find the arguments for paedocommunion to be completely unsatisfactory (I deal with them here Christ Reformed Church - Audio Messages -). I was in the paedocommunion camp for about a year as I initially found their arguments to be persuasive. I ended up holding to this faulty view for a time because I was a former Baptist who had come to see infant baptism a couple years before. Without taking the time to go further in my understanding of Reformed doctrine and the sacraments in general, I took a lot for granted and bought the general argument that if we baptize covenant children, it is inconsistent to deny them the Lord's Supper.

From my present vantage point, I find paedocommunion to be a serious error. I believe presumptive regeneration (yes, I understand that good Reformed men have held to PR) put into practice through paedocommunion (which good Reformed men have not done historically speaking) will, in time, have a devastating effect on the churches that are adopting this practice. I believe it is teaching our children to take their salvation for granted; providing a false assurance. I fear this will lead to nominalism of the worst sort.

Allow me to clarify, it is one thing to TREAT our covenant children as 'Christians'; training and nuturing them in the Scriptures and the covenant into which they were born; looking for them to come to a 'full assurance of faith' without their assuming it to be true of them because Dad and the church said so. (Understand that when I say 'assurance', I mean exactly that. I do not believe a 'crisis faith experience' is necessary for every covenant child; some, not all, are indeed regenerate from the womb. What I am speaking of is when the regenerate child of the covenant comes to a place of spiritual maturity where they acquire a biblical assurance that they are in Christ. Others come to a place where they realize they are outside of Christ, repent and believe and thus gain assurance.) 

Alternatively...

It is another thing to ASSUME that the children of Christians ARE ACTUALLY regenerate and train them that this is the case. Paedocommunion is doing exactly this! By giving our very young children the Supper, we are telling them, in effect, that they are salvifically in Christ. 

Lest we ever forget...

"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly [there is a covenantal standing which is merely external], nor is circumcision outward and physical [something more is needed than outward circumcision or baptism]. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter [external membership in the covenant is no ground of assurance]. His praise is not from man but from God [assurance ought to come from God alone through a heart that is embracing the Christ of the covenant, not from who your parents are, church membership, baptism, etc.]." Romans 2:28&29


----------



## fredtgreco

Paedocommunion is a classic example of trying to be "consistent" above being Biblical. It should be a warning to us all in that regard.


----------



## fredtgreco

This is a repost to fix a broken thread.


----------



## Me Died Blue

fredtgreco said:


> Paedocommunion is a classic example of trying to be "consistent" above being Biblical.



I've never thought about it that way before, but that's a really good way of putting it.


----------



## AV1611

Stephen said:


> Robert Rayburn has been known as advocating Paedocommunion, but does not admit children to the table until they are examined and make a public confession. This is rather strange.



That is because of PCA rules at the moment. From the article in the OP:

"We do not practice paedocommunion here at Faith Presbyterian. We get as close to it as we can, the rules of our church being what they are, but a profession of faith is still required in the PCA for participation at the Lord’s Table. So, we take professions of faith much sooner than used to be the norm; and, happily, many, many other PCA churches are doing the same. And that is alright. If it takes some years, as it will, to convince the church that the practice of many centuries is in error, so be it."​


----------



## AV1611

S. Spence said:


> I think this article is quite helpful - I'm not sure if I agree with all of it but it has arguments against paedocommunion I had not seen before.
> 
> 
> Reformed Answers: Anti-Paedocommunion



What about Reformed Answers: Children at the Lord's Table


----------



## Pilgrim

Here are a few more resources: 

Articles by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee against paedocommunion: 

Summary Against Paedocommunion
Calvin vs. Child Communion (pdf)
Paedocommunion vs. Protestantism (pdf)

Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination by Brian Schwertly


----------



## Amazing Grace

Pilgrim said:


> Here are a few more resources:
> 
> Articles by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee against paedocommunion:
> 
> Summary Against Paedocommunion
> Calvin vs. Child Communion (pdf)
> Paedocommunion vs. Protestantism (pdf)
> 
> Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination by Brian Schwertly





Chris;

Just a quick question. When did Schwertly become the spokesman for orthodoxy? Not asking in a wise manner, just curious becasue he has a "treatiste" on everything from a-z. Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?


----------



## AV1611

Amazing Grace said:


> Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?



He is a force to be reconed with in my opinion. I can't agree with him on everything and his tone can be a little polemical but I still like him.

The issue of paedocommunion is important and I am thinking my way through it slowly. There is a small group within evangelicals in the CofE who are pushing for paedocommunion hence my 'interest'.


----------



## Stephen

AV1611 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a force to be reconed with in my opinion. I can't agree with him on everything and his tone can be a little polemical but I still like him.
> 
> The issue of paedocommunion is important and I am thinking my way through it slowly. There is a small group within evangelicals in the CofE who are pushing for paedocommunion hence my 'interest'.
Click to expand...


What does CofE mean?


----------



## AV1611

Stephen said:


> What does CofE mean?



Apologies.... it is the abreviation for "Church of England"


----------



## Amazing Grace

AV1611 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a force to be reconed with in my opinion. I can't agree with him on everything and his tone can be a little polemical but I still like him.
> 
> The issue of paedocommunion is important and I am thinking my way through it slowly. There is a small group within evangelicals in the CofE who are pushing for paedocommunion hence my 'interest'.
Click to expand...


He seems to fight many battles. Must be tiring after a while...


----------



## Pilgrim

Amazing Grace said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a few more resources:
> 
> Articles by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee against paedocommunion:
> 
> Summary Against Paedocommunion
> Calvin vs. Child Communion (pdf)
> Paedocommunion vs. Protestantism (pdf)
> 
> Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination by Brian Schwertly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris;
> 
> Just a quick question. When did Schwertly become the spokesman for orthodoxy? Not asking in a wise manner, just curious becasue he has a "treatiste" on everything from a-z. Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?
Click to expand...


I think it's best to evaluate arguments on their own merits. Posting a link doesn't make anyone THE spokesman for orthodoxy.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Pilgrim said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a few more resources:
> 
> Articles by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee against paedocommunion:
> 
> Summary Against Paedocommunion
> Calvin vs. Child Communion (pdf)
> Paedocommunion vs. Protestantism (pdf)
> 
> Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination by Brian Schwertly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris;
> 
> Just a quick question. When did Schwertly become the spokesman for orthodoxy? Not asking in a wise manner, just curious becasue he has a "treatiste" on everything from a-z. Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's best to evaluate arguments on their own merits. Posting a link doesn't make anyone THE spokesman for orthodoxy.
Click to expand...




I just see his name in every debate, thats all I meant Chris. I do not even think Paul faught this many fronts...LOL

A brief google provided polemics on:

Padeocommunion
Sabbath
RPW
Christmas
Charismatic movement
Auburn Ave
State Schooling
Theonomy
Arminianism
Christian Liberty
Law

Amazing how God can give ONE person so much revelation on this many topics.


----------



## Stephen

AV1611 said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does CofE mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies.... it is the abreviation for "Church of England"
Click to expand...


 I was not aware of that. Is that not strange in the Anglican tradition?


----------



## AV1611

Stephen said:


> Is that not strange in the Anglican tradition?



How do you mean? Note the URL of this.

http://www.steds.havering.sch.uk/
Esher C of E High School - Home


----------



## Stephen

AV1611 said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not strange in the Anglican tradition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you mean? Note the URL of this.
> 
> St Edward's C of E Comprehensive School Webite
> Esher C of E High School - Home
Click to expand...


I thought that Paedocommunion would be a violation of the Anglican Standards. Children have to be confirmed before they are admitted to the Lord's Supper.


----------



## AV1611

Stephen said:


> I thought that Paedocommunion would be a violation of the Anglican Standards. Children have to be confirmed before they are admitted to the Lord's Supper.



You are correct however within Anglicanism our Standards are more "take it or leave it" rather than prescriptive (unfortunately).

"Admitting Children to Holy Communion" - _Churchman_ article by Donald Allister


----------



## mvdm

Dr. Cornel Venema has a tape series entitled "Daddy, May I Take Communion", which can be ordered from Mid-America Reformed Seminary's resource site:

http://midamerica.edu/resources.htm


----------



## Pilgrim

Amazing Grace said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris;
> 
> Just a quick question. When did Schwertly become the spokesman for orthodoxy? Not asking in a wise manner, just curious becasue he has a "treatiste" on everything from a-z. Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's best to evaluate arguments on their own merits. Posting a link doesn't make anyone THE spokesman for orthodoxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just see his name in every debate, thats all I meant Chris. I do not even think Paul faught this many fronts...LOL
> 
> A brief google provided polemics on:
> 
> Padeocommunion
> Sabbath
> RPW
> Christmas
> Charismatic movement
> Auburn Ave
> State Schooling
> Theonomy
> Arminianism
> Christian Liberty
> Law
> 
> Amazing how God can give ONE person so much revelation on this many topics.
Click to expand...


I just don't see what you're on about. Anyway, if you check Dr. Lee's site you'll see that his output dwarfs Schwertley's, probably several times over. We pontificate on the PB on these topics and more all the time. If you have a problem with Schwertley then email him.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a few more resources:
> 
> Articles by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee against paedocommunion:
> 
> Summary Against Paedocommunion
> Calvin vs. Child Communion (pdf)
> Paedocommunion vs. Protestantism (pdf)
> 
> Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination by Brian Schwertly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris;
> 
> Just a quick question. When did Schwertly become the spokesman for orthodoxy? Not asking in a wise manner, just curious becasue he has a "treatiste" on everything from a-z. Does he carry any weight in Christian circles?
Click to expand...


He gives a lecture to his congregation every week on a topical issue; hence, he seems to have covered everything from a-z. The stuff on family issues is meant to be very good, though I have only listened to some of it.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Pilgrim said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's best to evaluate arguments on their own merits. Posting a link doesn't make anyone THE spokesman for orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just see his name in every debate, thats all I meant Chris. I do not even think Paul faught this many fronts...LOL
> 
> A brief google provided polemics on:
> 
> Padeocommunion
> Sabbath
> RPW
> Christmas
> Charismatic movement
> Auburn Ave
> State Schooling
> Theonomy
> Arminianism
> Christian Liberty
> Law
> 
> Amazing how God can give ONE person so much revelation on this many topics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't see what you're on about. Anyway, if you check Dr. Lee's site you'll see that his output dwarfs Schwertley's, probably several times over. We pontificate on the PB on these topics and more all the time. If you have a problem with Schwertley then email him.
Click to expand...




Why are you reacting in such a way Chris? I am not 'getting on' about anything. I just never heard of him until I joined this board. People quote Schwertly, provide links to Schwertly, point towards Schwertly.

Daniel answered my inquiery:

_He gives a lecture to his congregation every week on a topical issue; hence, he seems to have covered everything from a-z. The stuff on family issues is meant to be very good, though I have only listened to some of it._

That is all I was looking for. As an aside, after pontificating 3500 posts, I would expect a better reaction from you with my honest inquiery.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The problem with paedo-communion is that it is based on conjecture; there simply is not enough evidence to substantiate the claim that covenant children took the passover. However, we do clearly know that they received circumcision.



Daniel,

I actually think there is substantial evidence to claim that young covenant children *did not* participate in the feast. The Third Mill site notes this fairly well. Leviticus commands the male _adults_ to assemble for this feast and there is an obvious reason for this.

I think many people when they're reading the paedocommunionists make their arguments want to transport the OT people into their local communities as if they're showing up for Church every Sunday in their Suburbans. We all need to remember that people actually walked to the Temple.

Women and children were not prohibited from attending the Passover feast but they were very clearly _optional_. From this very point, the best the paedocommunion advocate could establish from the clear teaching on the Passover is that children _might_ have been able to participate if the father happened to bring his wife and children along but what they cannot argue is that it was of the _essence_ of the Passover to have small children present because most men did not bring their small children.

Further, it is very instructive that Christ Himself appears to have participated in the Passover for the first time when He was 12 years old. Alfred Edersheim sheds some light on this that is very instructive:


> *The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah*
> Alfred Edersheim
> 1883
> 
> Book II
> FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN JORDAN
> 
> Chapter 10
> IN THE HOUSE OF HIS HEAVENLY, AND IN THE HOME OF HIS EARTHLY FATHER
> (St. Luke 2:41-52.)​
> Once only is the great silence, which lies on the history of Christ's early life, broken. It is to record what took place on His first visit to the Temple. What this meant, even to an ordinary devout Jew, may easily be imagined. Where life and religion were so intertwined, and both in such organic connection with the Temple and the people of Israel, every thoughtful Israelite must have felt as if his real life were not in what was around, but ran up into the grand unity of the people of God, and were compassed by the halo of its sanctity. To him it would be true in the deepest sense, that, so to speak, each Israelite was born in Zion, as, assuredly, all the well-springs of his life were there.1 It was, therefore, not merely the natural eagerness to see the City of their God and of their fathers, glorious Jerusalem; nor yet the lawful enthusiasm, national or religious, which would kindle at the thought of 'our feet' standing within those gates, through which priests, prophets, and kings had passed; but far deeper feelings which would make glad, when it was said: 'Let us go into the house of Jehovah.' They were not ruins to which precious memories clung, nor did the great hope seem to lie afar off, behind the evening-mist. But 'glorious things were spoken of Zion, the City of God' - in the past, and in the near future 'the thrones of David' were to be set within her walls, and amidst her palaces.2
> 
> *In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence attendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called 'a son of the Commandment,' or 'of the Torah.'*3 But, as a matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one.4 It was in accordance with this custom, that,5 on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year, His Parents took Him with them in the 'company' of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont6 to go up to the Temple; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance,7 Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, mentioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary.
> 
> 1. Ps. ixxxvii. 5-7.
> 
> 2. Ps. cxxii. 1-5.
> 
> 3. Ab. v. 21.
> 
> 4. Yoma 82 a.
> 
> 5. Comp. also Maimonides, Hilkh. Chag. ii. The common statement, that Jesus went to the Temple because He was 'a Son of the Commandment,' is obviously erroneous. All the more remarkable, on the other hand, is St. Luke's accurate knowledge of Jewish customs, and all the more antithetic to the mythical theory the circumstance, that he places this remarkable event in the twelfth year of Jesus' life, and not when He became 'a Son of the Law.'
> 
> 6. We take as the more correct reading that which puts the participle in the present tense (anabainontwn), and not in the aorist.
> 
> 7. Jer Kidd. 61 c.


It actually seems very clear to me that the Passover, was sort of a "graduating rite" where the long trek was first made by the boy (and perhaps his Mother as well). Concurrent with the festival, a child was officially examined by the Church to determine if he had been properly catechized.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Prespastor said: 

"It is another thing to ASSUME that the children of Christians ARE ACTUALLY regenerate and train them that this is the case. Paedocommunion is doing exactly this! By giving our very young children the Supper, we are telling them, in effect, that they are salvifically in Christ." 



And doesn't this practise in some way contribute to the great number of unconverted who sit in the pews believing themselves to be in Christ because they've "always been part of the church!" ?

Isn't this similar to what happened, or lead to in (Edwards' time), i.e. - "The Half-Way Covenant?" 

The Puritans used to "fence" the table. It has been my observation that this is not done too much any more.


----------



## Pilgrim

Amazing Grace said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just see his name in every debate, thats all I meant Chris. I do not even think Paul faught this many fronts...LOL
> 
> A brief google provided polemics on:
> 
> Padeocommunion
> Sabbath
> RPW
> Christmas
> Charismatic movement
> Auburn Ave
> State Schooling
> Theonomy
> Arminianism
> Christian Liberty
> Law
> 
> Amazing how God can give ONE person so much revelation on this many topics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see what you're on about. Anyway, if you check Dr. Lee's site you'll see that his output dwarfs Schwertley's, probably several times over. We pontificate on the PB on these topics and more all the time. If you have a problem with Schwertley then email him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you reacting in such a way Chris? I am not 'getting on' about anything. I just never heard of him until I joined this board. People quote Schwertly, provide links to Schwertly, point towards Schwertly.
> 
> Daniel answered my inquiery:
> 
> _He gives a lecture to his congregation every week on a topical issue; hence, he seems to have covered everything from a-z. The stuff on family issues is meant to be very good, though I have only listened to some of it._
> 
> That is all I was looking for. As an aside, after pontificating 3500 posts, I would expect a better reaction from you with my honest inquiery.
Click to expand...


 Sorry, brother. I suppose it was the part about "God granting revelation" that set me off.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

The article says, 

"It has sometimes been claimed that “the Passover, the place of which has been taken by the [Lord’s ]Supper, did not admit all guests indiscriminately, but was…eaten only by those who were old enough to be able to inquire into its meaning [Ex. 12:26].” [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, xvi, 30, trans. F.L. Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965).] But even many who do not accept paedocommunion agree that this is an unnatural and tendentious reading of the text."

It must be nice to smart enough to accuse Calvin of being "unnatural and tendentious" in his reading of the text.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Further, it is very instructive that Christ Himself appears to have participated in the Passover for the first time when He was 12 years old.





> It actually seems very clear to me that the Passover, was sort of a "graduating rite" where the long trek was first made by the boy (and perhaps his Mother as well). Concurrent with the festival, a child was officially examined by the Church to determine if he had been properly catechized.



The passage in Luke 2 would appear to be meaningless unless the above interpretation is correct. in my opinion the only reason for that text being there is to inform us that this was the first time that Christ came to the passover.

PS When the Bible speaks of someone being 12 years old, does that mean 13 as we now use it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Daniel Ritchie said:


> PS When the Bible speaks of someone being 12 years old, does that mean 13 as we now use it?



Actually it is sometimes the other way around. At the very least the years of kings are reckoned according to the first day of the Jewish calendar (the first of Nisan). Hence a ruler is said to be in his first year and when the first of Nisan rolls around he is in his second year. It is entirely possible, then, for a king to reign for less than a week and be in the second year of his reign if the reign begins right before the New Year.

I don't think ages were accounted according to the first of Nisan but the ages were, for sure, accounted by a person being in their first, second,... year. Hence, what we would call a 1 year old, would be a person in their second year as their first year extends from the time of birth to their first birthday. A thirteen year old boy, by our reckoning, would be in his fourteenth year.


----------



## wsw201

SemperFideles said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with paedo-communion is that it is based on conjecture; there simply is not enough evidence to substantiate the claim that covenant children took the passover. However, we do clearly know that they received circumcision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> I actually think there is substantial evidence to claim that young covenant children *did not* participate in the feast. The Third Mill site notes this fairly well. Leviticus commands the male _adults_ to assemble for this feast and there is an obvious reason for this.
> 
> I think many people when they're reading the paedocommunionists make their arguments want to transport the OT people into their local communities as if they're showing up for Church every Sunday in their Suburbans. We all need to remember that people actually walked to the Temple.
> 
> Women and children were not prohibited from attending the Passover feast but they were very clearly _optional_. From this very point, the best the paedocommunion advocate could establish from the clear teaching on the Passover is that children _might_ have been able to participate if the father happened to bring his wife and children along but what they cannot argue is that it was of the _essence_ of the Passover to have small children present because most men did not bring their small children.
> 
> Further, it is very instructive that Christ Himself appears to have participated in the Passover for the first time when He was 12 years old. Alfred Edersheim sheds some light on this that is very instructive:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah*
> Alfred Edersheim
> 1883
> 
> Book II
> FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN JORDAN
> 
> Chapter 10
> IN THE HOUSE OF HIS HEAVENLY, AND IN THE HOME OF HIS EARTHLY FATHER
> (St. Luke 2:41-52.)​
> Once only is the great silence, which lies on the history of Christ's early life, broken. It is to record what took place on His first visit to the Temple. What this meant, even to an ordinary devout Jew, may easily be imagined. Where life and religion were so intertwined, and both in such organic connection with the Temple and the people of Israel, every thoughtful Israelite must have felt as if his real life were not in what was around, but ran up into the grand unity of the people of God, and were compassed by the halo of its sanctity. To him it would be true in the deepest sense, that, so to speak, each Israelite was born in Zion, as, assuredly, all the well-springs of his life were there.1 It was, therefore, not merely the natural eagerness to see the City of their God and of their fathers, glorious Jerusalem; nor yet the lawful enthusiasm, national or religious, which would kindle at the thought of 'our feet' standing within those gates, through which priests, prophets, and kings had passed; but far deeper feelings which would make glad, when it was said: 'Let us go into the house of Jehovah.' They were not ruins to which precious memories clung, nor did the great hope seem to lie afar off, behind the evening-mist. But 'glorious things were spoken of Zion, the City of God' - in the past, and in the near future 'the thrones of David' were to be set within her walls, and amidst her palaces.2
> 
> *In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence attendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called 'a son of the Commandment,' or 'of the Torah.'*3 But, as a matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one.4 It was in accordance with this custom, that,5 on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year, His Parents took Him with them in the 'company' of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont6 to go up to the Temple; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance,7 Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, mentioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary.
> 
> 1. Ps. ixxxvii. 5-7.
> 
> 2. Ps. cxxii. 1-5.
> 
> 3. Ab. v. 21.
> 
> 4. Yoma 82 a.
> 
> 5. Comp. also Maimonides, Hilkh. Chag. ii. The common statement, that Jesus went to the Temple because He was 'a Son of the Commandment,' is obviously erroneous. All the more remarkable, on the other hand, is St. Luke's accurate knowledge of Jewish customs, and all the more antithetic to the mythical theory the circumstance, that he places this remarkable event in the twelfth year of Jesus' life, and not when He became 'a Son of the Law.'
> 
> 6. We take as the more correct reading that which puts the participle in the present tense (anabainontwn), and not in the aorist.
> 
> 7. Jer Kidd. 61 c.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It actually seems very clear to me that the Passover, was sort of a "graduating rite" where the long trek was first made by the boy (and perhaps his Mother as well). Concurrent with the festival, a child was officially examined by the Church to determine if he had been properly catechized.
Click to expand...


These are the reasons why Reformed Churches in the past would not examine a child to become a communing member until they were at least 12.

Now, as a copitulation to peadocommunionists arguments, age is no longer a factor.


----------



## jaybird0827

What do y'all make of the following?

Last paragraph of Dr. Rayburn's article -



> "We do not practice paedocommunion here at Faith Presbyterian. We get as close to it as we can, the rules of our church being what they are, but a profession of faith is still required in the PCA for participation at the Lord’s Table. So, we take professions of faith much sooner than used to be the norm; and, happily, many, many other PCA churches are doing the same. And that is alright. If it takes some years, as it will, to convince the church that the practice of many centuries is in error, so be it. Our little children, having come to the table at five years of age or so, will not remember a time when they did not come, of a Lord’s Day, to eat the bread and drink the wine that Jesus Christ their Savior has provided for them by his body and blood. And in its own mysterious way, that Supper will, by the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit, do its work in nourishing their faith in Jesus Christ."


 
Their practice in this is for the elders to take the five membership questions from the BCO and translate them to a five-year-old (or whatever age) level. If the child answers correctly, they are admitted.

I think this is a workaround. Considering requirements such as self-examination and discerning the Lord's body in the supper, I do not see the wisdom in this.


----------



## Stephen

SemperFideles said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with paedo-communion is that it is based on conjecture; there simply is not enough evidence to substantiate the claim that covenant children took the passover. However, we do clearly know that they received circumcision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> I actually think there is substantial evidence to claim that young covenant children *did not* participate in the feast. The Third Mill site notes this fairly well. Leviticus commands the male _adults_ to assemble for this feast and there is an obvious reason for this.
> 
> I think many people when they're reading the paedocommunionists make their arguments want to transport the OT people into their local communities as if they're showing up for Church every Sunday in their Suburbans. We all need to remember that people actually walked to the Temple.
> 
> Women and children were not prohibited from attending the Passover feast but they were very clearly _optional_. From this very point, the best the paedocommunion advocate could establish from the clear teaching on the Passover is that children _might_ have been able to participate if the father happened to bring his wife and children along but what they cannot argue is that it was of the _essence_ of the Passover to have small children present because most men did not bring their small children.
> 
> Further, it is very instructive that Christ Himself appears to have participated in the Passover for the first time when He was 12 years old. Alfred Edersheim sheds some light on this that is very instructive:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah*
> Alfred Edersheim
> 1883
> 
> Book II
> FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN JORDAN
> 
> Chapter 10
> IN THE HOUSE OF HIS HEAVENLY, AND IN THE HOME OF HIS EARTHLY FATHER
> (St. Luke 2:41-52.)​
> Once only is the great silence, which lies on the history of Christ's early life, broken. It is to record what took place on His first visit to the Temple. What this meant, even to an ordinary devout Jew, may easily be imagined. Where life and religion were so intertwined, and both in such organic connection with the Temple and the people of Israel, every thoughtful Israelite must have felt as if his real life were not in what was around, but ran up into the grand unity of the people of God, and were compassed by the halo of its sanctity. To him it would be true in the deepest sense, that, so to speak, each Israelite was born in Zion, as, assuredly, all the well-springs of his life were there.1 It was, therefore, not merely the natural eagerness to see the City of their God and of their fathers, glorious Jerusalem; nor yet the lawful enthusiasm, national or religious, which would kindle at the thought of 'our feet' standing within those gates, through which priests, prophets, and kings had passed; but far deeper feelings which would make glad, when it was said: 'Let us go into the house of Jehovah.' They were not ruins to which precious memories clung, nor did the great hope seem to lie afar off, behind the evening-mist. But 'glorious things were spoken of Zion, the City of God' - in the past, and in the near future 'the thrones of David' were to be set within her walls, and amidst her palaces.2
> 
> *In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence attendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called 'a son of the Commandment,' or 'of the Torah.'*3 But, as a matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one.4 It was in accordance with this custom, that,5 on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year, His Parents took Him with them in the 'company' of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont6 to go up to the Temple; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance,7 Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, mentioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary.
> 
> 1. Ps. ixxxvii. 5-7.
> 
> 2. Ps. cxxii. 1-5.
> 
> 3. Ab. v. 21.
> 
> 4. Yoma 82 a.
> 
> 5. Comp. also Maimonides, Hilkh. Chag. ii. The common statement, that Jesus went to the Temple because He was 'a Son of the Commandment,' is obviously erroneous. All the more remarkable, on the other hand, is St. Luke's accurate knowledge of Jewish customs, and all the more antithetic to the mythical theory the circumstance, that he places this remarkable event in the twelfth year of Jesus' life, and not when He became 'a Son of the Law.'
> 
> 6. We take as the more correct reading that which puts the participle in the present tense (anabainontwn), and not in the aorist.
> 
> 7. Jer Kidd. 61 c.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It actually seems very clear to me that the Passover, was sort of a "graduating rite" where the long trek was first made by the boy (and perhaps his Mother as well). Concurrent with the festival, a child was officially examined by the Church to determine if he had been properly catechized.
Click to expand...


----------



## Stephen

prespastor said:


> I find the arguments for paedocommunion to be completely unsatisfactory (I deal with them here Christ Reformed Church - Audio Messages -). I was in the paedocommunion camp for about a year as I initially found their arguments to be persuasive. I ended up holding to this faulty view for a time because I was a former Baptist who had come to see infant baptism a couple years before. Without taking the time to go further in my understanding of Reformed doctrine and the sacraments in general, I took a lot for granted and bought the general argument that if we baptize covenant children, it is inconsistent to deny them the Lord's Supper.
> 
> From my present vantage point, I find paedocommunion to be a serious error. I believe presumptive regeneration (yes, I understand that good Reformed men have held to PR) put into practice through paedocommunion (which good Reformed men have not done historically speaking) will, in time, have a devastating effect on the churches that are adopting this practice. I believe it is teaching our children to take their salvation for granted; providing a false assurance. I fear this will lead to nominalism of the worst sort.
> 
> Allow me to clarify, it is one thing to TREAT our covenant children as 'Christians'; training and nuturing them in the Scriptures and the covenant into which they were born; looking for them to come to a 'full assurance of faith' without their assuming it to be true of them because Dad and the church said so. (Understand that when I say 'assurance', I mean exactly that. I do not believe a 'crisis faith experience' is necessary for every covenant child; some, not all, are indeed regenerate from the womb. What I am speaking of is when the regenerate child of the covenant comes to a place of spiritual maturity where they acquire a biblical assurance that they are in Christ. Others come to a place where they realize they are outside of Christ, repent and believe and thus gain assurance.)
> 
> Alternatively...
> 
> It is another thing to ASSUME that the children of Christians ARE ACTUALLY regenerate and train them that this is the case. Paedocommunion is doing exactly this! By giving our very young children the Supper, we are telling them, in effect, that they are salvifically in Christ.
> 
> Lest we ever forget...
> 
> "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly [there is a covenantal standing which is merely external], nor is circumcision outward and physical [something more is needed than outward circumcision or baptism]. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter [external membership in the covenant is no ground of assurance]. His praise is not from man but from God [assurance ought to come from God alone through a heart that is embracing the Christ of the covenant, not from who your parents are, church membership, baptism, etc.]." Romans 2:28&29



I think this position is what leads to some of the FV error. Everyone is considered regenerate because they have been baptized. John Murray kind of opened the door for this kind of thing by teaching presumptive regeneration in his book entitled, *Baptism*.


----------



## AV1611

Stephen said:


> I think this position is what leads to some of the FV error. Everyone is considered regenerate because they have been baptized. John Murray kind of opened the door for this kind of thing by teaching presumptive regeneration in his book entitled, *Baptism*.



I am not sure I agree mate. The FV teach that baptism acts _ex opere operato_ and makes someone a covenant member and hence elect. I adhere to presumptive regeneration and what PR agues is that we are to presume the infants of believers are regenerate because of God's promise to be the God of our seed and so they are baotised. This baptism rests not upon our presumption but upon God's promise and is declarative of a position as opposed to effecting a position. I hope this helps a little.


----------



## Robert Truelove

I think presumptive regeneration is the first step on this ladder.

Presumptive Regeneration leads to Paedocommunion which leads to Federal Vision which leads to...(we shall see).

I understand that there are people on different rungs of this ladder who will disagree with me but I think presumptive regeneration is the logical first step. You cannot take the next steps without it. The FVers turning the issue into a form of baptismal regeneration doesn't help avoid the issue. Though they of course have fallen back into a serious lie regarding the sacraments, the practicality of their position as it relates to where they begin (how we are to consider children) is essentially the same as the view of presumptive regeneration (the aforementioned issue regarding the sacraments notwithstanding). 

As far as I can tell, the FV advocates began with the view of presumptive regeneration, then went paedocommunion, then went back and developed a new theological framework to defend their position; exchanging presumptive regeneration with some form of baptismal regeneration.

With all due respect to my brethren who hold to presumptive regeneration, I think the position is an old error in the Reformed camp due to a combination of trying to avoid the baptismal regeneration of Rome on the one hand and an overreaction to the baptistic understanding on the other. 

As long as presumptive regeneration remains in Reformed churches, we will see a repetition of problems like the half-way covenant and federal vision. I am not saying this means that all those who hold to presumptive regeneration will go down these roads, but their position provides the initial foundation for these sorts of doctrinal aberrations.



AV1611 said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this position is what leads to some of the FV error. Everyone is considered regenerate because they have been baptized. John Murray kind of opened the door for this kind of thing by teaching presumptive regeneration in his book entitled, *Baptism*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I agree mate. The FV teach that baptism acts _ex opere operato_ and makes someone a covenant member and hence elect. I adhere to presumptive regeneration and what PR agues is that we are to presume the infants of believers are regenerate because of God's promise to be the God of our seed and so they are baotised. This baptism rests not upon our presumption but upon God's promise and is declarative of a position as opposed to effecting a position. I hope this helps a little.
Click to expand...


----------



## markkoller

Stephen said:


> Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that.



I am enjoying the discussion so far. Stephen forgive me if I misunderstand here, but I believe you are saying that paedocommunionists do not give the elements to actual infants, only to young children? Just clarifying...


----------



## Pilgrim

markkoller said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying the discussion so far. Stephen forgive me if I misunderstand here, but I believe you are saying that paedocommunionists do not give the elements to actual infants, only to young children? Just clarifying...
Click to expand...


The position of many in the FV as I understand it is essentially the same as what you find in the various Eastern Orthodox churches. That is, that infants should take communion as soon as they are physically able to ingest the elements.


----------



## markkoller

This has been my experience. I attended a FV church with a friend (out of curiosity) and was amazed to see people putting the bread and wine into the mouths of newborn babies. It was disturbing to watch.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

markkoller said:


> This has been my experience. I attended a FV church with a friend (out of curiosity) and was amazed to see people putting the bread and wine into the mouths of newborn babies. It was disturbing to watch.



Though some would say the same about infant baptism.


----------



## Pilgrim

What I think Stephen was describing is the the young child position some in NAPARC churches advocate (i.e. Rayburn as noted in this thread) since they are not free to practice paedocommunion. But not everyone who advocates that position is paedocommunionist.


----------



## markkoller

Daniel Ritchie said:


> markkoller said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been my experience. I attended a FV church with a friend (out of curiosity) and was amazed to see people putting the bread and wine into the mouths of newborn babies. It was disturbing to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though some would say the same about infant baptism.
Click to expand...


true


----------



## AV1611

We will have to agree to disagree I am afraid. 



prespastor said:


> I think presumptive regeneration is the first step on this ladder.
> 
> Presumptive Regeneration leads to Paedocommunion which leads to Federal Vision which leads to...(we shall see).
> 
> I understand that there are people on different rungs of this ladder who will disagree with me but I think presumptive regeneration is the logical first step. You cannot take the next steps without it. The FVers turning the issue into a form of baptismal regeneration doesn't help avoid the issue. Though they of course have fallen back into a serious lie regarding the sacraments, the practicality of their position as it relates to where they begin (how we are to consider children) is essentially the same as the view of presumptive regeneration (the aforementioned issue regarding the sacraments notwithstanding).
> 
> As far as I can tell, the FV advocates began with the view of presumptive regeneration, then went paedocommunion, then went back and developed a new theological framework to defend their position; exchanging presumptive regeneration with some form of baptismal regeneration.
> 
> With all due respect to my brethren who hold to presumptive regeneration, I think the position is an old error in the Reformed camp due to a combination of trying to avoid the baptismal regeneration of Rome on the one hand and an overreaction to the baptistic understanding on the other.
> 
> As long as presumptive regeneration remains in Reformed churches, we will see a repetition of problems like the half-way covenant and federal vision. I am not saying this means that all those who hold to presumptive regeneration will go down these roads, but their position provides the initial foundation for these sorts of doctrinal aberrations.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Its best to avoid relevance fallacies. I hold to neither presumptive regeneration or paedo-communion or the Federal Vision, but I do recognise that the issues are logically distinct.


----------



## Stephen

markkoller said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am enjoying the discussion so far. Stephen forgive me if I misunderstand here, but I believe you are saying that paedocommunionists do not give the elements to actual infants, only to young children? Just clarifying...
Click to expand...


Yes, that is right. If they believe that children can come to the table if they are baptized why do they not admit a four month old infant?


----------



## Stephen

markkoller said:


> This has been my experience. I attended a FV church with a friend (out of curiosity) and was amazed to see people putting the bread and wine into the mouths of newborn babies. It was disturbing to watch.



 Thanks for the information. I have never heard this before. That is so bizzare.


----------



## Stephen

*prespastor*



prespastor said:


> I think presumptive regeneration is the first step on this ladder.
> 
> Presumptive Regeneration leads to Paedocommunion which leads to Federal Vision which leads to...(we shall see).
> 
> I understand that there are people on different rungs of this ladder who will disagree with me but I think presumptive regeneration is the logical first step. You cannot take the next steps without it. The FVers turning the issue into a form of baptismal regeneration doesn't help avoid the issue. Though they of course have fallen back into a serious lie regarding the sacraments, the practicality of their position as it relates to where they begin (how we are to consider children) is essentially the same as the view of presumptive regeneration (the aforementioned issue regarding the sacraments notwithstanding).
> 
> As far as I can tell, the FV advocates began with the view of presumptive regeneration, then went paedocommunion, then went back and developed a new theological framework to defend their position; exchanging presumptive regeneration with some form of baptismal regeneration.
> 
> With all due respect to my brethren who hold to presumptive regeneration, I think the position is an old error in the Reformed camp due to a combination of trying to avoid the baptismal regeneration of Rome on the one hand and an overreaction to the baptistic understanding on the other.
> 
> As long as presumptive regeneration remains in Reformed churches, we will see a repetition of problems like the half-way covenant and federal vision. I am not saying this means that all those who hold to presumptive regeneration will go down these roads, but their position provides the initial foundation for these sorts of doctrinal aberrations.
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this position is what leads to some of the FV error. Everyone is considered regenerate because they have been baptized. John Murray kind of opened the door for this kind of thing by teaching presumptive regeneration in his book entitled, *Baptism*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I agree mate. The FV teach that baptism acts _ex opere operato_ and makes someone a covenant member and hence elect. I adhere to presumptive regeneration and what PR agues is that we are to presume the infants of believers are regenerate because of God's promise to be the God of our seed and so they are baotised. This baptism rests not upon our presumption but upon God's promise and is declarative of a position as opposed to effecting a position. I hope this helps a little.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The presumptive regeneration position was not what Calvin or many of the Puritans held. I think you have to go back and study the Reformed position on the covenants and how it relates to baptism. The Reformed position has always been that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace... and our engagement to be His (Westminster Shorter Catchism Question 94). Children are regarded as members of the visible church and have all of the promises and blessings of God as opposed to those outside of the visible covenant, but they are called to faith in Christ. The book of Hebrews calls covenant people to walk in faith and if they refuse then they will receive the curses and not the blessings. We are not to assume they are converted but to trust in God's promises for them and realize that the sign and seal of baptism is designed to lead them to faith. Meredith Kline and others held to this position, which is not held by some who claim to be Presbyterian. Mark Karlberg wrote a great book entitled, *Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective*. This was his disertation at WTS-Philadelphia. He outlines the historical Reformed position, which men like John Murray abandoned. I would highly recommend it. I do not think that you can label Murray or others who hold to presumptive regeneration as proponents of FV, but I think if you really look at it you can see how one can make the leap from this to some of the FV positions.


----------



## AV1611

Stephen said:


> The presumptive regeneration position was not what Calvin or many of the Puritans held.



*WLC*
*Question 166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
Answer:* Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, _are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized_.​
This teaches that infants are within the covenant.

*Canons*
_*Article 17 - Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy*_
We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians7:14).​
Teaches that because our infants are included in God's covenant we have no reason to believe that they are anything other than regenerate.

This is also the theology of Charles Hodge amongst others.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.



God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not. 

Also: http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/tracts/CAT193_RyleBaptism.pdf


----------



## Amazing Grace

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not.
Click to expand...


I do not know about this Richard. Fruit inspecting my kids? I see no biblical warrant for this cliche' I hear used so frequently.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not.
> 
> Also: http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/tracts/CAT193_RyleBaptism.pdf
Click to expand...


We tell them that they are dead in trespasses and sins and that they need to be born again - which is what their baptism symbolizes - the need for a new heart. We expect that, through use of the means of grace, covenant children will keep the way of the Lord, but this is not a presumption. 

Presumptive regeneration undermines human responsibility - the responsibility of children to keep the covenant, and not be profane people like Esau.


----------



## Stephen

Thanks, Daniel you are right. The minister has a responsibility to preach both the blessings as well as the warnings. The WCF clearly states that coversion is something that is tied to faith, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of initiation and entrance into the visible community and it does give the promise that He will be our God and we will be His children, but they have a responsibility to follow Him. There were many circumcised children under the O.T who were cut off because of their unbelief. We want to be careful that we do not fall into the heresy of baptismal regeneration. It seems to me that there was a thread a few years ago on this very issue, but has since been closed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gentlemen,

Let's keep the thread from spinning into a PR debate.

We've had these discussions before. At a very basic level, Parents must assume that their Covenant children have a capacity for spiritual things. Even Baptists catechize their children (note some of the questions in Spurgeon's) and pray with their children in Jesus' name. We certainly do not presume they are reprobate. It is helpful to remember that Calvin, like Paul in Romans 5-11, deals with election in a Pastoral context. We simply do not go around making solemn decrees within the Church as to who is/isn't regenerate. To do so is presumptive on the Church's part and, even when a man has a credible profession and life the Church may not decree he is elect any more that it may decree his reprobation if he is under discipline for a season.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are both administered ministerially by the Church. That is, the Church declares the Grace of God but does not impart it in the Sacraments. The reason an infant is not admitted to the table (or a young boy) has nothing to do with greater confidence that this disciple is truly elect and this one is not but it has everything to do with maturity. Certainly Christ did not wait until He was 12 years old to be regenerated that He might participate.

We also ought to keep our categories straight about what we do in this life. Adult disciples, no more than children, do not keep the covenant. Christ does.


----------



## Stephen

SemperFideles said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> Let's keep the thread from spinning into a PR debate.
> 
> We've had these discussions before. At a very basic level, Parents must assume that their Covenant children have a capacity for spiritual things. Even Baptists catechize their children (note some of the questions in Spurgeon's) and pray with their children in Jesus' name. We certainly do not presume they are reprobate. It is helpful to remember that Calvin, like Paul in Romans 5-11, deals with election in a Pastoral context. We simply do not go around making solemn decrees within the Church as to who is/isn't regenerate. To do so is presumptive on the Church's part and, even when a man has a credible profession and life the Church may not decree he is elect any more that it may decree his reprobation if he is under discipline for a season.
> 
> Baptism and the Lord's Supper are both administered ministerially by the Church. That is, the Church declares the Grace of God but does not impart it in the Sacraments. The reason an infant is not admitted to the table (or a young boy) has nothing to do with greater confidence that this disciple is truly elect and this one is not but it has everything to do with maturity. Certainly Christ did not wait until He was 12 years old to be regenerated that He might participate.
> 
> We also ought to keep our categories straight about what we do in this life. Adult disciples, no more than children, do not keep the covenant. Christ does.



Can you clarify for me what you mean by the term PR?


----------



## Stephen

Never mind, PR means Presumptive Regeneration.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Stephen said:


> Never mind, PR means Presumptive Regeneration.



Although not believing in presumptive regeneration is not the same as presumptive unregeneration. But that's enough, I am going


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Presumptive regeneration undermines human responsibility - the responsibility of children to keep the covenant, and not be profane people like Esau.



What covenant are they/we supposed to keep Daniel? I am confused terribly by this statement..


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presumptive regeneration undermines human responsibility - the responsibility of children to keep the covenant, and not be profane people like Esau.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What covenant are they/we supposed to keep Daniel? I am confused terribly by this statement..
Click to expand...


The covenant of grace...though they can only keep it if they are regenerate.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presumptive regeneration undermines human responsibility - the responsibility of children to keep the covenant, and not be profane people like Esau.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What covenant are they/we supposed to keep Daniel? I am confused terribly by this statement..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The covenant of grace...though they can only keep it if they are regenerate.
Click to expand...


I never heard that we 'Keep' the COG. How does one do that?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> What covenant are they/we supposed to keep Daniel? I am confused terribly by this statement..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The covenant of grace...though they can only keep it if they are regenerate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never heard that we 'Keep' the COG. How does one do that?
Click to expand...


Covenant children - who are born into the covenant - keep the covenant by believing on Christ.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The covenant of grace...though they can only keep it if they are regenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard that we 'Keep' the COG. How does one do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Covenant children - who are born into the covenant - keep the covenant by believing on Christ.
Click to expand...


All by the power of God right?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard that we 'Keep' the COG. How does one do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covenant children - who are born into the covenant - keep the covenant by believing on Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All by the power of God right?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Archlute

jaybird0827 said:


> What do y'all make of the following?
> 
> Last paragraph of Dr. Rayburn's article -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We do not practice paedocommunion here at Faith Presbyterian. We get as close to it as we can, the rules of our church being what they are, but a profession of faith is still required in the PCA for participation at the Lord’s Table. So, we take professions of faith much sooner than used to be the norm; and, happily, many, many other PCA churches are doing the same. And that is alright. If it takes some years, as it will, to convince the church that the practice of many centuries is in error, so be it. Our little children, having come to the table at five years of age or so, will not remember a time when they did not come, of a Lord’s Day, to eat the bread and drink the wine that Jesus Christ their Savior has provided for them by his body and blood. And in its own mysterious way, that Supper will, by the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit, do its work in nourishing their faith in Jesus Christ."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their practice in this is for the elders to take the five membership questions from the BCO and translate them to a five-year-old (or whatever age) level. If the child answers correctly, they are admitted.
> 
> I think this is a workaround. Considering requirements such as self-examination and discerning the Lord's body in the supper, I do not see the wisdom in this.
Click to expand...



It is definitely a workaround. They are not shy about their view that they are seeking to "reform" the church on this issue, and since they do not see themselves to be in error (and claim Rayburn's minority report on the issue as backup), I do not believe that they consider their approach to be a toeing of the line, as much as getting one step closer to orthodoxy.

As per the discussion of presumptive regeneration underlying this problem, read Rayburn's article on his view of "covenant succession", which can be found on Faith PCA in Tacoma's website, but be sure to read the great critique of this doctrine by Alan Strange in the Mid-America Reformed Journal of Theology. He really nails the problems involved with this view of covenantal succession/PR. 

As per the FV connection, yes, it is there. The session will deny any direct support of FV doctrines, but having heard Rayburn speak on more than one occasion, it is clear (and he will say so himself) that he is a fairly strong FV "sympathizer".... Their church is well-established, large, and exerts a fair amount of influence among the presbytery of the PacNW, which is why Leithart's examination is continually being delayed. "You know, the issues are just so complex, we really need to take more time on this (regardless of Leithart's blogging statements in clear opposition to at least several of the GA's nine points that were put out this last summer).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Great summary Pastor Myer. Incidentally, I do recognize why Covenant Succession/PR plays into this. I was simply trying to avoid that particular issue and focus on some of the clear arguments that demonstrate that, since the Passover and Lord's Supper, have a "substantial" connection that the arguments are weak for PC on the basis of both the historical data and the Scriptures.

For the record, I've never liked the term presumptive regeneration. I know we've had discussions on here that demonstrate that, depending upon what one _means_ by ther term, that not all views of it are unorthodox. I prefer simply to note that we _know_ everyone in the visible Church is either a disciple or they are not. Our knowledge of their regeneration is never said to be a basis for anything we do in the visible Church. The Church ministers the visible means of grace to all indiscriminately and the Holy Spirit seals the benefits to those who are Christ's.

My main point in rebuffing the idea that PR has something to do with participation in the Lord's Supper is that a person's presumed regeneration is not the arbiter for an Elder administering the Sacrament. Discernment and maturity _are_, however, clear visible indicators and, I don't care how much we may presume that a 3 year old is regenerate, he has not matured sufficiently to discern what he is doing yet and I reject the PC view that conflates all Covenant ideas into one.

Thanks again Brother!


----------



## MW

AV1611 said:


> God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not.



In this statement there is a movement from promise to fulfilment, thereby leading to an unwarranted conclusion. The fact that God promises to do something for our children does not tie God to any point of time for the fulfilment of the promise. Hence we have no warrant to conclude that covenant children should be treated as regenerate. The most it could mean is that we are to treat them with the hope God will regenerate them in His time. Hence covenant theology is neither presumptive of regeneration or non-regeneration. We give the children the means, pray to God for His blessing, and look expectantly to see the fruits.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this statement there is a movement from promise to fulfilment, thereby leading to an unwarranted conclusion. The fact that God promises to do something for our children does not tie God to any point of time for the fulfilment of the promise. Hence we have no warrant to conclude that covenant children should be treated as regenerate. The most it could mean is that we are to treat them with the hope God will regenerate them in His time. *Hence covenant theology is neither presumptive of regeneration or non-regeneration. We give the children the means, pray to God for His blessing, and look expectantly to see the fruits.*
Click to expand...


Exactly! If we simply stopped focusing on the secret things of God when the revealed things are in front of our eyes then we wouldn't have this problem. I don't know why this took so long for it to be an epiphany for me that the Church must deal with disciples as they are in front of them. There simply is no measuring device to presume regeneration.

In fact, when it comes to practical theology, we all really end up acting this way and treat all in the visible Church indiscriminately. There's even no presumption of non-regeneration during Church discipline. We all hope and pray that this is going to be the opportunity for them to be brought to their senses. Hebrews 4 even repeatedly talks about this sense of "let us" strive and that we should be on the lookout for one another. We're never permitted to just let somebody either fall behind with no concern or not to worry about the seeming "strong ones". We strive _together_ for the goal of the Gospel.

I understand why it happens though. We see that we must understand that God's electing love is absolutely essential to the Gospel. This is good but we don't always use it in the context properly and start to think that the fact that we know that God will save His own allows us to take an unwarranted step and act as if we can tell who are and are not His own.

In a very real sense, we need to know when we should be thinking about regeneration and, visibly, when the knowledge of that state is immaterial to the task at hand.

Blessings!


----------

