Baptism trend in the SBC

[Romans922]

I'd just like to start with Scripture, where is there a minimum age for this in Scripture? Let's start with what God says.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

From what I can gather, Edward's basic point is that grace does not abrogate nature and the Bible does not abolish common sense. If a four year old is not in a position to take an oath in things natural and civil, then how much less is it able to adequately participate in the mystery of holy communion.

 

[Edward]

From what I can gather, Edward's basic point is that grace does not abrogate nature and the Bible does not abolish common sense. If a four year old is not in a position to take an oath in things natural and civil, then how much less is it able to adequately participate in the mystery of holy communion.

Thanks.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

In Presbyterianism historically one was catechized before communion. Drs. F Nigel Lee (following Calvin, who sets an age at 10 to 13) and Richard Bacon make the case for catechism before communion in their works against the paedocommies from places like Exodus 12:26 (what mean ye by this service?). Some level of maturity has to be reached that affords instruction and understanding and of course the ability to examine oneself. If age is set simply as a general guideline 'from the light of nature' for managing such classes for instruction with exceptions granted for the precocious, does that resolve the issue for you?

I'd just like to start with Scripture, where is there a minimum age for this in Scripture? Let's start with what God says.

 

[Romans922]

Edward's basic point is that grace does not abrogate nature and the Bible does not abolish common sense

And what's my point? My point is that I haven't even seen any reasoning from Scripture yet on how to handle this situation for a child. What I have seen is man made law (a few times on this thread). I have not seen statements such as the following, "I agree the Session cannot make a hard and fast rule/law about one's age and participating in the sacraments, however it is also wise to be very cautious with those who are on the younger side..." I have no problem with that statement. Yet, what I am seeing is lawmaking by men.

 

[Edward]

I for one would like to see a discussion of the history of Presbyterian practice.

Closest I could quickly turn up was Table III on page 247 (and associated text) of this article showing mean age for admission to the table at First Church Milford, Conn. 1639 - 1699 (Generally upper 20s for males, mid 20s for females for those whose age could be determined). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1922266

See, particularly, the text associated with footnotes 32 - 38 on page 248 - 249.

 

[Reepicheep]

I just wish my Baptist brothers would call "Believer's Baptism" what it really is, based on their practice- "When the pastor thinks you have made a credible-enough profession of faith to be considered a believer's Baptism."

I mean, I know it's long, but......

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Since this thread has been derailed from its original topic, I've not wanted to derail it further. But no one has yet--to my surprise--mentioned what should be a signal part of this discussion--what the WLC has to say respecting it.

WLC 177 seems quite to the point: "Q. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ? A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves."

If one goes back to WLC 169 and follows through to this point, you don't come away from that thinking that a four year old could do what is therein mentioned. Chris asks the right question then about the history of this, and I am not aware that up until comparatively recent times a session contemplated that a young child (less than 6 or 8) could or should be admitted to the Table of the Lord. For practical, developmental purposes, Calvin's 10-13 has generally been thought minimal.

I suspect that the push to admit children at increasingly earlier ages (and I have certainly detected such) is a dual reaction both to those who are thought to wait too late (you must be 16-18, a common practice among continental churches) and an attempt, perhaps, to head off the paedocommunionists (which the CRC now officially is) at the pass. This is all quite wrongheaded and dangerous for the church, in my estimation.

Sorry for further derailing, but I thought that the WLC must be brought into this discussion.

Peace,
Alan

 

[alexandermsmith]

If a 5yr old says 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God', who are we to say the confession is false? Maybe it is, but we don't know that. In fact we can never know that. Is it not our duty to disciple our Children just like every other man or woman who professes Christ? This idea that people have to prove they are Christians by bearing all of this fruit as NEW Christians is silly to me.

They have to be able to give a credible profession though. I'm assuming in an antipaedobaptist congregation the qualification for baptism is the same as that of admittance to the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian congregation, i.e. a credible (accredited) profession of faith. A mere verbal confession of faith isn't- or at least shouldn't- be enough.

 

[Tyrese]

If a 5yr old says 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God', who are we to say the confession is false? Maybe it is, but we don't know that. In fact we can never know that. Is it not our duty to disciple our Children just like every other man or woman who professes Christ? This idea that people have to prove they are Christians by bearing all of this fruit as NEW Christians is silly to me.

They have to be able to give a credible profession though. I'm assuming in an antipaedobaptist congregation the qualification for baptism is the same as that of admittance to the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian congregation, i.e. a credible (accredited) profession of faith. A mere verbal confession of faith isn't- or at least shouldn't- be enough.

Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith? If so, than perhaps your view could come across as wiser than God. You can say 'a person needs to do this and he needs to do that first', but I think that enters into salvation by works- another conversation for a different day. My point is (from experience as a Baptist) there's no way to know if a persons profession is credible simply because they wrote out a lengthy testimony. Our confidence is no in our ability to maintain a 'regenerate' membership, rather, in the fact that Gid will separate the wheat from the tares on judgment day.

Please don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying we should 'do whatever' becuase we can't know the hearts of men, for that would be unbiblical as well. I'm just saying I do my very best to avoid Baptist dogma that's based on the wisdom of men and not the word of God. It's wrong to discredit children because they're children and we need to be reminded that the Lord is displeased with such behavior.

Btw, baptism and the Lords supper are not the same thing.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith?

I think he is saying that historical faith is not enough, as it is the faith of demons. I believe that communicants should make a profession of saving faith. That is not the same thing as demanding that they give a conversion narrative, however. In addition, the oversight should ensure that they are not doctrinally ignorant (especially concerning Eucharistic theology) and are not unrepentedly living in scandalous sin.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Anglo-Saxon history

Again this has nothing to do with the Church or what God says in His word.

Once we begin to erect tradition as doctrine, we set in motion a web of pharisaical folly that can be expanded ad infinitum.

Using God's standard may require of us to do the hard pastoral work of exercising judgment and the sticky pastoral work of interacting with one another, all of us being sinners. But it is better than usurping Christ's authority in His church and creating rules and standards where He has not.

Andrew,

While "history" is not the basis of God's Word and teaching, the decision on whom to admit to the Table is an issue guided by the light of nature since we're not going to find a Scripture verse that tells us whether a four-year-old ought to be admitted to the Table.

The point that Edward is making is a valid one, we understand (from the light of nature) that small children do not understand the weight of vows and oaths. From a polity perspective, that child is now able to vote for Session members and can be the subject of excommunication.

I'm sympathetic to the question posed by the Baptist brother because it is my own conviction that there is a quality of maturity in my understanding of what the Lord's Supper requires. It is not faith itself. That's a different question as I believe a child can possess saving faith but I also believe that the Table requires more than faith - it requires discernment. I have five children with more or less very tender consciences but, as much as I see glimpses of faith in Christ, I do not yet recognize the level of maturity that I would want them to have before approaching the Table. All my children will always be my children but it doesn't mean I give them the keys to the car even if they can demonstrate the ability to drive a car at age 12.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Since this thread has been derailed from its original topic, I've not wanted to derail it further. But no one has yet--to my surprise--mentioned what should be a signal part of this discussion--what the WLC has to say respecting it.

WLC 177 seems quite to the point: "Q. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ? A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves."

If one goes back to WLC 169 and follows through to this point, you don't come away from that thinking that a four year old could do what is therein mentioned. Chris asks the right question then about the history of this, and I am not aware that up until comparatively recent times a session contemplated that a young child (less than 6 or 8) could or should be admitted to the Table of the Lord. For practical, developmental purposes, Calvin's 10-13 has generally been thought minimal.

I suspect that the push to admit children at increasingly earlier ages (and I have certainly detected such) is a dual reaction both to those who are thought to wait too late (you must be 16-18, a common practice among continental churches) and an attempt, perhaps, to head off the paedocommunionists (which the CRC now officially is) at the pass. This is all quite wrongheaded and dangerous for the church, in my estimation.

Sorry for further derailing, but I thought that the WLC must be brought into this discussion.

Peace,
Alan

Thanks Alan. I saw this after I posted (didn't read the whole thread through). Great points.

One thing I've noticed among some people who react to the "childishness" of culture is sort of an imbalanced tack in the other direction. What I mean is that our culture idolizes youth culture and, increasingly, boys and girls are not encouraged to be mature but to express themselves and rejoice in folly and youth with the expectation that now is the time to play and party. That age keeps getting pushed further and further to the right where men are expected to grow up.

On the other hand, however, there are some weird "conservative Christian" ideas floating around that all age distinctions were manufactured by modernism - that "in the good 'ole days" a boy was a man at age 13 and we need to treat our kids as grown ups as soon as possible. Any talk of "age appropriate" instruction is met with suspicion that we're buying into the spirit of the age.

Now, I certainly believe the aim of childhood is maturity and not celebrating in folly. But that does not mean that we have some sort of crazy notion that modernity created out of whole cloth the idea that young children are really naive and that teenagers may be able to work in some cultures but still ahve a lot of growing up to do. Even Paul tells Timothy something to tell to "young men" (and I increasingly realize how immature I was even in my 30's!)

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there are some parents out there who either think of their kids as exceptional (who doesn't?) or who buy into the idea that age distinctions are manufactured and we need to be reminded (as you have reminded us) that human nature really hasn't changed in 500 years. The authors of the WLC certainly understood this.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

What Edward and Rich have argued for is fully congruous with Westminster Confession 1.6. This circumstance of the worship of God must be determined by the light of nature and Christian prudence, both of which preclude us from admitting four year-olds to the Lord's Table.

 

[Tyrese]

Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith?

I think he is saying that historical faith is not enough, as it is the faith of demons. I believe that communicants should make a profession of saving faith. That is not the same thing as demanding that they give a conversion narrative, however. In addition, the oversight should ensure that they are not doctrinally ignorant (especially concerning Eucharistic theology) and are not unrepentedly living in scandalous sin.

I don't disagree with you. I wouldn't be a Baptist if I didn't agree with you. We're talking past one another. Keep in mind the OP brought up the issue of baptism, not The Lords supper. I know other Reformed Baptist would disagree with me here, but I don't think baptism and the Lords supper should be approached the same way. No need to bring up whether or not the demons believe- we know they do. Like you, I'm talking about saving faith, which is a lifelong process; not this instant christian maturity attitude that many Baptist have. Bearing fruit is a process. This implies discipling. We should be discipling children who profess faith just like everyone else; assuming we agree that people need ongoing discipling.

 

[Edward]

Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith? If so, than perhaps your view could come across as wiser than God.

With work, one might be able to train a parrot to say that. It's probably a bit easier to train a 4 year old to say it.

You might take a look at Acts 2:38, and you might end up with fewer of what used to be called Carnal Christians.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

With work, one might be able to train a parrot to say that. It's probably a bit easier to train a 4 year old to say it.

Edward, you crack me up.

 

[Parakaleo]

as much as I see glimpses of faith in Christ, I do not yet recognize the level of maturity that I would want them to have before approaching the Table.

You are their father and know your children better than anyone in this area. With respect, allow me to address you with one challenge. We confess the Lord's Supper is a means of grace. When taken rightly, it is efficacious to the building up of our faith. You watch your children sin and fall and grieve their sin and seek the Lord's help in turning away from it. Could they not do this better, with the consistency and maturity you are looking for, if they came to His means of grace? How would you be doing in your walk with Christ if you went a year without the Lord's Supper?

Just a friendly challenge.

 

[Tyrese]

Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith? If so, than perhaps your view could come across as wiser than God.

With work, one might be able to train a parrot to say that. It's probably a bit easier to train a 4 year old to say it.

You might take a look at Acts 2:38, and you might end up with fewer of what used to be called Carnal Christians.

Edward, I'm guessing you were expecting a lengthy disagreement. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disappoint ya. In fact your belief that it's ok to baptise children (if thats your view) who make no profession of faith ought to make you go back and see if your really challenging yourself with that last comment.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

as much as I see glimpses of faith in Christ, I do not yet recognize the level of maturity that I would want them to have before approaching the Table.

You are their father and know your children better than anyone in this area. With respect, allow me to address you with one challenge. We confess the Lord's Supper is a means of grace. When taken rightly, it is efficacious to the building up of our faith. You watch your children sin and fall and grieve their sin and seek the Lord's help in turning away from it. Could they not do this better, with the consistency and maturity you are looking for, if they came to His means of grace? How would you be doing in your walk with Christ if you went a year without the Lord's Supper?

Just a friendly challenge.

Blake,

I don't follow your logic. The Confessional view is that there is a level of discernment necessary for participation that comes by way of maturity. It does not follow that the means to achieve maturity is the Lord's Supper itself. If I believed that then I would advocate paedocommunion. In other words, if there is a requirement to be met before a person is admitted then you don't admit the person as a means to meet that requirement.

 

[Parakaleo]

if there is a requirement to be met before a person is admitted then you don't admit the person as a means to meet that requirement.

I am not saying to throw out or relax the requirements of making a credible profession of faith and being able to examine oneself before coming to the Table. However as this thread shows, these things are subjective and will be differently assessed by different sessions. I am saying that a session should factor in to their thinking that a non-communicant child is trying to follow Christ, put their sin to death, and grow in sanctification all without the means of grace that communicant believers regularly enjoy.

Does your wife ever buy clothes for your children a size too big? Mine does, especially with shoes. Why? Because the children have been growing since they were born. She would only buy their current size if they stopped growing, or if a disease stunted their growth. If children give profession of faith that they have been born of God, show sorrow for their sin, examine themselves, desire to follow Christ, can give answer for the nature of the Lord's Supper, but are not admitted due to misgivings about the level of their maturity, it is to say they are not growing. It is not reckless to admit such children and count upon growth taking place through their coming to the Table. It is trusting to God's means.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Blake,

I'm not comfortable with your analogy. If they need to be at a level of maturity then they need to be at that level of maturity. Am I looking for sinless perfection or some sort of really high standard? Not really. It's hard to describe but I've been an elder long enough to know what I'm comfortable with in terms of the Table. Deciding that they might be a "size too small" but letting them "grow into" maturity for the Lord's Table is not an option.

 

[MW]

You watch your children sin and fall and grieve their sin and seek the Lord's help in turning away from it. Could they not do this better, with the consistency and maturity you are looking for, if they came to His means of grace? How would you be doing in your walk with Christ if you went a year without the Lord's Supper?

This is a difficult question to tackle. It seems there are some things assumed in it which are not plainly stated. It is hard to comprehend what grace and strength the person is going to receive from the Lord's supper that he is not going to receive from Christ; and if he may receive it from Christ then the Lord's supper is only going to help him as a means of feeding on Christ and His benefits; but then the Lord's supper only helps him to feed on Christ and His benefits in so far as the person has the ability to examine himself and discern his faith to feed on Christ and His benefits, in connection with the exercise of repentance, love, and new obedience.

The Lord's supper has no instrumentality to initiate grace. It is only confirmatory of grace which is being exercised, and it only increases grace reflexively. Where there is no reflex action of grace in the soul the Lord's supper only commemorates the death of Christ objectively; it has no subjective benefit in terms of signifying or sealing communion with Christ. There must be an action feeding on Christ by faith and reflexively discerning that in the soul in order for grace to be increased and strengthened by means of the Lord's supper.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith? If so, than perhaps your view could come across as wiser than God. You can say 'a person needs to do this and he needs to do that first', but I think that enters into salvation by works- another conversation for a different day. My point is (from experience as a Baptist) there's no way to know if a persons profession is credible simply because they wrote out a lengthy testimony. Our confidence is no in our ability to maintain a 'regenerate' membership, rather, in the fact that Gid will separate the wheat from the tares on judgment day.

Please don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying we should 'do whatever' becuase we can't know the hearts of men, for that would be unbiblical as well. I'm just saying I do my very best to avoid Baptist dogma that's based on the wisdom of men and not the word of God. It's wrong to discredit children because they're children and we need to be reminded that the Lord is displeased with such behavior.

Btw, baptism and the Lords supper are not the same thing.

If someone confesses "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" whilst at the same time going out at the weekend partying, or is engaging in a non-marital sexual relationship, or is a swearer, then I think the Session has every right- and duty- to question the credibility of that person's confession. A credible profession is a profession which is reflected in the person's walk and conversation. If a person makes such a profession, but shows no interest in living according to Scripture, spends his week in idleness and living in the world, reading novels, spending all their time playing video games, watching movies &c. then I think the Session should question how credible that profession is. This would particularly apply to children making such a profession as they are unlikely- one would hope!- to be out drinking &c.

Many young people grow up in the church and live an outwardly moral life but are as far from grace as the drunkard in the gutter or the prostitute on the street corner. Further, even, as they could be being hardened under the Gospel due to their refusal to go to Christ. This is why a mere verbal profession from our young people isn't enough.

The Session may not be able to "read the heart", but they can examine the person of their experiences of the Lord's work in their lives; for marks of grace. If these are not there then it doesn't matter how vehement he is in his profession, it's not a credible profession.

And I agree that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are different, with different qualifications. But I was looking at from an antipaedobaptist's perspective where, I assume, they treat the requirements for Baptism as similar to the requirements for admittance to the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian church, i.e. a credible profession. I myself am Presbyterian.

 

[Eoghan]

I agree!

In my experience (four of my adult children are in non-denom (baptistic) churches), any Sunday school kid of 4 or 5 can say "I want Jesus in my heart" parroting what their teachers and parents coach them to say. Increasingly they become the subjects of baptism at much earlier ages than what they taught me growing up in a Baptist church. All of my 11 grandkids old enough to walk and talk have been encouraged by their parents to make such professions. And, if memory serves me, most of them were baptized by the time they reached age 6. A few of them are not to that age yet, so we will see how their parents and pastors handle it for them.

During my three decades as a Baptist pastor, I always refused to baptize young children. 9 was about the limit of my comfort. My argument was that since baptism was "merely symbolic" it would not hurt to wait until a child was old enough to truly know what he or she was doing.

Now, as a paedobaptist, such arguments ring hollow. However, here the practice in the churches is running contrary to the theology of good paedobaptists and credobaptists alike. It would not seem to be driven by a desire to bolster the baptismal stats. Baptist pastors I know have more integrity than that! But, after WWII we live in an age when denominational affiliation is fungible. People seem to move from one theology to another based on the church they attend, driven more by the available youth program, style of preaching, or children's ministry than by a conviction regarding baptism. Those coming from a paedobaptist background may put pressure on the pastor to baptize their child at the earliest possible time. Don't miss the grandparent angle either. Grandparents from churches that baptize infants may engage in a pretty sustained campaign to get their kids to baptize the grandkids, even if that family now worships in a credobaptist fellowship.

My own experience was that both my kids were making professions of faith way too early. Putting it bluntly my son was saying he wanted to be a Christian while still believing in Santa.

I think there is a lot of prudence in waiting a few years until kids are really starting to think for themselves. Prematurely calling someone a christian can lead them to believe they have "given christianity a try" and subsequently grown out of it. That may well be their experience but it is not the new birth and I think we do well not to confirm them in their belief that what they have experienced is Biblical Christianity.

As a parent I want to rejoice in the slightest spark of spiritual interest, but as a believer I should not confuse interest with being born again.

Incidentally in Judaism girls go through their Bat- Mitzvah at 12, boys have to wait another year until they are 13 for their Bar-Mitzvah. Something to do with maturity...

 

[Tyrese]

Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith? If so, than perhaps your view could come across as wiser than God. You can say 'a person needs to do this and he needs to do that first', but I think that enters into salvation by works- another conversation for a different day. My point is (from experience as a Baptist) there's no way to know if a persons profession is credible simply because they wrote out a lengthy testimony. Our confidence is no in our ability to maintain a 'regenerate' membership, rather, in the fact that Gid will separate the wheat from the tares on judgment day.

Please don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying we should 'do whatever' becuase we can't know the hearts of men, for that would be unbiblical as well. I'm just saying I do my very best to avoid Baptist dogma that's based on the wisdom of men and not the word of God. It's wrong to discredit children because they're children and we need to be reminded that the Lord is displeased with such behavior.

Btw, baptism and the Lords supper are not the same thing.

If someone confesses "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" whilst at the same time going out at the weekend partying, or is engaging in a non-marital sexual relationship, or is a swearer, then I think the Session has every right- and duty- to question the credibility of that person's confession. A credible profession is a profession which is reflected in the person's walk and conversation. If a person makes such a profession, but shows no interest in living according to Scripture, spends his week in idleness and living in the world, reading novels, spending all their time playing video games, watching movies &c. then I think the Session should question how credible that profession is. This would particularly apply to children making such a profession as they are unlikely- one would hope!- to be out drinking &c.

Many young people grow up in the church and live an outwardly moral life but are as far from grace as the drunkard in the gutter or the prostitute on the street corner. Further, even, as they could be being hardened under the Gospel due to their refusal to go to Christ. This is why a mere verbal profession from our young people isn't enough.

The Session may not be able to "read the heart", but they can examine the person of their experiences of the Lord's work in their lives; for marks of grace. If these are not there then it doesn't matter how vehement he is in his profession, it's not a credible profession.

And I agree that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are different, with different qualifications. But I was looking at from an antipaedobaptist's perspective where, I assume, they treat the requirements for Baptism as similar to the requirements for admittance to the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian church, i.e. a credible profession. I myself am Presbyterian.

brother Alexander,

You brought up quite a few issues here so to save time and avoid any appearance of idleness on the Puritanboard I'll quickly make my point. However before making my point I have to ask why do you all keep pointing to the worst case scenarios (drinking, partying, etc.) as examples? In no way do I believe a person can live any sort of way and yet be thought of as a genuine Christian. Does anyone here believe that? Please don't assume the worst about what others are saying. I think if we'd all stop assuming we would be on the same page on a lot of issues.

All I'm saying is we cant expect a new convert whether they be a child or an adult to display this superior life style that some of you obviously promote. I'm sorry but I'm not ready to say a person who reads novels, watches movies, or plays video games is not a Christian. I'm not ready to say a child who is still confused about Santa Claus is probably not really born again. Yes we need to be wise when it comes to children, but how many of us are still confused about other matters, as yet we're looked up to by other Christian men and women? I believe sanctification is a PROCESS. When I became a Christian I played a lot of video games. But then this strange thing happened- I repented over a period of time by Gods grace. Was I not a Christian until I officially stopped gaming? There's plenty of examples of this. The apostle Peter took the Lords supper and then betrayed Jesus soon after- you know the rest of the story.

Clearly Jesus is far more gracious than we are, and we should rejoice at the thought.

Tyrese

 

[MW]

Clearly Jesus is far more gracious than we are, and we should rejoice at the thought.

It is not gracious to confirm one in a life that is overtly contrary to following Christ. And let's be clear, that the Lord's supper is a confirming ordinance. The person who participates in the Lord's supper is, by a judgment of charity, considered to be in good standing and full communion with the body of Christ.

Video games have an indifferency about them. There are other factors which determine whether they are bad or not. Fornication is evil in itself. The two should not be brought into comparison in this discussion.

 

[Parakaleo]

Rev. Winzer's earlier comments make me think twice about the validity of looking for growth to happen spontaneously from coming to the Table. Perhaps a term can be borrowed from military terminology? For the one with faith, the Lord's Super is a "force multiplier". I also agree with him and Tyrese that a judgment of charity is inherent in admitting anyone to the Table. That is why I find Rich's words to be a bit jarring.

Am I looking for sinless perfection or some sort of really high standard? Not really.

"Not really"? It's like meeting your future father-in-law for the first time to talk to him about pursuing his daughter. On the way to meet him, the daughter says, "Don't worry! I asked him if he was looking for perfection from a young man who wants to court me. He said, 'Not really.' So just be close to perfect."

 

[Tyrese]

Clearly Jesus is far more gracious than we are, and we should rejoice at the thought.

It is not gracious to confirm one in a life that is overtly contrary to following Christ. And let's be clear, that the Lord's supper is a confirming ordinance. The person who participates in the Lord's supper is, by a judgment of charity, considered to be in good standing and full communion with the body of Christ.

Video games have an indifferency about them. There are other factors which determine whether they are bad or not. Fornication is evil in itself. The two should not be brought into comparison in this discussion.

Rev Winzer,

Like I asked Alexander, do you think anyone on the board believes we should consider a person who walks contrary to the word of God a Christian? If so, I'd be just as suprised as you are if that is the case. Just know I don't believe that. The word of God is the standard by which we judge all Christian behavior.

With that said, I don't think there's a contradiction in anything I have said.

Tyrese

 

[Edward]

Does your wife ever buy clothes for your children a size too big? Mine does, especially with shoes. Why? Because the children have been growing since they were born. She would only buy their current size if they stopped growing, or if a disease stunted their growth. If children give profession of faith that they have been born of God, show sorrow for their sin, examine themselves, desire to follow Christ, can give answer for the nature of the Lord's Supper, but are not admitted due to misgivings about the level of their maturity, it is to say they are not growing. It is not reckless to admit such children and count upon growth taking place through their coming to the Table. It is trusting to God's means.

I would urge you to re-evaluate your position in light of 1 Cor 11:27-30. Is that a risk to which you would really want to subject a child in the hope that he will eventually 'grow into' his responsibilities with regard to the Sacrament?