Biblical Arguments For/Against Paedo-communion

[WrittenFromUtopia]

We need 'the thread' for this. There hasn't really been any single thread that has dealt with this sufficiently in my opinion.

So, let's hear it!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Dr. Nigel Lee writes:

Let me state why I, with John Calvin, oppose paidocommunion. But first, to note age thesholds, it would be helpful if the reader would study the following passages preferably in the original Hebrew or Greek: Gen. 2:17-24; 14:13-24; 17:23-27; 22:2-19; Ex. 12:3-4, 8-11, 26-27,37, 43-48; Num. 9:2-13; Prov. 22:6; Lam. 2:12; 4:4; Luke 2:40-52; 22:1-20; John 6:2-4,10,53; Acts 22:3; I Cor. 5:7-13f; 10:1-22; 11:1-10,20-34; 13:11; 14:20-37; Phil. 3:5; I Tim. 2:8-15; 6:12f; Heb. 5:12 to 6:2; I John 2:12f; and Rev. 2:20f.

I oppose all attempts to reconstruct the clearly antipaidocommunionistic teaching of our Westminster Confession 28:1 & 29:3,8 & 31:4 and our Westminster Larger Catechism QQ. 169-177. True Presbyterians and other men of like persuasion respect Calvin's views in his Commentaries on Ex. 12:24-43; Lam. 2:12; John 6:53 & Heb. 6:2; in his Sermons on Deuteronomy 16:1-8 cf. vv. 16f; and his Institutes IV:13:6 & IV:16:30 & IV:19:4f.

In summary:
1, infant baptism signifies regeneration (but not conversion);
2, one's first communion at teenage signifies conversion (not regeneration);
3, Eucharist replaces the Passover (but not circumcision);
4, the 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6's chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20);
5, no females nor any preteenagers ever partook of the Passover till it was thus deformed by Post-Christian Liberal Judaism (+/- 200 A.D.);
6, there is absolutely no trace whatsoever of paidocommunionism in patristic writings but only in pagan sources prior to 250 A.D.;
7, novel paidocommunionism is a ritualistic heterodoxy of the "Eastern Orthodox" and kindred denominations quite opposed to truly-orthodox Reformed Theology;
8, the practice of paidocommunionism abolishes the need first of catechization and then of profession of one´s faith before one´s own very first manducation at the sacrament;
9, paidocommunism ultimately leads to an uncatechized Church (which Calvin says cannot long continue without catechizing); and
10, Calvin in his Institutes (IV:16:30) accordingly concludes against the Anabaptists: "œThey object that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to Baptism than to the Lord´s Supper "“ to which, however, there are never admitted.... The Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed...infancy, are fit to bear solid food.... They cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord´s body. Why should we stretch out poison instead of vivifying food to our young children? ... Circumcision, which as is well known corresponds to our Baptism, was intended for infants. But the Passover for which the Supper is substituted...was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they thus be blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?"

Cordially in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ,

Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
Professor-Emeritus of the Queensland Presbyterian Theological College
Website: www.dr-fnlee.org

 

[Saiph]

Arguments from historical precedence are not conclusive.

#9 is post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

It was baptism in the Red Sea that gave the covenant people the right to eat the manna.

 

[wsw201]

George Knight recently wrote an article for the Ordained Servant on the issue of the Lord's Supper that deals with 1 Cor 11. His view represents the the historical Reformed view of the pertinent passages and how it fits within the Standards. Its rather long so I have attached a link to it:

The Lord's Supper

It starts on page 39.

 

[Saiph]

That file only has 28 pages brother.

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by Saiph
That file only has 28 pages brother.

I meant page 39 in the actual magazine or page 12 of the 28 pages you noted.

 

[biblelighthouse]

One of my favorite paedocommunion texts is 1 Corinthians 10:17, which demonstrates that the body of Christ and the table of Christ are coextensive:

"For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

Why are we "one body"? We are one body because "we are all partakers of that one bread."

Are tiny children part of the body of Christ? Yes, of course.
Thus, tiny children are also "partakers of that one bread".

The body and the table are coextensive.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
One of my favorite paedocommunion texts is 1 Corinthians 10:17, which demonstrates that the body of Christ and the table of Christ are coextensive:

"For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

Why are we "one body"? We are one body because "we are all partakers of that one bread."

Are tiny children part of the body of Christ? Yes, of course.
Thus, tiny children are also "partakers of that one bread".

The body and the table are coextensive.

But 1 Corinthians 11 doesn't refer back to 1 Corinthians 10. It is better understood in the context of the Lord's institution, which Paul references in this passage in Chapter 11.

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "œThis is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

Obviously, Christ is referring to the bread of the supper when he says it is his "body." Now, jump down a few verses and Paul says:

1 Cor 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

There is no reason to assume that Paul changes the meaning of "body" in this section of his letter from the bread of the Supper to "the church" (as the "body of Christ") in this verse alone, while EVERY OTHER reference to it in this context is referring to the bread of the Supper.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Are tiny children part of the body of Christ? Yes, of course.
Thus, tiny children are also "partakers of that one bread".

The body and the table are coextensive.

I think this is an error in thought and more akin to Federal Vision viewpoints.

Children of believers are part of the body of Christ and kingdom of God as members of the visible Church, by birth. They enter this community objectively through baptism, not the Lord's Supper. A child, though a member of the Church by birth, cannot grow in grace from the Lord's Supper unless they are actually of faith; thus, we should allow them to profess such faith to their Session in order to receive this means of grace to those who believe.

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Are tiny children part of the body of Christ? Yes, of course.
Thus, tiny children are also "partakers of that one bread".

The body and the table are coextensive.

The questions that needs to be answered though are, how do we know they are part of the body of Christ, and are we speaking visibly or invisibly? The Lord's supper is for those who profess Christ, not for those who simply sit in the church building on Sunday by virtue of their parents. This may seem inconsistent with paedobaptism (in which infants are baptized by virtue of their parents), so the only way around this is to make infant baptism in some way salvific/regenerative. There seems to be a natural connection between paedocommunion and regenerative views of paedobaptism, and also the loss of the distinction between the visible and invisible church. Sounds like the FV to me.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I think this is an error in thought and more akin to Federal Vision viewpoints.

Children of believers are part of the body of Christ and kingdom of God as members of the visible Church, by birth. They enter this community objectively through baptism, not the Lord's Supper. A child, though a member of the Church by birth, cannot grow in grace from the Lord's Supper unless they are actually of faith; thus, we should allow them to profess such faith to their Session in order to receive this means of grace to those who believe.

 

[wsw201]

I think that one thing that is lost in the peadocommunion argument is the nature of the two sacraments. The two sacraments are signs and seals but the nature of these sacraments are totally different. For infants, baptism is a passive sacrament and the Lord's Supper is an active sacrament.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Think of it covenantally.

Children of believers are born in covenant with God. This does not mean they are born with a relationship with God, however. They must live up to their covenantal obligations by producing faith and repentance (which, of course are God's gifts, but think temporally for a second). Just because they are in the covenant, that does not mean they have a right to participate with the body of Christ in a way that only those who are in an intimate relationship with God may.

If a person is married to a woman, he is in covenant with her. However, if he does not treat her as he should, never communicates with her, and so forth, should we expect them to have a "relationship"? Not really. They may be in an objective covenantal agreement (marriage) but they are not necessarily in an intimate relationship, receiving the benefits and blessings of such. (I use the marriage analogy, as Douglas Wilson uses it to 'prove' PC)

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[Saiph]

Wayne, I just read your PDF.

That is by far the most convincing argument I have ever read on the non-PC side. He explains the greek in a detail the puritans never took the time to do. I still wonder how a child can be guilty of profaning the supper by their extremely limited ability to discern though. I will have to consider this more. Since, I feel stongly the responsibility to explain to them what the meal is. Every Lord's day I go over what the eucharist is and what it means at the breakfast table with my kids. While I am PC, I do not take it lightly.

 

[crhoades]

Please don't think this as a crass question but sincere...for PC advocates: At what age do they begin partaking? When they are through breast feeding and are taking whole food? Isn't there a breakdown at some level since they are baptized very early on but aren't then partaking until physically able?

I know this isn't a theological argument but a practical one but still interested in replies either way.

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by crhoades
Please don't think this as a crass question but sincere...for PC advocates: At what age do they begin partaking? When they are through breast feeding and are taking whole food? Isn't there a breakdown at some level since they are baptized very early on but aren't then partaking until physically able?

I know this isn't a theological argument but a practical one but still interested in replies either way.

Since a nursing infant eats what the mother eats, they are getting the eucharist.

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by Saiph

Originally posted by crhoades
Please don't think this as a crass question but sincere...for PC advocates: At what age do they begin partaking? When they are through breast feeding and are taking whole food? Isn't there a breakdown at some level since they are baptized very early on but aren't then partaking until physically able?

I know this isn't a theological argument but a practical one but still interested in replies either way.

Since a nursing infant eats what the mother eats, they are getting the eucharist.

Mark,

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Chris,

From the PC folks I know, they would say "as soon as the child can eat solid food, they should partake". So what they advocate is really "Toddler" communion.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by wsw201

Originally posted by Saiph

Since a nursing infant eats what the mother eats, they are getting the eucharist.

Mark,

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Chris,

From the PC folks I know, they would say "as soon as the child can eat solid food, they should partake". So what they advocate is really "Toddler" communion.

It's not a stretch at all, and in fact it even has Biblical precedent.

The Red Sea baptism (1 Cor. 10:2) made all the Israelites (including tiny children) eligible to partake of the manna, which was "spiritual meat" and "spiritual drink" (1 Cor. 10:3-4 - the counterpart of the Lord's Supper).

So, who partook of the manna? Obviously, the tiniest infants only partook of manna via their mother's milk. But just as soon as they were weaned onto solid food, they started partaking of manna.

So it is with the Lord's Supper.




[Edited on 11-3-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by wsw201

Originally posted by Saiph

Since a nursing infant eats what the mother eats, they are getting the eucharist.

Mark,

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Chris,

From the PC folks I know, they would say "as soon as the child can eat solid food, they should partake". So what they advocate is really "Toddler" communion.

It's not a stretch at all, and in fact it even has Biblical precedent.

The Red Sea baptism (1 Cor. 10:2) made all the Israelites (including tiny children) eligible to partake of the manna, which was "spiritual meat" and "spiritual drink" (1 Cor. 10:3-4 - the counterpart of the Lord's Supper).

So, who partook of the manna? Obviously, the tiniest infants only partook of manna via their mother's milk. But just as soon as they were weaned onto solid food, they started partaking of manna.

So it is with the Lord's Supper.

It is a huge stretch, and again obliterates any discipline. It also fails to make any distinction between the elements. One could just as easily take this to the absurd level of saying that all things partake of the sacraments, as people eat and the elements are passed through their digestive track in the elimination of waste and recycling through the environment.

 

[Saiph]

It is a huge stretch, and again obliterates any discipline. It also fails to make any distinction between the elements. One could just as easily take this to the absurd level of saying that all things partake of the sacraments, as people eat and the elements are passed through their digestive track in the elimination of waste and recycling through the environment.

I feel stupid even continuing this inane concept (not you Fred, but the idea itself), but, only souls made in God's image can partake of God's spiritual food.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Saiph]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Saiph

It is a huge stretch, and again obliterates any discipline. It also fails to make any distinction between the elements. One could just as easily take this to the absurd level of saying that all things partake of the sacraments, as people eat and the elements are passed through their digestive track in the elimination of waste and recycling through the environment.

I feel stupid even continuing this inane concept, but, only souls made in God's image can partake of God's spiritual food.

I'm sure the Israelites' animals ate manna in the wilderness too, but for them, I seriously doubt that it was "spiritual meat" (1 Cor. 10:3) as it was for God's people, the Israelites.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Saiph

It is a huge stretch, and again obliterates any discipline. It also fails to make any distinction between the elements. One could just as easily take this to the absurd level of saying that all things partake of the sacraments, as people eat and the elements are passed through their digestive track in the elimination of waste and recycling through the environment.

I feel stupid even continuing this inane concept, but, only souls made in God's image can partake of God's spiritual food.

Considering this is only slightly less inane (the argument, not Mark) than the Lord's Supper through the placenta (which is one of the worst arguments I have ever heard about anything theological), one more comment.

You would not have to posit any non-human life partaking: it would be very possible for the worst of heretics to "partake" in the manner that I described.

[Edited on 11/3/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Saiph]

Fred I edited my post after you quoted it.

I was not calling you inane, or your remonstrance, but my original idea.

Sorry.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Saiph

It is a huge stretch, and again obliterates any discipline. It also fails to make any distinction between the elements. One could just as easily take this to the absurd level of saying that all things partake of the sacraments, as people eat and the elements are passed through their digestive track in the elimination of waste and recycling through the environment.

I feel stupid even continuing this inane concept, but, only souls made in God's image can partake of God's spiritual food.

I'm sure the Israelites' animals ate manna in the wilderness too, but for them, I seriously doubt that it was "spiritual meat" (1 Cor. 10:3) as it was for God's people, the Israelites.

And I am just as sure that those of the mixed multitude partook of the manna (since that was all there was to eat), and yet many (if not all) could not partake of the Passover. Manna was not the Passover, and it is not the Lord's Supper. To conflate them leads to ridiculous positions like in utero ex opere operato sacramentology.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Saiph
Fred I edited my post after you quoted it.

I was not calling you inane, or your remonstrance, but my original idea.

Sorry.

No worries. I actually understood what you meant. Good thought though - I edited my post too so no one would think I was disparaging you, which I did not intend to, brother.

 

[Saiph]

I think the manna was a eucharistic deliverance meal provided by God. But it is a very loose type. The covenant people ate it. And I was waiting for one of you non-pc advocates to point out that even the manna had regulations, and the meal God gave them "spoiled" if they were not followed.

 

[biblelighthouse]

At the end of the day, as far as the age of becoming a communicant is concerned, the whole nursing-infant digression is moot.

The bottom line from 1 Corinthians 10 is this:
Just as soon as an Israelite child was weaned onto solid food, he/she started partaking of the manna. Likewise, once a modern Christian child is weaned onto solid food, he/she can be given the Lord's Supper.

This parallel is crystal clear, regardless of whether you think nursing infants "partake" or not.

Weaned Christian children should take the Lord's Supper, just as weaned Christian children partook of manna & water in the wilderness.




[Edited on 11-3-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Saiph
Fred I edited my post after you quoted it.

I was not calling you inane, or your remonstrance, but my original idea.

Sorry.

No worries. I actually understood what you meant. Good thought though - I edited my post too so no one would think I was disparaging you, which I did not intend to, brother.

I very much appreciate your irenecism! I absolutely love it when Christian brothers can vehemently disagree on a particular issue, and yet continue to love each other. This is the way "iron sharpening iron" is really supposed to work! May God give me the grace to act this way, too!

I am encouraged, and thankful.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
At the end of the day, as far as the age of becoming a communicant is concerned, the whole nursing-infant digression is moot.

The bottom line from 1 Corinthians 10 is this:
Just as soon as an Israelite child was weaned onto solid food, he/she started partaking of the manna. Likewise, once a modern Christian child is weaned onto solid food, he/she can be given the Lord's Supper.

This parallel is crystal clear, regardless of whether you think nursing infants "partake" or not.

Weaned Christian children should take the Lord's Supper, just as weaned Christian children partook of manna & water in the wilderness.

Interesting that the parallel is "crystal clear" since the Church has rejected this parallel for millennia. Interesting also in light of the fact that as soon as a pagan traveling with the Israelites was weaned, he partook of the manna.

So I gather then you advocate giving the Lord's Supper to anyone, Christian or not, because of the parallel to the manna. If not, then that should be the end of the manna pro-paedocommunion argument.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Saiph
Fred I edited my post after you quoted it.

I was not calling you inane, or your remonstrance, but my original idea.

Sorry.

No worries. I actually understood what you meant. Good thought though - I edited my post too so no one would think I was disparaging you, which I did not intend to, brother.

I very much appreciate your irenecism! I absolutely love it when Christian brothers can vehemently disagree on a particular issue, and yet continue to love each other. This is the way "iron sharpening iron" is really supposed to work! May God give me the grace to act this way, too!

I am encouraged, and thankful.

 

[Saiph]

So I gather then you advocate giving the Lord's Supper to anyone, Christian or not, because of the parallel to the manna. If not, then that should be the end of the manna pro-paedocommunion argument.

Almost the end of the argument. Were there pagans in the corporate body of those reeemed from Egypt ? Or was it specifically an illustration of covenant protection ? God was feeding them. (regardless of the internal/external or elect/reprobate arguments)