Paedocommunion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Goosha
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Goosha

However, I think it is interesting how the traditional view doesn´t lend itself as a continuation of the Passover practices. In fact, I would like to repeat my question and try to figure out where the non-paedo communion justify giving the Lord´s Supper to ANY children. There are no examples in the new testament"¦and since apparently the Passover that Christ partook of corresponds to a Passover that only included 12 or 13 old circumcised males and their fathers, I would like know to what the standard is for giving the table to children in general. I don't Presbyterians make children wait until they're 12 to receive communion. My argument is pretty simple-

1.) Unless we use the revelation given to us concerning children and the other Passover feasts, we end up creating our own standards for the supper since the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.

Goosha, it actually was not that simple of an argument;). I took the liberty of constructing your argument. You will notice some premises have letters after the number. This denotes a hidden premise in your above argument. I tried to bring them all out so it would be clearer. I attempted to make your argument valid. I attempted to make it as strong as possible, given you above info. All I want to ask you is if my reconstruction is an appropriate reconstrcution of your argument? Before we move on, that is, I'd like you to just give the okay that I have not misrepresented your argument. Or, you may look at the argument and feel that you said to much and it would be to hard to prove some premises (or some are false) and so you may wish to reformulate? Just so you know, logicaly, all the hidden premises that I posted were contained in your argument.




1a.) If the New testament doesn't give hardly any information on a doctrinal issue then we must go to the Old Testament for that information.

2.) the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.

3.) Therefore we must go to the Old Testament for how the supper relates to children (follows from 1a and 2).

4.) If we don't go to the Old Testament, though, for our ideas on how the supper relates to Children then we end up creating our own standards.

5.b) The traditional view doesn't go to the Old Testament for their ideas on how the supper relates to children.

6.) Therefore, they create thier own standards (from 4 and 5).

7c.) It is wrong to create your own standards because then you cannot objectively justify a certain practice.

8d.) The traditional view creates their own standards (from 6).

9.) Therefore the traditional view cannot objectively justify the practice of giving holy communion the any children.



[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Paul manata]


LOL:bigsmile:
I would probably be more bold and suggest that there are no references to the Lord's supper and children but that assumes hermenuetic presuppositions and also my position. I think this is fair enough. I would suggest making the
1a.) All doctrines must be biblically based.
2.) The Lord's Supper and it's recipients is a doctrinal issue.
3.) The New Testaments lacks material on the Lord's Supper and its recipients etc.

Jayson, I put hardly instead on the stronger claim that there are NO references because you said:

since the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.

So I was just sticking with what you wrote.


Also, to make the argument flow with what you wrote what if I did this:

1a.) If the New testament doesn't give hardly any information on a doctrinal issue then we must go to the Old Testament for that information since our doctrines must be biblically based.

Go with it....I'm paying less attention to how well or crafted my sentences are cuz I'm at work...I will go ahead and agree with it since I don't have the time to carefully create the argument into a serious of propositions.
 
Exo 12:24 You shall observe this rite as a statute for you and for your sons forever.
Exo 12:25 And when you come to the land that the LORD will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this service.
Exo 12:26 And when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?'
Exo 12:27 you shall say, 'It is the sacrifice of the LORD's Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses.'" And the people bowed their heads and worshiped.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Jayson's argument

1a.) If the New testament doesn't give hardly any information on a doctrinal issue then we must go to the Old Testament for that information, since all doctrinal issues must be biblically based.

2.) the New Testament doesn´t give hardly any information on how the Supper relates to children.

3.) Therefore we must go to the Old Testament for how the supper relates to children (follows from 1a and 2).

4.) If we don't go to the Old Testament, though, for our ideas on how the supper relates to Children then we end up creating our own standards.

5.b) The traditional view doesn't go to the Old Testament for their ideas on how the supper relates to children.

6.) Therefore, they create thier own standards (from 4 and 5).

7c.) It is wrong to create your own standards because then you cannot objectively justify a certain practice.

8d.) The traditional view creates their own standards (from 6).

9.) Therefore the traditional view cannot objectively justify the practice of giving holy communion the any children.


Clarifying questions:

(1a.) So you go to the OT for inclusion of women partaking of the Lord's supper? Or, it can be argued that the NT doesn't give us any (or at least "hardly any") info on frequency. So, should we therefore base our frequency off the OT? That is, maybe partake yearly!? So, what role does inference play here?

(2). How does this not beg the question? Isn't one of our claims that some of the most crucial info regarding the proper subjects found in the NT? (Note, I think the NT just reiterates the OT on this point).

(3) Doesn't follow yet.

(4) I grant that if ones position is not found in the Bible then he makes it up.

(5b) I deny this premise. That is, I assert that it is false.

(6) Doesn't follow yet.

(7c) Granted.

(8d). Obviously denied for the above reasons.

(9). Obviously denied as a non-sequitar for the above reasons.



I think I reconstructed your argument very fairly. Since you said it was your argument then I must conclude that, as it stands, it has many assumptions that need to be justified. When we see it broken down we see it as a non-sequitar.

Paul, non-sequitar means that my premises do not follow logically from one to the next but you said that originally that you tried to construct my argument to be valid...apparently you failed. Perhaps one or more of my premises are false but if my argument non-sequitar as you claim then its not even worth debating the propositions since even if they were all true the argument would still be false. Maybe we need to work at first making my argument valid and then debating the individual propositions.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
yeah, but aren't you the one who is standing FOR paedocommunion?

Oh...maybe I misunderstood you...perhaps paedocommunion is too absurd to defend; however, I'm not going to pack it up because I think it true....not to mention...what would you do if people treated your belief on baptism a low as paedocommunion is treated...look over this thread and tell me which position is being treated fairly.
 
1.) Paedo-communion is founded on practice that whole families participated in the Egyptian Passover feast.
2.) If you apply the Egyptian Passover feast to the Lord´s Supper, then you can make sense of the Lord´s Supper and how it relates to children.
3.) The traditional view does not apply the Egyptian Passover feast to the Lord´s Supper, therefore the traditional view cannot make sense of the Lord´s Supper and how it relates to children.

This is a simpler version of my argument that I believe is easier to refute (if wrong) and perfectly valid. This should help us progress in the debate.
 
Now...I have posted a challenge in order to demonstrate my argument that the traditional can't consistently argue for why children should even be allowed to participate at all in the Lord's Supper.

Here it is again-
Why do you allow children to participate in the Lord's Supper and where do you find your principle to give them the Supper? Perhaps only grown adults should take it.
 
Originally posted by Goosha
Now...I have posted a challenge in order to demonstrate my argument that the traditional can't consistently argue for why children should even be allowed to participate at all in the Lord's Supper.

Here it is again-
Why do you allow children to participate in the Lord's Supper and where do you find your principle to give them the Supper? Perhaps only grown adults should take it.

Because one of the key passages on the Lord's Supper is 1 Corinthians 11, and thus one of the main reasons we are against participation in infancy is because infants and toddlers cannot examine themselves or discern the body. But when the elders of a church judge that one is old and mature enough to do those things, there is no longer a Scriptural warrant to withold it.
 
Interesting discussion from a Reformed Baptist's perspective. It looks like the paedocommunionists do the same thing with 1 Cor 11 that the paedobaptists do with passages like Mark 16:16. Basically, the latter say that the belief prior to baptism pattern in the NT is applicable only to adults but baptism is not necessarily excluded from infants just like the former say that the examination prior to communion pattern the Corinthian church is applicable only to adults but communion is not necessarily excluded from infants. The paedocommunionists, though doubly in error, are the most theologically consistent.





[Edited on 27-1-2005 by doulosChristou]
 
okay, please excuse this woman's simple mind...but at first glance the idea of paedocommunion reached my "DUH!" radar.

I do believe you are faulty, and as one who celebrates passover I will tell you why in the simplist of reasons.

Passover and Communion are two separate events. Christ was participating in Passover when he initiated/commanded Communion. He told them to "do this" (bread and wine) in "rememberance of Him". Granted we remember Him in Passover, but passover is a yearly event, not a regular event. Paul goes on and regulates communion in I Cor 11. You must examine yourself. An infant (even though can have saving faith) cannot examine it's sin (as one does not require reasoning and the other does).
 
At least Communion's relationship to the OT Passover ritual can be established from Scripture. The first Communion was the Passover meal. Baptism's relationship to the OT circumcision ritual cannot be established from Scripture. The paedobaptist's theological system tells him that both are the "sign and seal" of the "covenant of grace," but Scripture never says so.
 
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Interesting discussion from a Reformed Baptist's perspective. It looks like the paedocommunionists do the same thing with 1 Cor 11 that the paedobaptists do with passages like Mark 16:16. Basically, the latter say that the belief prior to baptism pattern in the NT is applicable only to adults but baptism is not necessarily excluded from infants just like the former say that the examination prior to communion pattern the Corinthian church is applicable only to adults but communion is not necessarily excluded from infants. The paedobaptists, though doubly in error, are the most theologically consistent.

In Mark 16 (ESV), it simply says, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved," which is a general statement, not a command to always believe before being baptized. 1 Corinthians 11, on the other hand, says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself."

For lack of a better example in mind at the moment, keep in mind the fact that Ruling Elders are generally not required to have seminary degrees, although some of them certainly do. I basically see the difference between the Mark 16 verse and the 1 Corinthians 11 verse as similar to the difference between saying, "Whoever gets a seminary degree and becomes a Ruling Elder serves his church," and saying, "Let a person get a seminary degree then, and so become a Ruling Elder. For anyone who becomes a Ruling Elder without learning the syllabi does more harm than service."

Do you see the difference I'm trying to point out that I see? In both comparisons (the Bible verses and the seminary/church situations), the former example does not necessarily insist that its first-mentioned practice is necessary for its second-mentioned one, whereas both latter examples do insist that their first-mentioned practice is necessary for their second-mentioned one.
 
Okay, I guess I am just SHOCKED that it's the Baptists that are going this route. I would have expected it from some extreme Presbyterians, but I think I'm going to need smelling salts on this one...maybe I should change my signature...:um:
 
popcorn2.gif
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Do you see the difference I'm trying to point out that I see?

Not precisely. It seems to require that what Paul had specifically in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians was the fencing off the table from infants rather than simply exhorting the adults to examine themselves beforehand so as not to partake with unresolved or unconfessed sin. Let me ask you a question. If those two verses were not in the Bible, would you then be a paedocommunionist?
 
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Interesting discussion from a Reformed Baptist's perspective. It looks like the paedocommunionists do the same thing with 1 Cor 11 that the paedobaptists do with passages like Mark 16:16. Basically, the latter say that the belief prior to baptism pattern in the NT is applicable only to adults but baptism is not necessarily excluded from infants just like the former say that the examination prior to communion pattern the Corinthian church is applicable only to adults but communion is not necessarily excluded from infants. The paedocommunionists, though doubly in error, are the most theologically consistent.





[Edited on 27-1-2005 by doulosChristou]

I agree...I may be wrong but at least I'm consistently wrong:bigsmile:
 
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Do you see the difference I'm trying to point out that I see?

Not precisely. It seems to require that what Paul had specifically in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians was the fencing off the table from infants rather than simply exhorting the adults to examine themselves beforehand so as not to partake with unresolved or unconfessed sin.

But he didn't specify infants or non-infants. He simply gave a general command for people to examine themselves before partaking. And that is something that infants cannot do, unless one takes the interpretation that he was merely addressing excessive abuses in the Corinthian church, and not commanding anything in general regarding the Supper, which I see as the only interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 that can save paedocommunion. But I likewise see that interpretation refuted by 2 Chronicles 30:18-20, which specifically likens the preparation before Passover with the one "who sets his heart to seek God." See mine and Scott's discussion on that passage in relation to the Supper here, as well as on the next page.

Originally posted by doulosChristou
Let me ask you a question. If those two verses were not in the Bible, would you then be a paedocommunionist?

If those were not in the Bible, and specific exegetical evidence could be given to show that infants partook of the Passover in the Old Testament, then I'd have to rethink my position.

Another reason I reject paedocommunion is, as Fred pointed out earlier, just because we see biblical warrant to administer baptism to infants does not mean that they automatically get all the means of grace, unless of course one wants to argue that they can benefit from the Word and prayer. So I see the "if paedobaptism, then paedocommunion" jump as a leap in logic without real warrant, in addition to the two exegetical problems above.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Greg,
Please explain to me why PaedoBaptism is a sin..............

It seems logical that if the credobaptist position was in fact the truth, that paedobaptism would be a sin as much as we both view paedocommunion as a sin now. If there was in fact no biblical warrant to baptize infants, then surely taking the sacrament beyond God's defined boundaries would be sin.
 
Chris,

I see now. So you don't think children partook of the Passover meal, thus continuity from Judaism to Christianity remains intact.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Greg,
Please explain to me why PaedoBaptism is a sin..............

It seems logical that if the credobaptist position was in fact the truth, that paedobaptism would be a sin as much as we both view paedocommunion as a sin now. If there was in fact no biblical warrant to baptize infants, then surely taking the sacrament beyond God's defined boundaries would be sin.

Exactly. :handshake:
 
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Chris,

I see now. So you don't think children partook of the Passover meal, thus continuity from Judaism to Christianity remains intact.

:up: Indeed.
 
Paul,

I don't have the material in front of me, but aren't there a great many commentators who take the position that it was NOT even held at the Passover?
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Paul,

I don't have the material in front of me, but aren't there a great many commentators who take the position that it was NOT even held at the Passover?

I don't know. That's interesting, though. My only point is that the Lord's supper was not *the* passover meal.

I agree. If I am remembering rightly (and I think I am), that makes your case even stronger.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by doulosChristou
At least Communion's relationship to the OT Passover ritual can be established from Scripture. The first Communion was the Passover meal. Baptism's relationship to the OT circumcision ritual cannot be established from Scripture. The paedobaptist's theological system tells him that both are the "sign and seal" of the "covenant of grace," but Scripture never says so.

you forgot to add "AT." You see, the first communion was AT the passover meal.

Yes, good point. The first Communion was at the Passover meal. Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top