Originally posted by wsw201
I don't Presbyterians make children wait until they're 12 to receive communion.
Actually many Presbyterian Churches do.
At least they are consistent although I still don't agree.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by wsw201
I don't Presbyterians make children wait until they're 12 to receive communion.
Actually many Presbyterian Churches do.
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.
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.
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
(this is one debate that I just can't believe is even going on....)
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
(this is one debate that I just can't believe is even going on....)
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
yeah, but aren't you the one who is standing FOR paedocommunion?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Do you see the difference I'm trying to point out that I see?
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]
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.
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?
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Greg,
Please explain to me why PaedoBaptism is a sin..............
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.
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.
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.
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.