Question for paedocommunionists
- Thread starter Me Died Blue
- Start date
- Status
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Jayson,
I want to explore a couple of things regarding what I consider the change in the administration of the Passover from the time it was first inaugurated in Egypt to the time it was celebrated in Israel.
First I want to note the following passages from Exodus 12:1-28:
[quote:bae3d12c3a]1 Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2 "This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3 Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: [b:bae3d12c3a]'On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. [/b:bae3d12c3a]4 And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man's need you shall make your count for the lamb. 5 [b:bae3d12c3a]Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. 7 And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. 8 Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. [/b:bae3d12c3a]9 Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire--its head with its legs and its entrails. 10 You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. 11 [b:bae3d12c3a]And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand.[/b:bae3d12c3a] So you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. 13 Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. [b:bae3d12c3a][/b:bae3d12c3a]
[/quote:bae3d12c3a]
Verses 1-12 establishes the initial Passover meal. Note that every man was to take a lamb for his household (verse 3), kill it (verse 6), then put the blood on the two doorposts and lintel of the houses where they will eat the meal (verse 7). Note also that the meal was to consist strictly of the lamb, unleavened bread and bitter herbs (verse 8). Note in verse 11 how they are to be dressed when they eat the meal.
[quote:bae3d12c3a]14 So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. [b:bae3d12c3a]15 Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. [/b:bae3d12c3a]16 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat--that only may be prepared by you. [b:bae3d12c3a]17 So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. [/b:bae3d12c3a]18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. 19 For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land. 20 You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread.' " [/quote:bae3d12c3a]
In verses 14-20 God relays how the Passover meal will be celebrated throughout their generations (verse 14). At this time God also establishes the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which follows immediately after the Passover (verse 15). This dovetails into Duet 16:1-8
[quote:bae3d12c3a]1 "Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to the Lord your God, for in the month of Abib the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the Lord chooses to put His name. [b:bae3d12c3a]3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. [/b:bae3d12c3a]4 And no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the meat which you sacrifice the first day at twilight remain overnight until morning. 5 You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you; 6 but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover at twilight, at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt. 7 And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God chooses, and in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a sacred assembly to the Lord your God. You shall do no work on it. [/quote:bae3d12c3a]
And Lev 23:4-8:
[quote:bae3d12c3a]4 "These are the Lord's appointed times, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times. 5 The Passover to the Lord comes in the first month, at twilight on the fourteenth day of the month. 6 The Festival of Unleavened Bread to the Lord is on the fifteenth day of the same month. For seven days you must eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you are to hold a sacred assembly; you are not to do any daily work. 8 You are to present a fire offering to the Lord for seven days. On the seventh day there will be a sacred assembly; you must not do any daily work."[/quote:bae3d12c3a]
[quote:bae3d12c3a]21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Pick out and take lambs for yourselves according to your families, and kill the Passover lamb. 22 And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning. 23 For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you. 24 And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your sons forever. 25 It will come to pass when you come to the land which the Lord will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep this service. 26 And it shall be, when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' 27 that you shall say, 'It is the Passover sacrifice of the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households.' " So the people bowed their heads and worshiped. 28 Then the children of Israel went away and did so; just as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.[/quote:bae3d12c3a]
Note that in verse 26 we see the first instance of children asking any questions about the Passover and these questions happen after Israel passes into the Promised Land. Note that God never instructs the father"(tm)s to prompt these questions or make them apart of the Passover meal.
So there definately is a change in the administration of the Passover from the time it was established in Egypt vs entrance into the promised land. Fathers no longer killed the passover lamb, the priests did in the Temple; the lamb was then eaten by the temple priests per temple law; and no more putting the blood of the lamb on the doorposts and lintel.
Regarding the other 3 festivals (other than the Passover) a definate argument can be made that both children and women were apart of these celebrations. But note the differences in Duet 16:1-8 where the celebration of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are discussed, versus 9-12 the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and 13-15 the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths). In versus 11 and 14 the whole family were to celebrate, so I think it can be safely said the whole family celebrated the Feast of Weeks and Tabernacles together in Jerusalem and mostlikely they also came along for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. But there is no evidence that women and children participated in the Passover sacrifice at the Temple.
Duet 16:1-17
[quote:bae3d12c3a]1 "Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to the Lord your God, for in the month of Abib the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the Lord chooses to put His name. 3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. 4 And no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the meat which you sacrifice the first day at twilight remain overnight until morning. 5 You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you; 6 but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover at twilight, at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt. 7 And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God chooses, and in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a sacred assembly to the Lord your God. You shall do no work on it.9 "You shall count seven weeks for yourself; begin to count the seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the grain. 10 Then you shall keep the Feast of Weeks to the Lord your God with the tribute of a freewill offering from your hand, which you shall give as the Lord your God blesses you. 11 You shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your gates, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are among you, at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide. 12 And you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and you shall be careful to observe these statutes. 13 "You shall observe the Feast of Tabernacles seven days, when you have gathered from your threshing floor and from your winepress. 14 And you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant and the Levite, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow, who are within your gates. 15 Seven days you shall keep a sacred feast to the Lord your God in the place which the Lord chooses, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you surely rejoice. 16 Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed. 17 Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you.[/quote:bae3d12c3a]
And as verse 16 notes, it is the men who must appear before the Lord, not the whole family when the sacrifices are made.
I want to explore a couple of things regarding what I consider the change in the administration of the Passover from the time it was first inaugurated in Egypt to the time it was celebrated in Israel.
First I want to note the following passages from Exodus 12:1-28:
[quote:bae3d12c3a]1 Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2 "This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3 Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: [b:bae3d12c3a]'On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. [/b:bae3d12c3a]4 And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man's need you shall make your count for the lamb. 5 [b:bae3d12c3a]Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. 7 And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. 8 Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. [/b:bae3d12c3a]9 Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire--its head with its legs and its entrails. 10 You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. 11 [b:bae3d12c3a]And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand.[/b:bae3d12c3a] So you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. 13 Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. [b:bae3d12c3a][/b:bae3d12c3a]
[/quote:bae3d12c3a]
Verses 1-12 establishes the initial Passover meal. Note that every man was to take a lamb for his household (verse 3), kill it (verse 6), then put the blood on the two doorposts and lintel of the houses where they will eat the meal (verse 7). Note also that the meal was to consist strictly of the lamb, unleavened bread and bitter herbs (verse 8). Note in verse 11 how they are to be dressed when they eat the meal.
[quote:bae3d12c3a]14 So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. [b:bae3d12c3a]15 Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. [/b:bae3d12c3a]16 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat--that only may be prepared by you. [b:bae3d12c3a]17 So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. [/b:bae3d12c3a]18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. 19 For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land. 20 You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread.' " [/quote:bae3d12c3a]
In verses 14-20 God relays how the Passover meal will be celebrated throughout their generations (verse 14). At this time God also establishes the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which follows immediately after the Passover (verse 15). This dovetails into Duet 16:1-8
[quote:bae3d12c3a]1 "Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to the Lord your God, for in the month of Abib the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the Lord chooses to put His name. [b:bae3d12c3a]3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. [/b:bae3d12c3a]4 And no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the meat which you sacrifice the first day at twilight remain overnight until morning. 5 You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you; 6 but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover at twilight, at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt. 7 And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God chooses, and in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a sacred assembly to the Lord your God. You shall do no work on it. [/quote:bae3d12c3a]
And Lev 23:4-8:
[quote:bae3d12c3a]4 "These are the Lord's appointed times, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times. 5 The Passover to the Lord comes in the first month, at twilight on the fourteenth day of the month. 6 The Festival of Unleavened Bread to the Lord is on the fifteenth day of the same month. For seven days you must eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you are to hold a sacred assembly; you are not to do any daily work. 8 You are to present a fire offering to the Lord for seven days. On the seventh day there will be a sacred assembly; you must not do any daily work."[/quote:bae3d12c3a]
[quote:bae3d12c3a]21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Pick out and take lambs for yourselves according to your families, and kill the Passover lamb. 22 And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning. 23 For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you. 24 And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your sons forever. 25 It will come to pass when you come to the land which the Lord will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep this service. 26 And it shall be, when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' 27 that you shall say, 'It is the Passover sacrifice of the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households.' " So the people bowed their heads and worshiped. 28 Then the children of Israel went away and did so; just as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.[/quote:bae3d12c3a]
Note that in verse 26 we see the first instance of children asking any questions about the Passover and these questions happen after Israel passes into the Promised Land. Note that God never instructs the father"(tm)s to prompt these questions or make them apart of the Passover meal.
So there definately is a change in the administration of the Passover from the time it was established in Egypt vs entrance into the promised land. Fathers no longer killed the passover lamb, the priests did in the Temple; the lamb was then eaten by the temple priests per temple law; and no more putting the blood of the lamb on the doorposts and lintel.
Regarding the other 3 festivals (other than the Passover) a definate argument can be made that both children and women were apart of these celebrations. But note the differences in Duet 16:1-8 where the celebration of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are discussed, versus 9-12 the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and 13-15 the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths). In versus 11 and 14 the whole family were to celebrate, so I think it can be safely said the whole family celebrated the Feast of Weeks and Tabernacles together in Jerusalem and mostlikely they also came along for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. But there is no evidence that women and children participated in the Passover sacrifice at the Temple.
Duet 16:1-17
[quote:bae3d12c3a]1 "Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to the Lord your God, for in the month of Abib the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the Lord chooses to put His name. 3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. 4 And no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the meat which you sacrifice the first day at twilight remain overnight until morning. 5 You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you; 6 but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover at twilight, at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt. 7 And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God chooses, and in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a sacred assembly to the Lord your God. You shall do no work on it.9 "You shall count seven weeks for yourself; begin to count the seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the grain. 10 Then you shall keep the Feast of Weeks to the Lord your God with the tribute of a freewill offering from your hand, which you shall give as the Lord your God blesses you. 11 You shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your gates, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are among you, at the place where the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide. 12 And you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and you shall be careful to observe these statutes. 13 "You shall observe the Feast of Tabernacles seven days, when you have gathered from your threshing floor and from your winepress. 14 And you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant and the Levite, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow, who are within your gates. 15 Seven days you shall keep a sacred feast to the Lord your God in the place which the Lord chooses, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you surely rejoice. 16 Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed. 17 Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you.[/quote:bae3d12c3a]
And as verse 16 notes, it is the men who must appear before the Lord, not the whole family when the sacrifices are made.
Hi Wayne,
I enjoyed reading your post, I thought it was very informative and definitely corrected some things that were missing in my understanding of the Passover, thanks. I see what you mean about all the changes made to the way the Passover was celebrated. In fact, there wasn't anything I disagreed with in your post.
I enjoyed reading your post, I thought it was very informative and definitely corrected some things that were missing in my understanding of the Passover, thanks. I see what you mean about all the changes made to the way the Passover was celebrated. In fact, there wasn't anything I disagreed with in your post.
CalsFarmer
Puritan Board Freshman
Paedo communion
It all comes down to an understanding of a profession of faith. Is it possible for a young child say 4 or 5 years old to make a profession and be admitted to table?
In answer, Did Mozart write and compose music at age 5? Yes he did. He was a prodigy. And I certainly believe that there may be a VERY VERY VERY small group of little reformers that are truly cognizant of what a profession of faith means. One in every congregation? NO. One maybe in 500 congregations.
The childs parents should be examined by the Session and then the children themselves should be examined by the Session. Do we expect them to have a firm grasp of the finer five points? No. Most of us first professing our faith did not have it down either. If a child can be examined and clearly articulate his faith and the why for his faith then he should be admitted to table. As a mother and grandmother I truly understand that there are mental and emotional ages that have nothing to do with physical age in terms of years.
This is a really emotionally charged issue and should be dealt with very carefully and with much love. Parents should be prepared to accept a no if thats what the Session decides and the Session should be prepared to say yes if the childs profession merits such.
Which leads me to: What are the elements of a confession of faith?
Are there any?
This issue should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and should not really be a general concern. Like I said one congregation in 500 should be facing this issue.
Allowing paedo communion as a right of a covenant child without a profession of faith is a non issue.
What does anyone else have to offer?
It all comes down to an understanding of a profession of faith. Is it possible for a young child say 4 or 5 years old to make a profession and be admitted to table?
In answer, Did Mozart write and compose music at age 5? Yes he did. He was a prodigy. And I certainly believe that there may be a VERY VERY VERY small group of little reformers that are truly cognizant of what a profession of faith means. One in every congregation? NO. One maybe in 500 congregations.
The childs parents should be examined by the Session and then the children themselves should be examined by the Session. Do we expect them to have a firm grasp of the finer five points? No. Most of us first professing our faith did not have it down either. If a child can be examined and clearly articulate his faith and the why for his faith then he should be admitted to table. As a mother and grandmother I truly understand that there are mental and emotional ages that have nothing to do with physical age in terms of years.
This is a really emotionally charged issue and should be dealt with very carefully and with much love. Parents should be prepared to accept a no if thats what the Session decides and the Session should be prepared to say yes if the childs profession merits such.
Which leads me to: What are the elements of a confession of faith?
Are there any?
This issue should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and should not really be a general concern. Like I said one congregation in 500 should be facing this issue.
Allowing paedo communion as a right of a covenant child without a profession of faith is a non issue.
What does anyone else have to offer?
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, I have an update for everybody. I have decided that I finally feel comfortable affirming Westminster's position on communion. This is for two reasons:
1) I feel uncomfortable aligning myself with a view that the vast majority of church history has opposed and still opposes.
2) My view isn't all that similar to a real paedocommunion position anyway, since I don't advocate giving communion to infants to begin with. Although I think the typical Presbyterian practice of examination is a little unnecessary, it is not so unnecessary that I should oppose it.
So there you have it. I guess I am anti-paedocommunion after all. (Sorry, Jayson. We'll talk about it later.)
1) I feel uncomfortable aligning myself with a view that the vast majority of church history has opposed and still opposes.
2) My view isn't all that similar to a real paedocommunion position anyway, since I don't advocate giving communion to infants to begin with. Although I think the typical Presbyterian practice of examination is a little unnecessary, it is not so unnecessary that I should oppose it.
So there you have it. I guess I am anti-paedocommunion after all. (Sorry, Jayson. We'll talk about it later.)
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Wayne,
I have always understood the process as the child at the very least standing before the session making a credible profession of faith. Some churches send the kids through catechism classes and stuff first. But none of this can assure that the child is partaking of the supper in a worthy manner, and I think this is more than what you can get out of 1 Corinthians 11. The passage calls for self-examination, not church examination.
As for what I think is a better process, I am of the opinion that the parents can admit their children to the table after they feel they have been properly instructed in how to partake of the table. In short, I don't think the process should be all that difficult. It should be easy to come to the Lord's table. He has graciously invited us to do so. I don't think it is helpful to live in the paranoia that somebody is going to partake of the table unworthily if we don't ask them enough questions first. Doing this puts us in the position of trying to peer into places we cannot see. We give the command for self-examination. That is all we can do, and that's all we will be held accountable for.
But I understand what drives the traditional view. It is an attempt to take 1 Corinthians 11 seriously. And although I don't necessarily like the process, its certainly better than letting just any Tom, Dick, and Harry come to the table. And I don't see my qualms with the traditional view as enough of a reason to repudiate it. So I am no longer aligning myself with the paedocommunion position. Two thousand years of church history can't be all wrong, at least concerning the fundamental points. So whatever my church requires I will submit to humbly and in good conscience.
I have always understood the process as the child at the very least standing before the session making a credible profession of faith. Some churches send the kids through catechism classes and stuff first. But none of this can assure that the child is partaking of the supper in a worthy manner, and I think this is more than what you can get out of 1 Corinthians 11. The passage calls for self-examination, not church examination.
As for what I think is a better process, I am of the opinion that the parents can admit their children to the table after they feel they have been properly instructed in how to partake of the table. In short, I don't think the process should be all that difficult. It should be easy to come to the Lord's table. He has graciously invited us to do so. I don't think it is helpful to live in the paranoia that somebody is going to partake of the table unworthily if we don't ask them enough questions first. Doing this puts us in the position of trying to peer into places we cannot see. We give the command for self-examination. That is all we can do, and that's all we will be held accountable for.
But I understand what drives the traditional view. It is an attempt to take 1 Corinthians 11 seriously. And although I don't necessarily like the process, its certainly better than letting just any Tom, Dick, and Harry come to the table. And I don't see my qualms with the traditional view as enough of a reason to repudiate it. So I am no longer aligning myself with the paedocommunion position. Two thousand years of church history can't be all wrong, at least concerning the fundamental points. So whatever my church requires I will submit to humbly and in good conscience.
Craig,
I agree with you that coming to the Table should not be difficult in and of itself. But can you see that your position essentially de-legitimizes the church, takes the sacraments out of the hands of the Church, its elders (who are Christ's gift to His people) and the minister of the Word (hence divorcing sacrament from Word)?
I'm pretty sure you don't intend this, but that is what you get when you take it out of the hands of the Church and give it to families, where God has never placed it.
I agree with you that coming to the Table should not be difficult in and of itself. But can you see that your position essentially de-legitimizes the church, takes the sacraments out of the hands of the Church, its elders (who are Christ's gift to His people) and the minister of the Word (hence divorcing sacrament from Word)?
I'm pretty sure you don't intend this, but that is what you get when you take it out of the hands of the Church and give it to families, where God has never placed it.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Craig,
Fred hits the nail right on the head. If the Lord's Supper was celebrated in the home you might have a legitimate argument, but the Lord's Supper is celebrated in the Church and is for the Church. Though it is very important that the child be trained by the parents to understand their baptism, (and that the parents meet their obligations when they baptized their child) it does not releave the Church from its responsibilties.
Consider Paul's comments in Eph 4:11-16 "11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head--Christ-- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love."
Not that God appoints pastors and teachers to equip the saints and that would be all those in the Church including children. Note also that he tells us not to be as "children" being thrown to and fro by every wind of doctrine.
I think you you might want to consider 1 Cor 11:27ff in light of what was going on in Corinth, ie; schisms, heresy, etc. Note in 2 Cor 13:5 the topic of examining yourself comes up again with a fuller explanation - "5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified. " Considering what was going on in Corinth, they were not acting like Christians and needed to examine themselves to make sure they were "walking worthy of their calling" (Eph 4:1) and thus approaching to Lord's Table in a worthy manner.
BTW, what exegetical evidence did you find to support small children participating in the Passover or the Lord's Supper?
Fred hits the nail right on the head. If the Lord's Supper was celebrated in the home you might have a legitimate argument, but the Lord's Supper is celebrated in the Church and is for the Church. Though it is very important that the child be trained by the parents to understand their baptism, (and that the parents meet their obligations when they baptized their child) it does not releave the Church from its responsibilties.
Consider Paul's comments in Eph 4:11-16 "11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head--Christ-- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love."
Not that God appoints pastors and teachers to equip the saints and that would be all those in the Church including children. Note also that he tells us not to be as "children" being thrown to and fro by every wind of doctrine.
I think you you might want to consider 1 Cor 11:27ff in light of what was going on in Corinth, ie; schisms, heresy, etc. Note in 2 Cor 13:5 the topic of examining yourself comes up again with a fuller explanation - "5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified. " Considering what was going on in Corinth, they were not acting like Christians and needed to examine themselves to make sure they were "walking worthy of their calling" (Eph 4:1) and thus approaching to Lord's Table in a worthy manner.
BTW, what exegetical evidence did you find to support small children participating in the Passover or the Lord's Supper?
Wayne,
I still don't understand why you think children were excluded from the passover. Even if I grant that children weren't physically capable of eating the Passover meal until they were as old as 12 or 13 years old, that still wouldn't disprove anything since the requirement for children would still have been based on their ability to eat and not their understanding of the festival.
Also, I don't think it makes much sense to suggest that women and children were restricted from leaven and yet had no right to eat the sacrifice. Granted, they could not appear before the Lord with the actual Lamb but that does not mean they couldn't eat from it. The other two festivals also require men to bring a sacrifice and we know that families participated in those so just because the added stipulation of men appearing before the Lord doesn't automatically exlude children. Also, explicitly including children in the later commandment is not required since the egyptian passover feast already specified; thus, repeating that women and children could partake needs not be repeated. After all, why would it? Principles continue until they are abrogated and noone has been able to provide a verse which abrogates children's participation.
I still don't understand why you think children were excluded from the passover. Even if I grant that children weren't physically capable of eating the Passover meal until they were as old as 12 or 13 years old, that still wouldn't disprove anything since the requirement for children would still have been based on their ability to eat and not their understanding of the festival.
Also, I don't think it makes much sense to suggest that women and children were restricted from leaven and yet had no right to eat the sacrifice. Granted, they could not appear before the Lord with the actual Lamb but that does not mean they couldn't eat from it. The other two festivals also require men to bring a sacrifice and we know that families participated in those so just because the added stipulation of men appearing before the Lord doesn't automatically exlude children. Also, explicitly including children in the later commandment is not required since the egyptian passover feast already specified; thus, repeating that women and children could partake needs not be repeated. After all, why would it? Principles continue until they are abrogated and noone has been able to provide a verse which abrogates children's participation.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Jayson,
Have you read this:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm
It isa very good help tp the quesiton on why children did not eat the passover.
Have you read this:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm
It isa very good help tp the quesiton on why children did not eat the passover.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Jayson,
Here is a link to an article by Brian Schwertley who goes through the various biblical reasons why small children were not included in the Temple Passover and how it carried over to the Lord's Supper. He also takes the position that principles continue until they are abrogated.
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/paedocommunion-schwertley.htm
I would also recommend the article Matt has provided a link to.
Here is a link to an article by Brian Schwertley who goes through the various biblical reasons why small children were not included in the Temple Passover and how it carried over to the Lord's Supper. He also takes the position that principles continue until they are abrogated.
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/paedocommunion-schwertley.htm
I would also recommend the article Matt has provided a link to.
Wayne,
How am I supposed to respect a man who like Schwertley when he titles his article, "Paedocommunion: A biblical Examination," then for his first summary point against paedocommunion he writes, "Paedocommunion is a repudiation of the teachings of all the Protestant Reformers as well as all the Reformed symbols regarding the proper recipients of communion." Come on! Give me a break! I will read this guy's article a few times and get back with you but I have a hard time respecting people like him and Nigel Lee who feel they need to fill their paper with such anamosity.
How am I supposed to respect a man who like Schwertley when he titles his article, "Paedocommunion: A biblical Examination," then for his first summary point against paedocommunion he writes, "Paedocommunion is a repudiation of the teachings of all the Protestant Reformers as well as all the Reformed symbols regarding the proper recipients of communion." Come on! Give me a break! I will read this guy's article a few times and get back with you but I have a hard time respecting people like him and Nigel Lee who feel they need to fill their paper with such anamosity.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I have my own concerns about Brian Schwertley based on past experience as well as the theonomy issue, but I find him to be a very reasonable and articulate writer on every issue that I have had occasion to read. I see nothing offensive in the comment cited above. If it is inaccurate, then I would like to see evidence of that. However, in the very next sentence of his article Schwertley cites the Westminster Standards, which to me clearly demonstrates his point, ie., that padeocommunionism is not a historically Reformed position.
[quote:2599878836="Goosha"]Wayne,
How am I supposed to respect a man who like Schwertley when he titles his article, "Paedocommunion: A biblical Examination," then for his first summary point against paedocommunion he writes, "Paedocommunion is a repudiation of the teachings of all the Protestant Reformers as well as all the Reformed symbols regarding the proper recipients of communion." Come on! Give me a break! I will read this guy's article a few times and get back with you but I have a hard time respecting people like him and Nigel Lee who feel they need to fill their paper with such anamosity.[/quote:2599878836]
Jayson,
The comment is completely accurate. Every book of discipline ever rpoduced by a Reformed church, as well as every Reformed Confession, is crystal clear on the issue of paedocommunion. This is not only true of the Reformed, it is the unanimous position of the Western Church.
What should he have said? "Well, even though every Western church confession, book of discipline and denomination have rejected paedocommunion, a feat of unanimity only seen in three other doctrines: the actual return of Christ, the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and even though it is a pernicious doctrine that confuses the need for personal confession of Christ as Lord, it really is no big deal?"
How am I supposed to respect a man who like Schwertley when he titles his article, "Paedocommunion: A biblical Examination," then for his first summary point against paedocommunion he writes, "Paedocommunion is a repudiation of the teachings of all the Protestant Reformers as well as all the Reformed symbols regarding the proper recipients of communion." Come on! Give me a break! I will read this guy's article a few times and get back with you but I have a hard time respecting people like him and Nigel Lee who feel they need to fill their paper with such anamosity.[/quote:2599878836]
Jayson,
The comment is completely accurate. Every book of discipline ever rpoduced by a Reformed church, as well as every Reformed Confession, is crystal clear on the issue of paedocommunion. This is not only true of the Reformed, it is the unanimous position of the Western Church.
What should he have said? "Well, even though every Western church confession, book of discipline and denomination have rejected paedocommunion, a feat of unanimity only seen in three other doctrines: the actual return of Christ, the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and even though it is a pernicious doctrine that confuses the need for personal confession of Christ as Lord, it really is no big deal?"
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Craig and Jayson,
I want to touch on an ancillary issue regarding peadocommunion and that is when a person, adult or child, becomes a commning member of the Church in the PCA, not only are they admitted to the Lord's Supper but they will take membership vows.
The following is from CPC's Session concerning children coming before the Session focusing on membership vows:
[quote:ce192e9c1c]If your child is able to give the necessary and appropriate expression to their understanding then we will notify you of your child"(tm)s reception into communing membership and, at the earliest date, proceed to provide your child with the opportunity to give public expression to his faith by affirming the vows of communing membership before the congregation.
Regarding the vows of communing membership, our Constitution states that through the vows your child is entering into a "œsolemn covenant with God and His Church" (BCO 57-5). The vows that the child will take are:
1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?
It is the responsibility of the parents to explain these vows to their children and also the seriousness of entering into a covenant with God and His Church. The BCO states the following regarding children, "œWhen they have reached the age of discretion, they become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience. They then make public confession of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the discipline of the Church. God, through His Holy Word states, "œThou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain (Exo 20:7)" and "œWhen you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed-- Better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger of God that it was an error. Why should God be angry at your excuse and destroy the work of your hands? (Eccl 5:4-6)". As our Constitution also states regarding Oaths and Vows (WCF Chapter 22):
I. A lawful oath is part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears.
II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence. Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament as well as under the old; so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.
III. Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.
IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt. Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.
V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.
VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties: or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.
VII. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he has no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.
If at any point in the nurturing of your children in faith you need advice, or counsel, or encouragement please know that the elders stand ready to support you by assisting in any way that we can.
May the blessings of our Covenant God be yours, your children"(tm)s, and you children"(tm)s children for a thousand generations. [/quote:ce192e9c1c]
Can a youg child, still under the authority of their parents, legitimately make a vow as outlined by the WCF?
I want to touch on an ancillary issue regarding peadocommunion and that is when a person, adult or child, becomes a commning member of the Church in the PCA, not only are they admitted to the Lord's Supper but they will take membership vows.
The following is from CPC's Session concerning children coming before the Session focusing on membership vows:
[quote:ce192e9c1c]If your child is able to give the necessary and appropriate expression to their understanding then we will notify you of your child"(tm)s reception into communing membership and, at the earliest date, proceed to provide your child with the opportunity to give public expression to his faith by affirming the vows of communing membership before the congregation.
Regarding the vows of communing membership, our Constitution states that through the vows your child is entering into a "œsolemn covenant with God and His Church" (BCO 57-5). The vows that the child will take are:
1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?
It is the responsibility of the parents to explain these vows to their children and also the seriousness of entering into a covenant with God and His Church. The BCO states the following regarding children, "œWhen they have reached the age of discretion, they become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience. They then make public confession of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the discipline of the Church. God, through His Holy Word states, "œThou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain (Exo 20:7)" and "œWhen you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed-- Better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger of God that it was an error. Why should God be angry at your excuse and destroy the work of your hands? (Eccl 5:4-6)". As our Constitution also states regarding Oaths and Vows (WCF Chapter 22):
I. A lawful oath is part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears.
II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence. Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament as well as under the old; so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.
III. Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.
IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt. Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.
V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.
VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties: or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.
VII. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he has no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.
If at any point in the nurturing of your children in faith you need advice, or counsel, or encouragement please know that the elders stand ready to support you by assisting in any way that we can.
May the blessings of our Covenant God be yours, your children"(tm)s, and you children"(tm)s children for a thousand generations. [/quote:ce192e9c1c]
Can a youg child, still under the authority of their parents, legitimately make a vow as outlined by the WCF?
Wayne,
Craig can correct me if I'm wrong but I was receiving the impression that he was calling into question the idea that a child needs to express faith before the eldership prior to receiving the Lord's Supper. I personally am not all that familiar with presbyterian polity because I grew up baptist but it seems to me that the process lacks any biblical warrent. At least in context of Paul's admonition to the Corinthians. Paul seems to put the responsibility on the individual to examine themselves rather than on the eldership to examine anybody. I don't understand how people get all that out of a couple verses.
There are some sketchy elements to the above quotation relating to covenant. I was under the impression that the vow brought the child into covenant when you write, "vows your child is entering into a "œsolemn covenant with God and His Church." Is this something different than the New Covenant?
Craig can correct me if I'm wrong but I was receiving the impression that he was calling into question the idea that a child needs to express faith before the eldership prior to receiving the Lord's Supper. I personally am not all that familiar with presbyterian polity because I grew up baptist but it seems to me that the process lacks any biblical warrent. At least in context of Paul's admonition to the Corinthians. Paul seems to put the responsibility on the individual to examine themselves rather than on the eldership to examine anybody. I don't understand how people get all that out of a couple verses.
There are some sketchy elements to the above quotation relating to covenant. I was under the impression that the vow brought the child into covenant when you write, "vows your child is entering into a "œsolemn covenant with God and His Church." Is this something different than the New Covenant?
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
The covenant that is mentioned is not the "New Covenant" that is spoken of in the Bible. When a person makes a promise or vow before God to do something, like a marriage vow, they are entering into an agreement or covenant, with God as their witness. In questions 1. and 2. a person is attesting to what they believe and in 3., 4., and 5. they are promising to do what is asked.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:639cad324d]I was under the impression that the vow brought the child into covenant when you write, "vows your child is entering into a "œsolemn covenant with God and His Church." [/quote:639cad324d]
Exactly.
They bear the covenant sign but cannot partake of the "Covenant Meal".
Absurd.
Satan wants nothing more than to keep children from the blessings of the promise. We must feed our children with the word and the sacrament.
All through the gospels the Pharisees astoundingly say, "Who is this that eats and drinks with sinners ?"
The meal is for the poor in spirit hungering for righteousness. (Children fit that description if you ask me)
Exactly.
They bear the covenant sign but cannot partake of the "Covenant Meal".
Absurd.
Satan wants nothing more than to keep children from the blessings of the promise. We must feed our children with the word and the sacrament.
All through the gospels the Pharisees astoundingly say, "Who is this that eats and drinks with sinners ?"
The meal is for the poor in spirit hungering for righteousness. (Children fit that description if you ask me)
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Right, Jayson. My qualm is with the idea of "confirmation", or whatever you wish to call it. I do not understand why our children need to make a public profession of faith before the session. They have been baptized into the church and they are Christians. Making a public profession adds no more to that. It's always struck me as kind of odd that Presbyterians will criticize Baptists for their insistence on a public profession before baptism since there are many false professors that are baptized, but yet do the exact same thing they criticize Baptists for with the Lord's Supper. There are all sorts of false professors that partake of the Lord's Supper as well. So what does a public profession get you? It certainly doesn't solidify whether or not the person is a worthy partaker of the elements.
And concerning the comment that my view would seperate the sacrament from the authority of the church, I'm not sure I follow why this is the case. After all, it is the church that administers the sacraments. I've never advocated anything else.
Wayne asked me for exegetical evidence as to whether or not small children partook of the Passover, but this question is irrelevant to what I have argued simply because if children are able to heed the command of 1 Corinthians 11, then there is no reason to exclude them. They are fulfilling the requirements. If there is another requirement for them before taking the supper, such as NOT being a child, then 1 Corinthians 11 is irrelevant to the debate altogether (at least as far as my position is concerned).
And concerning the comment that my view would seperate the sacrament from the authority of the church, I'm not sure I follow why this is the case. After all, it is the church that administers the sacraments. I've never advocated anything else.
Wayne asked me for exegetical evidence as to whether or not small children partook of the Passover, but this question is irrelevant to what I have argued simply because if children are able to heed the command of 1 Corinthians 11, then there is no reason to exclude them. They are fulfilling the requirements. If there is another requirement for them before taking the supper, such as NOT being a child, then 1 Corinthians 11 is irrelevant to the debate altogether (at least as far as my position is concerned).
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
[quote:f1aa51d384]Wayne asked me for exegetical evidence as to whether or not small children partook of the Passover, but this question is irrelevant to what I have argued simply because if children are able to heed the command of 1 Corinthians 11, then there is no reason to exclude them. They are fulfilling the requirements. If there is another requirement for them before taking the supper, such as NOT being a child, then 1 Corinthians 11 is irrelevant to the debate altogether (at least as far as my position is concerned).[/quote:f1aa51d384]
Then I am confused about your argument. I would assume that we would both agree that there are points of contact between Passover and the Lord's Supper as there are points of contact between Circumcision and Baptism. Just as exegetical evidence needs to be shown that infants can be baptized based on the sacrament of circumcision (the NT does not have anything in it that says "baptize babies" but we can point to Genesis for the inclusion of infants), exegetical evidence needs to be shown who can participate in the Lord's Supper. Since the only evidence there is concerning how young a person could be to participate in the Passover (post Egypt) is 12, when Jesus went up to Jerusalem with his parents, then to be biblically consistent, one would have to conclude through necessary consequence that one must be 12 in order to meet the requirements of participating in the Lord's Supper. Your argument does not appear to be based on necessary consequences of interpreting Scripture but on conjecture regarding a couple of verses in 1 Cor 11.
Then I am confused about your argument. I would assume that we would both agree that there are points of contact between Passover and the Lord's Supper as there are points of contact between Circumcision and Baptism. Just as exegetical evidence needs to be shown that infants can be baptized based on the sacrament of circumcision (the NT does not have anything in it that says "baptize babies" but we can point to Genesis for the inclusion of infants), exegetical evidence needs to be shown who can participate in the Lord's Supper. Since the only evidence there is concerning how young a person could be to participate in the Passover (post Egypt) is 12, when Jesus went up to Jerusalem with his parents, then to be biblically consistent, one would have to conclude through necessary consequence that one must be 12 in order to meet the requirements of participating in the Lord's Supper. Your argument does not appear to be based on necessary consequences of interpreting Scripture but on conjecture regarding a couple of verses in 1 Cor 11.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
The burden of proof is for any of you against paedocommunion to prove children DID NOT eat the passover meal.
Even so, they all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink . . .
Did the little children eat manna . . .?????
It is an absolute contradiction to baptize an infant and not give it the Eucharist when old enough to eat, because there is no profession.
The covenant sign stands as their profession.
Also, would you deny the feeble minded or alzheimers victim who is baptized. . . (of course not)
Even so, they all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink . . .
Did the little children eat manna . . .?????
It is an absolute contradiction to baptize an infant and not give it the Eucharist when old enough to eat, because there is no profession.
The covenant sign stands as their profession.
Also, would you deny the feeble minded or alzheimers victim who is baptized. . . (of course not)
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Saiph said:
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
I read the paper and disagree with some of it.
I still believe 1 Cor. 11 is for notorious and/or unrepentant sinners abusing the feast (as the Corinthians were), not children.
We do not see very many writings from the early church on this topic.
Isn't that the same argument the baptists use for paedobaptism ? ? ?
Giving the children the sign of baptism without giving them the covenant meal is a contradiction. It was the main contradiction that kept me from being paedo for years. I think the baptists would agree with me that it is inconsistent.
Note Calvin on this very contradiction:
[quote:6a8768779c]
30. At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord"(tm)s Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. [b:6a8768779c]In the early Church, indeed, the Lord"(tm)s Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1); but the practice justly became obsolete.[/b:6a8768779c] For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God, whereas on the contrary the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord"(tm)s death, and understand its power. Can we wish anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, "œLet a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup?" (1Co_11:28). Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants. Again, "œHe that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord"(tm)s body." If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord"(tm)s body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our Lord"(tm)s injunction? "œDo this in remembrance of me." And what the inference which the apostle draws from this? "œAs often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord"(tm)s death till he come." How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them to "œshow forth the Lord"(tm)s death," of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. [b:6a8768779c]Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the Passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exo_12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?[/b:6a8768779c][/quote:6a8768779c]
Institutes Book IV, 30
Note that while using the typical argument at the end of the paragraph, he does not ever return to why the early church DID practice paedocommunion, nor why the church abandoned it.
He mentions merely that it "became obsolete".
I would like to hear from any of you why this happened.
I am not as learned as most, nor have I gone to seminary. If any of you have a reason please share.
[b:6a8768779c]This[/b:6a8768779c] is why I say the purden of proof is on the non-paedo communionist.
P.S. I love the phrase Calvin uses "least particle of soundess" . . .
I still believe 1 Cor. 11 is for notorious and/or unrepentant sinners abusing the feast (as the Corinthians were), not children.
We do not see very many writings from the early church on this topic.
Isn't that the same argument the baptists use for paedobaptism ? ? ?
Giving the children the sign of baptism without giving them the covenant meal is a contradiction. It was the main contradiction that kept me from being paedo for years. I think the baptists would agree with me that it is inconsistent.
Note Calvin on this very contradiction:
[quote:6a8768779c]
30. At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord"(tm)s Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. [b:6a8768779c]In the early Church, indeed, the Lord"(tm)s Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1); but the practice justly became obsolete.[/b:6a8768779c] For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God, whereas on the contrary the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord"(tm)s death, and understand its power. Can we wish anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, "œLet a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup?" (1Co_11:28). Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants. Again, "œHe that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord"(tm)s body." If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord"(tm)s body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our Lord"(tm)s injunction? "œDo this in remembrance of me." And what the inference which the apostle draws from this? "œAs often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord"(tm)s death till he come." How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them to "œshow forth the Lord"(tm)s death," of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. [b:6a8768779c]Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the Passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exo_12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?[/b:6a8768779c][/quote:6a8768779c]
Institutes Book IV, 30
Note that while using the typical argument at the end of the paragraph, he does not ever return to why the early church DID practice paedocommunion, nor why the church abandoned it.
He mentions merely that it "became obsolete".
I would like to hear from any of you why this happened.
I am not as learned as most, nor have I gone to seminary. If any of you have a reason please share.
[b:6a8768779c]This[/b:6a8768779c] is why I say the purden of proof is on the non-paedo communionist.
P.S. I love the phrase Calvin uses "least particle of soundess" . . .
[quote:d3f0eaf8e8="fredtgreco"][quote:d3f0eaf8e8="Goosha"]Wayne,
How am I supposed to respect a man who like Schwertley when he titles his article, "Paedocommunion: A biblical Examination," then for his first summary point against paedocommunion he writes, "Paedocommunion is a repudiation of the teachings of all the Protestant Reformers as well as all the Reformed symbols regarding the proper recipients of communion." Come on! Give me a break! I will read this guy's article a few times and get back with you but I have a hard time respecting people like him and Nigel Lee who feel they need to fill their paper with such anamosity.[/quote:d3f0eaf8e8]
Jayson,
The comment is completely accurate. Every book of discipline ever rpoduced by a Reformed church, as well as every Reformed Confession, is crystal clear on the issue of paedocommunion. This is not only true of the Reformed, it is the unanimous position of the Western Church.
What should he have said? "Well, even though every Western church confession, book of discipline and denomination have rejected paedocommunion, a feat of unanimity only seen in three other doctrines: the actual return of Christ, the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and even though it is a pernicious doctrine that confuses the need for personal confession of Christ as Lord, it really is no big deal?"[/quote:d3f0eaf8e8]
Fred,
Do you believe the issue of paedocommunion to be as important as the trinity, the return or Christ and the person of Christ? Your statement is nothing more than hot air! I think the issue is important but I wouldn't die over it! Oh yeah, it just goes to show what Schwertley's priorities and many people who follow him really are. They claim to argue biblically but the most important reason for rejecting paedocommunion is because goes against our confessions. At least Wayne debates cordially rather than blowing hot air!
How am I supposed to respect a man who like Schwertley when he titles his article, "Paedocommunion: A biblical Examination," then for his first summary point against paedocommunion he writes, "Paedocommunion is a repudiation of the teachings of all the Protestant Reformers as well as all the Reformed symbols regarding the proper recipients of communion." Come on! Give me a break! I will read this guy's article a few times and get back with you but I have a hard time respecting people like him and Nigel Lee who feel they need to fill their paper with such anamosity.[/quote:d3f0eaf8e8]
Jayson,
The comment is completely accurate. Every book of discipline ever rpoduced by a Reformed church, as well as every Reformed Confession, is crystal clear on the issue of paedocommunion. This is not only true of the Reformed, it is the unanimous position of the Western Church.
What should he have said? "Well, even though every Western church confession, book of discipline and denomination have rejected paedocommunion, a feat of unanimity only seen in three other doctrines: the actual return of Christ, the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and even though it is a pernicious doctrine that confuses the need for personal confession of Christ as Lord, it really is no big deal?"[/quote:d3f0eaf8e8]
Fred,
Do you believe the issue of paedocommunion to be as important as the trinity, the return or Christ and the person of Christ? Your statement is nothing more than hot air! I think the issue is important but I wouldn't die over it! Oh yeah, it just goes to show what Schwertley's priorities and many people who follow him really are. They claim to argue biblically but the most important reason for rejecting paedocommunion is because goes against our confessions. At least Wayne debates cordially rather than blowing hot air!
Hi Wayne,
I just finished Schwertley's article for the second time. I liked Beckwith's a little more because of his attitude but I think Schwertley was much more direct against my position so it was little more convincing. I also liked how much extra info was in the footnotes.
All the articles you guys have had me to read have been pretty benificial for me. I've enjoyed learning more about the Passover over the course of the last month or two. I have decided that since all non-paedo communion guys argue that the levitical passover has no justification for children participating that I am going to change my argument method.
I am willing to grant for the sake of argument that women and children didn't participate in the levitical passover (I personally don't believe this). I am going to suggest that if you take the position that many of the writers like Schwertley, Nigel Lee, Beckwith that these men basically only have the new testament for they're understanding of how the Lord's Supper relates to women and Children.
Otherwise, they would have to concede that we should wait until children are fully catechized and have reached the age of 12 or 13. However, I don't even think they could justify this either since the Levitical passover doesn't make any age specification; consequently, if I take your position on the passover then I would say that you have no justification for giving the Lord's Supper to children [b:f190a65278]at all [/b:f190a65278]and should wait until they are the age of 20.
Here is my challenge-
Tell me where you find scripture that gives you any principles on how the Lord's Supper relates to women and children.
Suppose you say that you believe that children who are catechized regardless of their age can partake of the Lord's Supper. Thats fine. Now you have abrogated the age distinctions in the Old Testament thus making your entire understanding of the Lord's Supper based on a few verses in Corinthians.
Suppose you were to argue that you think that children of the age thirteen and have been successfully catechized are to receive the Lord's Supper. Thats fine too. Now, you have will have trouble proving that. Your age choice would be arbitrary because the Levitical passover doesn't specify which age class a person must be to partake. And if you use Jewish sources, you would be committing an is/ought fallacy basing your practice of off how the Jews practiced it and not on any principles.
Suppose you ignore the egyptian or levitical passover principles completely. Thats fine. Now you have your understanding of the Lord's Supper based completely on the New Testament which brings me back to another inconsistency with how people interpret 1 Corinthians 11. Children aren't even mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 and yet you guys include them while Peter in Acts 2:38-39 explicitely include children and non-paedos exlude them from the command to "repent." I could just take the same method that you guys interpret 1 Corinthians 11 and say that Peter's command is to children who are capable of the mental requirements involved in repentance and argue the baptist position. I don't see any difference between the baptist [i:f190a65278]hermenuetic[/i:f190a65278] on Acts 2:38-39 than the non-paedo communionist's [i:f190a65278]hermenuetic[/i:f190a65278] in 1 Corinthians 11. I'm not arguing this by their similarity; I am pointing out the inconsistent standard for interpreting the Author's words. Of course you might say that we have a whole host of Jewish theology going into Peter's words. That's fine. Tell me what Jewish theology you bring into your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11. I'd be interested.
Thus, I don't see how any of the papers I have read salvage any principles on how we should see the Lord's Supper relating to children at all.
Just to repeat my challenge-
Here is my challenge-
Tell me where you find scripture that gives you any principles on how the Lord's Supper relates to women and children.
I just finished Schwertley's article for the second time. I liked Beckwith's a little more because of his attitude but I think Schwertley was much more direct against my position so it was little more convincing. I also liked how much extra info was in the footnotes.
All the articles you guys have had me to read have been pretty benificial for me. I've enjoyed learning more about the Passover over the course of the last month or two. I have decided that since all non-paedo communion guys argue that the levitical passover has no justification for children participating that I am going to change my argument method.
I am willing to grant for the sake of argument that women and children didn't participate in the levitical passover (I personally don't believe this). I am going to suggest that if you take the position that many of the writers like Schwertley, Nigel Lee, Beckwith that these men basically only have the new testament for they're understanding of how the Lord's Supper relates to women and Children.
Otherwise, they would have to concede that we should wait until children are fully catechized and have reached the age of 12 or 13. However, I don't even think they could justify this either since the Levitical passover doesn't make any age specification; consequently, if I take your position on the passover then I would say that you have no justification for giving the Lord's Supper to children [b:f190a65278]at all [/b:f190a65278]and should wait until they are the age of 20.
Here is my challenge-
Tell me where you find scripture that gives you any principles on how the Lord's Supper relates to women and children.
Suppose you say that you believe that children who are catechized regardless of their age can partake of the Lord's Supper. Thats fine. Now you have abrogated the age distinctions in the Old Testament thus making your entire understanding of the Lord's Supper based on a few verses in Corinthians.
Suppose you were to argue that you think that children of the age thirteen and have been successfully catechized are to receive the Lord's Supper. Thats fine too. Now, you have will have trouble proving that. Your age choice would be arbitrary because the Levitical passover doesn't specify which age class a person must be to partake. And if you use Jewish sources, you would be committing an is/ought fallacy basing your practice of off how the Jews practiced it and not on any principles.
Suppose you ignore the egyptian or levitical passover principles completely. Thats fine. Now you have your understanding of the Lord's Supper based completely on the New Testament which brings me back to another inconsistency with how people interpret 1 Corinthians 11. Children aren't even mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 and yet you guys include them while Peter in Acts 2:38-39 explicitely include children and non-paedos exlude them from the command to "repent." I could just take the same method that you guys interpret 1 Corinthians 11 and say that Peter's command is to children who are capable of the mental requirements involved in repentance and argue the baptist position. I don't see any difference between the baptist [i:f190a65278]hermenuetic[/i:f190a65278] on Acts 2:38-39 than the non-paedo communionist's [i:f190a65278]hermenuetic[/i:f190a65278] in 1 Corinthians 11. I'm not arguing this by their similarity; I am pointing out the inconsistent standard for interpreting the Author's words. Of course you might say that we have a whole host of Jewish theology going into Peter's words. That's fine. Tell me what Jewish theology you bring into your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11. I'd be interested.
Thus, I don't see how any of the papers I have read salvage any principles on how we should see the Lord's Supper relating to children at all.
Just to repeat my challenge-
Here is my challenge-
Tell me where you find scripture that gives you any principles on how the Lord's Supper relates to women and children.
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Try to chill out a bit, Jay. We need the discussion to remain fruitful.
- Status
