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 Peters
Is this one of the reasons why some Presbyterians do not have their children eat and drink from the Lord´s Table, namely, that their children my not be those for whom Christ shed His blood?
Originally posted by Saiph
Originally posted by Peters
Is this one of the reasons why some Presbyterians do not have their children eat and drink from the Lord´s Table, namely, that their children my not be those for whom Christ shed His blood?
No, because it seems that Judas partook of the Lord's supper.
Luke 22:14-39. The only way we can remove Judas from the Lord´s Supper is to remove verse 19-20 from the chorological order given here and place it at a later time: with Matthew 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25.
Which I do not think is viable.
Saiph,Originally posted by Saiph
Scott check your U2U message.
I think his question might be the difficult dilemma regarding why we paedos say baptized children are christians and disciples and members of the body of Christ, yet they are non-communicant members, and under discipline until they are examined by the elders, to prove by their good works of memorizing the catechism that they are worthy to partake of the Lord's supper.
He may; been a while since I read that. Be interesting to see if R brings it up again in his later work Divine Right of Church Government, and if he says anything different. The piece on Judas by G is from Aaron's Rod and both works were written while both were in London and in the same time period I think.Originally posted by Peter
Interesting. Chris, doesn't Rutherford, in answering a separatist, argue that Judas was at the supper and thus in favcor of the admixture of hypocrites with believers in the visible church.
2. But he forbids (says he), all partaking with the wicked in their evils. I distinguish their evils in their evils, of their personal sins in not worshipping the true God in faith, sincerity and holy zeal, that I deny, and it is to be proved, Christ himself and the Apostles ate the Passover, and worshipped God with one whom Christ had said had a devil, and should betray the Son of Man, and was an unclean man, (John 13:11, 12:18). He forbids all partaking with the wicked in their evils, that is, in the unlawful and idol worship, or in their superstitions and will-worship; that is true, but nothing against us, or for your separation.
Yep; but the link is a little funky.Originally posted by Peter
2. But he forbids (says he), all partaking with the wicked in their evils. I distinguish their evils in their evils, of their personal sins in not worshipping the true God in faith, sincerity and holy zeal, that I deny, and it is to be proved, Christ himself and the Apostles ate the Passover, and worshipped God with one whom Christ had said had a devil, and should betray the Son of Man, and was an unclean man, (John 13:11, 12:18). He forbids all partaking with the wicked in their evils, that is, in the unlawful and idol worship, or in their superstitions and will-worship; that is true, but nothing against us, or for your separation.
Which also has implications in this thread.
I believe the best way to look at it is that as Presbyterians, we believe that to partake of the Lord's Supper requires an active participation that would exclude most very young children. "Take and eat" requires the mouth of faith. The type of faith that remembers, proclaims and discerns.
1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Now Paedocommunionists use 2 Thessalonians 3:10 as an argument that this does not apply to infants. They quote, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." They say, "Paul was writing to the church, but he could not mean the infants. This does not apply to infants. They cannot work. It has nothing to do with them. This idea of working cannot be applied to infants, so infants can eat. They must be fed."
They take this clever idea and apply it to 1 Cor. 11. They say, "In the same way that an infant cannot work, he also cannot examine himself and so since he cannot work, and it does not apply to him there, so it cannot apply to him in 1 Cor. 11 because he cannot examine himself."
Here is a problem where I side with the credobaptist. Why is the "mouth of faith" not being manifested in an infant, unnecessary for baptism, yet regarding the Lord's supper it is ? Does not the following verse argue for the faith you say "remembers, proclaims, and discerns" by an appeal to God ?
Q. 95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.
Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.
I know you are a man who loves God and I want to tell you that I used to have a view of the Scriptures similar to your own and had a view of election that became kind of the overriding hermaneutic for every issue. I don't disagree that the issue is important but it is after all an issue we affirm and then leave to the Secret counsel of God's will. The WCF rightly states that it is an issue that needs to be handled with great care. If you are in pastoral training, you ought to consider how you will handle the issue with future congregants.
Think about how many things Paul tells us in his epistles concerning our status in Christ and how we ought to live in accord with that Truth. How many times does Paul command someone to do thus and so and then qualify it with a "...oh, and if you're elect you'll do that and if you're not then you won't...." It simply does not happen because there is a place to understand election for our comfort and then there is a place to instruct in how we love God and not get caught in needless speculation.
Nobody withholds any sacrament in the Church because a person might be reprobate. We would admit the sacraments to nobody if that was the fear. Paul does not appeal to election when he commands the Church regarding the right administration of the sacrament and neither should we.
I think his question might be the difficult dilemma regarding why we paedos say baptized children are christians and disciples and members of the body of Christ, yet they are non-communicant members, and under discipline until they are examined by the elders, to prove by their good works of memorizing the catechism that they are worthy to partake of the Lord's supper.
But in terms of the original question, no, its not just that they think their children are not saved, rather, it is because the Supper surrounds growth, not birth. In other words, baptism is "birth" and the Supper is "growth". The exception to "all" partaking is the qualifier for "growth" which is "self examination." Children cannot do that.
Marcos, I believe the best way to look at it is that as Presbyterians, we believe that to partake of the Lord's Supper requires an active participation that would exclude most very young children. "Take and eat" requires the mouth of faith. The type of faith that remembers, proclaims and discerns.
Yes, he uses election many times as a motivation to remind us of our status and call us to be true to that election. I didn't dispute that. What I said was that, where the Apostles remind us of our election it is appropriate to do so but where they do not bring election into the discussion, we ought to consider whether it is appropriate for us to do so.Think about how many things Paul tells us in his epistles concerning our status in Christ and how we ought to live in accord with that Truth. How many times does Paul command someone to do thus and so and then qualify it with a "...oh, and if you're elect you'll do that and if you're not then you won't...." It simply does not happen because there is a place to understand election for our comfort and then there is a place to instruct in how we love God and not get caught in needless speculation.
Brother, Paul uses our election as a motivation for our walk with Christ all over the place.
Because nowhere are we told to do so. When Paul commands Corinth to put somebody out of the Church, the purpose is to protect the Church but also to bring repentance. The person put out might be a true believer and, if so, will be "woken up" by his discipline. How long might a person be Prodigal? The Bible doesn't give us a rule. Assuming reprobation is NEVER our purview and is very dangerous. We treat people put out of the Church like pagans but not because we know they are reprobate. Only God knows that.Nobody withholds any sacrament in the Church because a person might be reprobate. We would admit the sacraments to nobody if that was the fear. Paul does not appeal to election when he commands the Church regarding the right administration of the sacrament and neither should we.
Why is it wrong to assume that someone may be reprobate if they can´t examine themselves before the table? Maybe I should have directed the question to Peadocommunionists.
In the issue of the Lord's Table, there is nowhere any warrant where the command to the Church is to be sure not to administer the sacrament to the reprobate members of the congregation.
Marcos,
I simply do not take Paul's command to "examine" as a universal rule for all eucharistic meals. The church at Corinth was involved in gross abuse of worship in many areas. He is giving them strict guidelines to get back on track. That is the context. If we start to see that kind of abuse, we apply those wise restrictions.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1Cr 10:17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
1Cr 10:18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
I simply do not take Paul's command to "examine" as a universal rule for all eucharistic meals. The church at Corinth was involved in gross abuse of worship in many areas. He is giving them strict guidelines to get back on track. That is the context. If we start to see that kind of abuse, we apply those wise restrictions.
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
Originally posted by AdamM
I simply do not take Paul's command to "examine" as a universal rule for all eucharistic meals. The church at Corinth was involved in gross abuse of worship in many areas. He is giving them strict guidelines to get back on track. That is the context. If we start to see that kind of abuse, we apply those wise restrictions.
Mark, I think by taking that position, you are excluding what appears to me to be the most likely option, which has Paul using the opportunity of the problems at Corinth to address not only the abuses there, but to lay out general guidelines for the celebration of the Lord´s Supper. In other words the choice isn´t an either - or, but instead a both - and.
I think the "œwhoever," "œanyone" and "œlet a man" language Paul uses
indicates that the instructions Paul gives have application beyond just the specific abuses at Corinth (while certainly not excluding them either.)
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.