Reprobate Covenant Children and the Lord’s Table

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Saiph
The supper is for all disciples of Jesus.

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

When I was studying this issue a few months back, this was one of the "clincher" passages for me. 1 Cor. 10:17 makes it clear that the body of Christ and the Lord's Table are coextensive.

Are believers' children part of the Lord's body? Yes.
Then should they partake of the one bread? Yes, according to this passage.


I wonder if there are any Presbyterian denominations that permit PC? I have considered looking for a Calvinistic Anglican church, but I'm not all that thrilled with their form of church government.





[Edited on 10-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Saiph
The supper is for all disciples of Jesus.

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

When I was studying this issue a few months back, this was one of the "clincher" passages for me. 1 Cor. 10:17 makes it clear that the body of Christ and the Lord's Table are coextensive.

Are believers' children part of the Lord's body? Yes.
Then should they partake of the one bread? Yes, according to this passage.


I wonder if there are any Presbyterian denominations that permit PC? I have considered looking for a Calvinistic Anglican church, but I'm not all that thrilled with their form of church government.





[Edited on 10-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]

Then Church discipline, faith and union with Christ mean nothing, which is why if you do find such a denomination, you will find that they have a warped view of assurance, justification and faith.

It is no surprise that virtually every FV advocate is a paedocommunionist, and virtually every branch of Christendom (save the EO, which have their own warped view of salvation) rejects paedocommunion.

 

[Saiph]

Then Church discipline, faith and union with Christ mean nothing, which is why if you do find such a denomination, you will find that they have a warped view of assurance, justification and faith.

Church discipline is very important to me. Could you explain this more ?

And FV tries to redefine the idea of "covenant", denies the "covenant of works" and borders on Pelagianism. I do not know why you insist on bringing that up. Is Rc Sproul Jr. into FV ? ? I doubt it.

Augustine was by no means Pelagian, and he evidently had no problem with Paedocommunion.

While preaching on 1 Timothy 1:15, against the Pelagians (Sermon 174,7), Augustine remarks:

"Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Savior. Jesus is the Savior. Those whom he doesn't save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn't Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I'm not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they're infants, but they are his members. They're infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they SHARE IN HIS TABLE, in order to have life in themselves."

Saint Augustine, The Works of Saint Augustine, trans. Edmund Hill, ed. John E. Rotelle, 11 vols. Part III-Sermons. (New Rochelle, New York: New City Press, 1992)

 

[Saiph]

I wonder if there are any Presbyterian denominations that permit PC? I have considered looking for a Calvinistic Anglican church, but I'm not all that thrilled with their form of church government.

There are no Presbyterian denominations that will allow this. And that is their prerogative. They need to stick to the WCF, and I support them in that. And, you are right, the Anglican churches I have visited are not Calvinistic at all. Which is worse than not being paedoeucharist.

I am considering going with a PCA (non-pc) church because the gospel is misrepresented in the Anglican and non-denominational churches I have visited.

(I will simply continue to drill the shorter catechism into my kids and have the Elders question them weekly until they can partake)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Saiph
I simply think that was a contextual instance where the Corinthians were totally out of line. When Jesus initiated it, there was no warning.

Mark,

Nor was there an explicit warning to not circumcise converts as the Pharasaical sect later did. We obviously understand that the Apostles shed some light on certain things that were not explicitly spelled out.

I won't re-state my main position but I would only critique your inference from 1 Corinthians. It is true that 1 Corinthians speaks of a multitude of ways in which the Supper was being mistreated - gluttony, drunkenness, and selfishness. In fact, it appears that when Paul is speaking of discerning the "Lord's Body" he is referring to the Church body in which we all form "parts" of that body. One of the reasons it is called Communion is that it is part of the mysterious communion of the Saints as we are one in Christ and part of one another.

Do Christians today that are suddenly in the paedocommunion camp really think that the Church never considered the context of 1 Corinthians until they discovered it? Just because a particular abuse is in mind does not mean that a parrallel lesson about the weightiness of the meal is in mind here. Both self-examination and a discernment of the mystical union are in mind here. This is simply not possible with an infant.

Originally posted by Peters
Ok, true self-examination is only possible for mature Christians. But you must infer that, right? The fact is, infants *can´t* remember that Christ has shed His blood for them, because He may not have. As I see it, the "œcovenant children" idea has dangerous implications on the Atonement.

Marcos,

I say this without malice but you really need to work on your polemics. A basic rule of polemics is that you must first understand and refute a doctrine as it is understood by your opponent. You repeatedly either ignore the arguments being presented, misrepresent them, or interpret them as you understand them and mis-state the position according to your model.

I don't need to "infer" from anything that infants cannot truly self-examine in the sense it appears plain that the text warrants. Both Scripture and plain reason teach us that children do not have such an ability.

Again, there is no "inconsistency" in the paedobaptist position. It is only inconsistent because you misrepresent it. We both agree that only discerning believers ought to receive the Sacrament. The fact that you don't believe children are believers does not make the opposing position inconsistent. If a child is a believer but unable to discern and a believer must be able to discern in order to be admitted to the table then it follows, with ruthless logic, that he ought not to be admitted. I do not buy into your other assumptions regarding the hidden counsel of God and the reason why you "think" we do not admit them.

Regarding your statement about "dangerous" implications for the Atonment. This is really the heart of the matter for you and this is why you asked the question to begin with. You're trying to show, through a series of questions about the "danger of a reprobate child being baptized in the camp and assumed a believer" that we're just running rough shod all over the nature of Christ's atonement. After all, since the New Covenant is a "perfect" covenant there is nobody baptized into the Covenant or that participates in the Sacraments unless they are Elect. That's right isn't it? Credo-baptists only baptize the Elect and they only admit the Elect to the Lord's table unlike paedo-baptists who admit and baptize the reprobate.

Problem is that credo-baptists baptize the reprobate and admit the reprobate to their Table. I've never understood their line of reasoning on this and admit I must be dense because I've never understood credo-baptist concerns regarding baptizing the potential reprobate as if they escape from the "danger".

The "dangerous" implications must not have occured to God who commanded the circumcision of all in Israel, including the reprobate. All the sacrifices and the sign and seal itself were types and shadows of Christ so God Himself was dangerously implying that a sacrament that was a type and shadow of Christ should be applied even to those that "might" be reprobate.

Of course, the whole "...he might be reprobate..." line of thinking is completely extra-biblical and nowhere are we commanded to think like that when it comes to our participation in the visible Church.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[Scott Bushey]

I say this without malice but you really need to work on your polemics. A basic rule of polemics is that you must first understand and refute a doctrine as it is understood by your opponent. You repeatedly either ignore the arguments being presented, misrepresent them, or interpret them as you understand them and mis-state the position according to your model.

 

[Saiph]

Rich,

Nor was there an explicit warning to not circumcise converts as the Pharasaical sect later did. We obviously understand that the Apostles shed some light on certain things that were not explicitly spelled out.

I won't re-state my main position but I would only critique your inference from 1 Corinthians. It is true that 1 Corinthians speaks of a multitude of ways in which the Supper was being mistreated - gluttony, drunkenness, and selfishness. In fact, it appears that when Paul is speaking of discerning the "Lord's Body" he is referring to the Church body in which we all form "parts" of that body. One of the reasons it is called Communion is that it is part of the mysterious communion of the Saints as we are one in Christ and part of one another.

Do Christians today that are suddenly in the paedocommunion camp really think that the Church never considered the context of 1 Corinthians until they discovered it? Just because a particular abuse is in mind does not mean that a parrallel lesson about the weightiness of the meal is in mind here. Both self-examination and a discernment of the mystical union are in mind here. This is simply not possible with an infant.

The non pc side has endured. It is the majority view as well. I would not argue that. Paul seemd to be warning them from the history of Israel, saying that history was an example. (10:1-12) Emphasis on verses 6 and 11.

I can see it both ways. Paul is clarifying that nothing has changed between the propriety in worship under the old covenant and the new covenant. (chapter 11,12). And he explains the agape factor of determining what is the proper way to discern the body in chapter 13.
Note, though, that he understands the immaturity of children in a very general way in 13:11. He is basically saying to the Corinthians, quit acting like selfish and self centered children.

So, should we infer from that idea that children should be barred from the communion of the Church, because they are unable to disern with maturity the mechanics of worship ? Maybe.

Or, do we realize that what they were doing was setting a horrible example to the children, and by that example teaching the children irreverent worship practices, and therefore "forbidding" (suffer the children) the children from coming to Christ, in a proper manner.

That is a minority interpretation. By holding up the idea of the manna and passover as the old covenant examples of the feast, we find justification for allowing our children to participate. But is it a deplorable hermeneutic ?

If I violate any hermeneutic principles in my interpretations, I would appreciate those of you who are more well educated in such things to outline it, step by step for me. I am trying to remain teachable in all things.


[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Saiph]

This is a request for the elders here.

Please post the list of questions you are supposed to ask when a father brings his children before the session to be approved to take communion.

I would like to know what knowledge they need to have in order to discern the body.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Saiph
Rich,

{quote]Nor was there an explicit warning to not circumcise converts as the Pharasaical sect later did. We obviously understand that the Apostles shed some light on certain things that were not explicitly spelled out.

I won't re-state my main position but I would only critique your inference from 1 Corinthians. It is true that 1 Corinthians speaks of a multitude of ways in which the Supper was being mistreated - gluttony, drunkenness, and selfishness. In fact, it appears that when Paul is speaking of discerning the "Lord's Body" he is referring to the Church body in which we all form "parts" of that body. One of the reasons it is called Communion is that it is part of the mysterious communion of the Saints as we are one in Christ and part of one another.

Do Christians today that are suddenly in the paedocommunion camp really think that the Church never considered the context of 1 Corinthians until they discovered it? Just because a particular abuse is in mind does not mean that a parrallel lesson about the weightiness of the meal is in mind here. Both self-examination and a discernment of the mystical union are in mind here. This is simply not possible with an infant.

The non pc side has endured. It is the majority view as well. I would not argue that. Paul seemd to be warning them from the history of Israel, saying these things were an example. (10:1-12) Emphasis on verses 6 and 11.

I , can see it both ways. Paul is clarifying that nothing has changed between the propriety in worship under the old covenant and the new covenant. (chapter 11,12). And he explains the agape factor of determining what is the proper way to discern the body in chapter 13.
Note, though, that he understands the immaturity of children in a very general way in 13:11. He is basically saying to the Corinthians, quit acting like selfish and self centered children.

So, should we infer from that idea that children should be barred from the communion of the Church, because they are unable to disern with maturity the mechanics of worship ? Maybe.

Or, do we realize that what they were doing was setting a horrible example to the children, and that by that example teaching the children irreverent worship practices, and therefore "forbidding" (suffer the children) the children from coming to Christ, in a proper manner.

That is a minority interpretation. By holding up the idea of manna and passover as the old covenant examples of the feast, we find justification for allowing our children to participate. But I hardly think it is a bad hermeneutic.

If I violate any hermeneutic principles in my interpretations, I would appreciate those of you who are more well educated in such things to outline it, step by step for me. I am trying to remain teachable in all things.
[/quote]
Mark,

Your questions are not unreasonable. I didn't mean to sound too strident against you with some of my challenges. I merely wanted to deal with the specific argument that, since 1 Corinthians is dealing with a specific abuse that it is contextually unreliable as an example for the issue in general. We seem to learn best from Paul when he is refuting error and having to re-explain things (i.e. Galatians).

I would agree that the issue of paedocommunion could be, arguably, unclear based solely on the hermaneutical evidence. I am satisfied that 1 Cor serves as a general warning against immaturity at the table of the Lord because of the history surrounding the doctrine. I am unconvinced that the evidence for the minority view is enough for me to overthrow the history of the issue and break fellowship with the denominations I find to be most orthodox in every other respect.

 

[Saiph]

Far enough Rich. What do you think of my post regarding the questions presented to the child for admittance to the table ?

How do the Elders know the child can discern ? What would those questions be ? My 7 and 5 year old confess their sins, and know that Christ died for them, and know it is by faith that God forgives us because of Christs sacrifice on the cross.

Is there anything else they need to know ?

 

[Scott Bushey]

BCO/RPCGA

Sec B/2

The following vows are to be required of each individual publicly before the congregation for a public profession of faith, baptism of an adult, or church membership:

1. Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inerrant Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
2. Do you confess that because of your sinfulness, you abhor and humble yourself before God, and that you trust for salvation, not in yourself, but in the Lord Jesus Christ alone?
3. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve Him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, to mortify the deeds of the flesh, and to lead a godly life?
4. Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or practice, to heed its discipline?


E. The following vows are to be required of the parents at the baptism of their child:

1. Do you acknowledge that although our children are conceived and born in sin and therefore are subject to condemnation, they are to be set apart unto the Lord and as children of believing parent(s), they ought to be baptized?
2. Do you promise to instruct your child in the principles of our holy religion as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and as summarized in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly;
3. Do you promise to pray with and for your child, to set an example of piety and godliness before him1her, and to endeavor by all the means of God´s appointment to bring him1her up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Saiph]

Wow, that is great Scott. Very concise. I thought it would be much longer and more rigorous. I especially like that it questions the father/parents as well.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Saiph
Far enough Rich. What do you think of my post regarding the questions presented to the child for admittance to the table ?

How do the Elders know the child can discern ? What would those questions be ? My 7 and 5 year old confess their sins, and know that Christ died for them, and know it is by faith that God forgives us because of Christs sacrifice on the cross.

Is there anything else they need to know ?

I think those questions are exactly the same in the OPC and PCA BCO's.

I would say that the answer to the question "How do the elders know..." is an issue of prudence. No firm answer. I've seen 7 year olds admitted by some Sessions.

 

[Peters]

Marcos,

I say this without malice but you really need to work on your polemics. A basic rule of polemics is that you must first understand and refute a doctrine as it is understood by your opponent. You repeatedly either ignore the arguments being presented, misrepresent them, or interpret them as you understand them and mis-state the position according to your model.

No, I am simply trying to workout some of the consequences of your doctrine along the way.

I don't need to "infer" from anything that infants cannot truly self-examine in the sense it appears plain that the text warrants. Both Scripture and plain reason teach us that children do not have such an ability.

How can you say that? Where does the Scripture teach that Christian children can´t examine themselves (and you still haven´t told me what that means yet) and therefore can´t eat from the Table? It doesn´t say anything like that in any passage on the Lord´s Supper. When you talk about reason, which is fine, you let the cat out of the bag. You do infer, you must infer, because the Scripture says no such thing.

Again, there is no "inconsistency" in the paedobaptist position. It is only inconsistent because you misrepresent it. We both agree that only discerning believers ought to receive the Sacrament.

Again, define "œdiscerning". What must we discern? Why is no mention of "œdiscerning" when the ordinance was introduced by the Lord Himself?

The fact that you don't believe children are believers does not make the opposing position inconsistent.

Do you mean to say "œcovenant children"? Children can be Christians by grace through faith alone.

If a child is a believer but unable to discern and a believer must be able to discern in order to be admitted to the table then it follows, with ruthless logic, that he ought not to be admitted.

Discern what? When the Supper was introduced why didn´t Jesus say anything about discerning?

I do not buy into your other assumptions regarding the hidden counsel of God and the reason why you "think" we do not admit them.

Ok.

Regarding your statement about "dangerous" implications for the Atonment. This is really the heart of the matter for you and this is why you asked the question to begin with.

No it wasn´t. It became a consequence that I wanted to explore with a question. This is probably why you accused me of not understanding the nature of debate.

You're trying to show, through a series of questions about the "danger of a reprobate child being baptized in the camp and assumed a believer" that we're just running rough shod all over the nature of Christ's atonement.

No, but I kind of do now.

After all, since the New Covenant is a "perfect" covenant there is nobody baptized into the Covenant or that participates in the Sacraments unless they are Elect. That's right isn't it?

I´m afraid not.

Credo-baptists only baptize the Elect and they only admit the Elect to the Lord's table unlike paedo-communionists who admit and baptize the reprobate.

I find this quite incredible after you have just made the *public point* (about me) about the importance of understanding the opponent´s position when engaging in debate.

Problem is that credo- baptists baptize the reprobate and admit the reprobate to their Table.

When this proves to be the case we take responsibility for it and are saddened.

I've never understood their line of reasoning on this and admit I must be dense because I've never understood credo-baptist concerns regarding baptizing the potential reprobate as if they escape from the "danger".

Then maybe you ought not to debate against the position until you do, brother.

The "dangerous" implications must not have occurred to God who commanded the circumcision of all in Israel, including the reprobate.

Sarcasm AND humor? We may end up friends after all!

All the sacrifices and the sign and seal itself were types and shadows of Christ so God Himself was dangerously implying that a sacrament that was a type and shadow of Christ should be applied even to those that "might" be reprobate.

We can start a baptism thread if you like.

Of course, the whole "...he might be reprobate..." line of thinking is completely extra-biblical and nowhere are we commanded to think like that when it comes to our participation in the visible Church.

Well, if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck"¦

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by Saiph
Far enough Rich. What do you think of my post regarding the questions presented to the child for admittance to the table ?

How do the Elders know the child can discern ? What would those questions be ? My 7 and 5 year old confess their sins, and know that Christ died for them, and know it is by faith that God forgives us because of Christs sacrifice on the cross.

Is there anything else they need to know ?

I think those questions are exactly the same in the OPC and PCA BCO's.

I would say that the answer to the question "How do the elders know..." is an issue of prudence. No firm answer. I've seen 7 year olds admitted by some Sessions.

Key word here " PRUDENCE"!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Marcos,
Again, was Judas an apostle? Was he a disciple? Was Demas an apostle? Was he a disciple? Did they perform miracles in Christs name? Did Demas, Ananias and Saphira take the supper? Did Abraham see both his children as covenant members?

You need to think outside of your box. Go back and think like Abraham. Go back in time and ask Peter, is Judas a disciple? A believer? The ultimate outcome of each of these is only known by God. Our estimations should not be any more strict than our forefathers were with their members.

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by Saiph
Far enough Rich. What do you think of my post regarding the questions presented to the child for admittance to the table ?

How do the Elders know the child can discern ? What would those questions be ? My 7 and 5 year old confess their sins, and know that Christ died for them, and know it is by faith that God forgives us because of Christs sacrifice on the cross.

Is there anything else they need to know ?

I think those questions are exactly the same in the OPC and PCA BCO's.

I would say that the answer to the question "How do the elders know..." is an issue of prudence. No firm answer. I've seen 7 year olds admitted by some Sessions.

Key word here " PRUDENCE"!

There is a world of difference between examining a child to see if he has a credible profession and allowing him to partake based on that evidence, and shoving the elements down the throat of an infant because some how his parentage makes him a full communing member of the Church.

If a credible profession is not required of an infant, it cannot be required of an adult, and hence "consistent" (to use the hobgoblin word of the paedocommunionists) discipline would mean that we never discipline someone for not having a credible profession or showing fruit.

 

[Saiph]

Fred, Scott,

As I said I am considering the PCA church in my area. Do the elders there need to question my 7 and 5 year old kids again, or can the membership from the PCA church in Boulder be transfered ? Just curious.

Even though I embrace paedoeucharist, we were members of the PCA church in Boulder for 4 years. We simply put our 2 and 3 year olds in the nursery (ecclesiastical daycare) to avoid the issue. But my 7 and 5 year olds were allowed to partake based on their profession. We want to keep all our kids in the worship service with us. But I do not know what to say to my 3 year old when he gives me a wierd look because he is excluded from the table.

This transition period is tough. It is difficult to find a reformed church with good teaching. We might try the CRC church near us next week. As much as I like the liturgy and PC at the Anglican church here, there are several other problems that sting my conscience.

(I have listeed to a few of your sermons online Fred, and find them very insightful and encouraging. I wish I could find similar here.)

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Saiph
Fred, Scott,

As I said I am considering the PCA church in my area. Do the elders there need to question my 7 and 5 year old kids again, or can the membership from the PCA church in Boulder be transfered ? Just curious.

Even though I embrace paedoeucharist, we were members of the PCA church in Boulder for 4 years. We simply put our 2 and 3 year olds in the nursery (ecclesiastical daycare) to avoid the issue. But my 7 and 5 year olds were allowed to partake based on their profession. We want to keep all our kids in the worship service with us. But I do not know what to say to my 3 year old when he gives me a wierd look because he is excluded from the table.

This transition period is tough. It is difficult to find a reformed church with good teaching. We might try the CRC church near us next week. As much as I like the liturgy and PC at the Anglican church here, there are several other problems that sting my conscience.

(I have listeed to a few of your sermons online Fred, and find them very insightful and encouraging. I wish I could find similar here.)

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Saiph]

Mark,
If they were communicated at the last PCA church for the table, I don't believe you would have to go through that again. I wouldn't be offended if the pastor wanted to sit with them and you again though. It is never a bad thing to hear your children confess Christ as Lord as well as finding comfort in the fact that your new pastor IS concerned about who sits.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Saiph
Fred, Scott,

As I said I am considering the PCA church in my area. Do the elders there need to question my 7 and 5 year old kids again, or can the membership from the PCA church in Boulder be transfered ? Just curious.

Even though I embrace paedoeucharist, we were members of the PCA church in Boulder for 4 years. We simply put our 2 and 3 year olds in the nursery (ecclesiastical daycare) to avoid the issue. But my 7 and 5 year olds were allowed to partake based on their profession. We want to keep all our kids in the worship service with us. But I do not know what to say to my 3 year old when he gives me a wierd look because he is excluded from the table.

This transition period is tough. It is difficult to find a reformed church with good teaching. We might try the CRC church near us next week. As much as I like the liturgy and PC at the Anglican church here, there are several other problems that sting my conscience.

(I have listeed to a few of your sermons online Fred, and find them very insightful and encouraging. I wish I could find similar here.)

Mark,

If your children are communioning members of the Boulder PCA church, I would say that their membership should be transferred per the BCO. Unless the Boulder PCA church were paedocommunionist (which I doubt), they should be considered in exactly the same category as a 12 year old who was made a member of a PCA church on profession.

It might be that the (new) church might balk at that, but that would be the church acting uncustomarily, not you.

I hope that helps.

Thanks for the kind words - I'm sorry that I may not be as insightful on the Board, but time management and priorities don't allow it.

If you are able, I would appreciate any specific comments you might have on what was helpful, what was confusing, illustrations that helped illumine the text/or didn't, etc. You can send them to me by email.

I'm much more concerned with cultivating my gifts than resting in them.

 

[Peters]

Marcos,

Again, was Judas an apostle? Was he a disciple? Was Demas an apostle? Was he a disciple?

How a person answers that question depends on where they stand in the unfolding of redemptive history. I´m sure Judas was considered a disciple at some point, but that doesn´t mean he was one in the truest sense. He certainly wasn´t a disciple the way Paul was a disciple. It seems as though you want me to answer these questions as though our understanding now is the same as then. It is not. I think the apostles understood things far more clearly after the resurrection and Pentecost.

Did they perform miracles in Christ´s name? Did Demas, Ananias and Saphira take the supper? Did Abraham see both his children as covenant members?

I don´t know what you think this proves. Again, with respect to our understanding of the unfolding purposes of God, now is not the same as then. Let me ask you, do you think that the miracles performed in the first century may be performed today? (I´ll assume you´ll answer no) Why not?

You need to think outside of your box. Go back and think like Abraham. Go back in time and ask Peter, is Judas a disciple? A believer?

I don´t need to ask them, we have a bigger picture. I do not have to think or observe the ordinances according to a lesser light when we have a brighter one. It sounds like you´re saying, "œbecause Abraham saw things this way, therefore, so must we." I don´t buy that.

The ultimate outcome of each of these is only known by God. Our estimations should not be any more strict than our forefathers were with their members.

I respectfully disagree. Regarding the redemptive purposes of God revealed in Christ, to live post fulfillment is not the same as living pre-fulfillment.

[Edited on 10-31-2005 by Peters]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Was the Gospel preached to Abraham, and is he the father of our faith?

Its interesting to me that Paul, "understanding" these things as the ultimate expositor of the Scriptures (besides Jesus who ONLY quoted the OT), did NOT use Peter, or James, or John as "models" but Abraham, and the patriarchal fathers. Did Abraham have a less true Gospel preached to him than I? In my humble opinion, I think not. As a matter of fact, if I really want to understand MY faith, I need, according to Paul, to understand Abraham.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by webmaster]

 

[Steve Owen]

As a matter of fact, if I really want to understand MY faith, I need, according to Paul, to understand Abraham.

You certainly do.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[Peters]

Was the Gospel preached to Abraham, and is he the father of our faith?

Yes, the Gospel was preached to Abraham. I think the Scriptures speak of him as the father of the faithful, not of the faith. Is that correct? Abraham is the father of those who have faith in Christ. Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith.

Its interesting to me that Paul, "understanding" these things as the ultimate expositor of the Scriptures (besides Jesus who ONLY quoted the OT), did NOT use Peter, or James, or John as "models" but Abraham, and the patriarchal fathers.

If Paul was with us today do you think He would use all of the Scriptures? Did Paul´s divine exposition bring greater clarity to what was already in the O.T?

Did Abraham have a less true Gospel preached to him than I? In my humble opinion, I think not.

Who is arguing that? This has nothing to do with the *truth* of the Gospel, but how clearly the individuals who received it understood it. Do you really think that Abraham understood the Gospel the way we do?

As a matter of fact, if I really want to understand MY faith, I need, according to Paul, to understand Abraham.

Yes, Abraham is a category for understanding faith, but you need Paul to explain that to you. Paul is the one who works it out for us. You have made my point, brother.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Peters

Marcos,

I say this without malice but you really need to work on your polemics. A basic rule of polemics is that you must first understand and refute a doctrine as it is understood by your opponent. You repeatedly either ignore the arguments being presented, misrepresent them, or interpret them as you understand them and mis-state the position according to your model.

No, I am simply trying to workout some of the consequences of your doctrine along the way.

Yes, but in the process you keep ignoring what we're saying and mis-characterize our position.

I don't need to "infer" from anything that infants cannot truly self-examine in the sense it appears plain that the text warrants. Both Scripture and plain reason teach us that children do not have such an ability.

How can you say that? Where does the Scripture teach that Christian children can´t examine themselves (and you still haven´t told me what that means yet) and therefore can´t eat from the Table? It doesn´t say anything like that in any passage on the Lord´s Supper. When you talk about reason, which is fine, you let the cat out of the bag. You do infer, you must infer, because the Scripture says no such thing.

1. I have stated what I believe self-examination is but I assume you are reading more than my replies to you.

2. The Scriptures are replete with statements that tell us about children, the folly of youth, and our need to instruct them in the things of God. Besides that, even if I can't find a proof text that my 19 month old girl is incapable of the spiritual discernment and self-examination I believe the Scriptures require, it is self-evident. I pray your theology is not such that you need to find a prooftext that infants are immature.

Again, there is no "inconsistency" in the paedobaptist position. It is only inconsistent because you misrepresent it. We both agree that only discerning believers ought to receive the Sacrament.

Again, define "œdiscerning". What must we discern? Why is no mention of "œdiscerning" when the ordinance was introduced by the Lord Himself?

I assume you read more than the red letters in your Bible since Christ said nothing about Jacob and Esau with respect to the design of election (that's recorded in the Gospels) and you seem perfectly willing to accept Apostolic teaching on that as do I. I didn't think I would have to develop that more.

I don't know why Christ chose not to say a lot of things He left to His apostles to explain. Maybe He did and it wasn't recorded. I'm not given to speculation about such things.

As a general principle, however, here is something Christ did say about approaching a sacrament:
(Mat 5:23-24) So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

The fact that you don't believe children are believers does not make the opposing position inconsistent.

Do you mean to say "œcovenant children"? Children can be Christians by grace through faith alone.

Yes I meant Christian children or covenant children if you like. I do not consider the children of pagans to be believers.

If a child is a believer but unable to discern and a believer must be able to discern in order to be admitted to the table then it follows, with ruthless logic, that he ought not to be admitted.

Discern what? When the Supper was introduced why didn´t Jesus say anything about discerning?

He also didn't warn them about getting drunk either.

I do not buy into your other assumptions regarding the hidden counsel of God and the reason why you "think" we do not admit them.

Ok.

Why you! I ought to! Oh, OK. Well then.

Regarding your statement about "dangerous" implications for the Atonment. This is really the heart of the matter for you and this is why you asked the question to begin with.

No it wasn´t. It became a consequence that I wanted to explore with a question. This is probably why you accused me of not understanding the nature of debate.

I think the substance of the issue always distills the same way whether you really think it does or not. The whole "reprobate Covenant children" line of thinking is, at its heart, a way you see the New Covenant and who you baptize.

After all, since the New Covenant is a "perfect" covenant there is nobody baptized into the Covenant or that participates in the Sacraments unless they are Elect. That's right isn't it?

I´m afraid not.

I quite agree. That's an example of polemics. I'm heartened to hear that you disagree with the sentiment because the main line of argumentation by many Reformed Baptists is that, because the New Covenant is perfect and cannot fail that the Covenant includes only the elect. Ergo, when we Presbyterians talk about the New Covenant in a way that includes a mixture of sheep and goats (oh and children of believers too) they cry foul.

Credo-baptists only baptize the Elect and they only admit the Elect to the Lord's table unlike paedo-communionists who admit and baptize the reprobate.

I find this quite incredible after you have just made the *public point* (about me) about the importance of understanding the opponent´s position when engaging in debate.

Polemics again.

Problem is that credo- baptists baptize the reprobate and admit the reprobate to their Table.

When this proves to be the case we take responsibility for it and are saddened.

Yes, and we shun that responsibility and are overjoyed.

My point is that both "camps" have the problem of mixture in the Church and Covenant. The Baptists delay formal entry but the consequences and "dangers" are the same. Christ told us their would be a mixture. We aren't cavalier about letting the pagans in but it happens in spite of our best efforts to determine credible profession.

I also assume that when you say your Church takes responsibility for it and is saddened that you mean at the Last Judgment because then, and only then, will you know who the reprobate are. Until then, you operate within the context of visible covenant.

I've never understood their line of reasoning on this and admit I must be dense because I've never understood credo-baptist concerns regarding baptizing the potential reprobate as if they escape from the "danger".

Then maybe you ought not to debate against the position until you do, brother.

Or, maybe, I can keep engaging in debate to help them understand where our presuppositions collide. I don't "understand" your position because I believe your starting point about the nature of the New Covenant (and children's place in it Acts 2:39) is not a Biblical presupposition however much else we agree on.

The "dangerous" implications must not have occurred to God who commanded the circumcision of all in Israel, including the reprobate.

Sarcasm AND humor? We may end up friends after all!

I hope so. I consider you a brother in Christ and extend the right hand of fellowship to you.

I also believe in rigorous debate and assumed you had the fortitude to withstand withering reductio ad absurdum criticism of your position.

All the sacrifices and the sign and seal itself were types and shadows of Christ so God Himself was dangerously implying that a sacrament that was a type and shadow of Christ should be applied even to those that "might" be reprobate.

We can start a baptism thread if you like.

I thought you already started one here?

Of course, the whole "...he might be reprobate..." line of thinking is completely extra-biblical and nowhere are we commanded to think like that when it comes to our participation in the visible Church.

Well, if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck"¦

I'm uncertain which Apostolic duck you are referring to. My point is that, as an example, the author of Hebrews can write an entire lengthy letter warning the visible Church not to fall away and all the while not using "...and you reprobate surely will..." language. It's just not biblical or pastoral thinking when you're dealing with discipline and participation in the visible Church.

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[Peters]

Well, brother, i certainly hear you loud and clear.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Our Session requires that non-members meet with the Session to give a profession of faith/testimony before they can partake of communion. It isn't a presbytery exam or anything, just a simple profession of faith and being able to tell brothers in Christ how God has been gracious to you in your life.