some thoughts on paedocommunion?

[jwright82]

first i hope this is the right forum for this, but here we go.

i am pretty much a convinced paedocommunionist, by that i mean that young children not infants of believers should be allowed to recieve the Lord's Supper. i am aware of the arguments for and against this idea but one argument for it came to me today and i thought i would present it here and see what ya'll thought. i welcome any and all advice and criticism.

1. we know, at least to my knowledge, that young children participated in the passover meals in the old testament. i believe they participated in all the sacrificial meals.

2. it is safe to assume that in the days of Jesus and the early church this was still the practice of the jewish people.

3. we know that there were clashs against the gospel by the judeiazers over ceremonial and cultural laws and norms. Paul corrected those errors.

4. no where in the new testament is paedocommunion explicitly denied. it is infered from 1 Corinthians 11: 26-29.

5. it seems to me that the new jewish converts would at least have tried to admit their children to the table, being used to this, and this probally would have had to have been dealt with explicitly by the Apostles.

6. yet no direct mention of this is given anywhere, to my knowledge, in the new testament.

i know i am making a lot of assumptions but i guess you could sum up my argument as an argument from omission. so tell me what you think.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Here's the first of a 10-part series on paedocommunion

Children at the Lord’s Table? (1) Heidelblog

Each post is linked to the next

 

[fredtgreco]

first i hope this is the right forum for this, but here we go.

i am pretty much a convinced paedocommunionist, by that i mean that young children not infants of believers should be allowed to recieve the Lord's Supper. i am aware of the arguments for and against this idea but one argument for it came to me today and i thought i would present it here and see what ya'll thought. i welcome any and all advice and criticism.

1. we know, at least to my knowledge, that young children participated in the passover meals in the old testament. i believe they participated in all the sacrificial meals.

Actually we don't. That assumption is only made by paedocommunionists, who need it to force a position. Classical reformed understanding of the Passover is that at most men and women (and likely not even women) ate the Passover.

2. it is safe to assume that in the days of Jesus and the early church this was still the practice of the jewish people.

We all know where assumptions take us...

3. we know that there were clashs against the gospel by the judeiazers over ceremonial and cultural laws and norms. Paul corrected those errors.

4. no where in the new testament is paedocommunion explicitly denied. it is infered from 1 Corinthians 11: 26-29.

No where does the NT deny hula hoops either, but we don't use them in worship. This kind of paedocommunionist argument is completely contrary to the RPW. It is not inferred from 1 Cor. 11:29, in fact the opposite. Until very recently, the entire western Church has interpreted 1 Cor. 11:29 to prohibit paedocommunion. Even the Roman Catholics.

5. it seems to me that the new jewish converts would at least have tried to admit their children to the table, being used to this, and this probally would have had to have been dealt with explicitly by the Apostles.

6. yet no direct mention of this is given anywhere, to my knowledge, in the new testament.

i know i am making a lot of assumptions but i guess you could sum up my argument as an argument from omission. so tell me what you think.

Again a huge leap. Paedocommunion is anti-Confessional, unBiblical, divisive, and harmful to the gospel.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderator reminder: while we allow honest questions on the Puritan Board, we do not allow advocacy of unconfessional views. This thread needs to stay within that parameter.

 

[KMK]

Rev Keister points out all of the confessional exceptions that must be taken for paedocommunion thus demonstrating that RBs have more in common with the Reformed Presbyterian than the paedocommunionist. http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/exceptions-required-taken-paedo-communion-49648/#post636855

It kind of makes me wonder why Sproul is considered a Presbyterian at all.

 

[Michael]

You've certainly come to the right place James! There is a treasury of information on this subject available through the members of the board here. Happy reading...

 

[Curt]

first i hope this is the right forum for this, but here we go.

i am pretty much a convinced paedocommunionist, by that i mean that young children not infants of believers should be allowed to recieve the Lord's Supper. i am aware of the arguments for and against this idea but one argument for it came to me today and i thought i would present it here and see what ya'll thought. i welcome any and all advice and criticism.

1. we know, at least to my knowledge, that young children participated in the passover meals in the old testament. i believe they participated in all the sacrificial meals.

Actually we don't. That assumption is only made by paedocommunionists, who need it to force a position. Classical reformed understanding of the Passover is that at most men and women (and likely not even women) ate the Passover.

2. it is safe to assume that in the days of Jesus and the early church this was still the practice of the jewish people.

We all know where assumptions take us...

3. we know that there were clashs against the gospel by the judeiazers over ceremonial and cultural laws and norms. Paul corrected those errors.

4. no where in the new testament is paedocommunion explicitly denied. it is infered from 1 Corinthians 11: 26-29.

No where does the NT deny hula hoops either, but we don't use them in worship. This kind of paedocommunionist argument is completely contrary to the RPW. It is not inferred from 1 Cor. 11:29, in fact the opposite. Until very recently, the entire western Church has interpreted 1 Cor. 11:29 to prohibit paedocommunion. Even the Roman Catholics.

5. it seems to me that the new jewish converts would at least have tried to admit their children to the table, being used to this, and this probally would have had to have been dealt with explicitly by the Apostles.

6. yet no direct mention of this is given anywhere, to my knowledge, in the new testament.

i know i am making a lot of assumptions but i guess you could sum up my argument as an argument from omission. so tell me what you think.

Again a huge leap. Paedocommunion is anti-Confessional, unBiblical, divisive, and harmful to the gospel.

Fred, What do you really think?

 

[A.J.]

1. we know, at least to my knowledge, that young children participated in the passover meals in the old testament. i believe they participated in all the sacrificial meals.

....

As Rev. Greco has pointed out, this begs the question. Please see What Mean Ye? by Rev. Richard Bacon for a fuller Reformed rebuttal of this paedocommunist claim.

---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------

Rev Keister points out all of the confessional exceptions that must be taken for paedocommunion thus demonstrating that RBs have more in common with the Reformed Presbyterian than the paedocommunionist. http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/exceptions-required-taken-paedo-communion-49648/#post636855

It kind of makes me wonder why Sproul is considered a Presbyterian at all.

Mr. Klein, I think you are referring to Sproul, Jr., right?

 

[MW]

1. we know, at least to my knowledge, that young children participated in the passover meals in the old testament. i believe they participated in all the sacrificial meals.

The heart of the paedocommunionist argument lies in this assumption but it is unfounded. What we know is what Scripture tells us. Scripture tells us (1.) that the passover was more than a meal, incliuding within it a sacrifice. The Lord's supper is not merely a fellowship meal, but includes within it the commemoration of a sacrifice. That being the case, the Lord's supper is not the New Testament equivalent of the passover meal but of the passover sacrificial meal. The argument from covenant inclusion can therefore only apply to those who were fit to offer sacrifices, which excludes children. (2.) There is no indication that children partook of the passover meal. The paedocommunionist argues that they must have participated in the meal otherwise they would have had nothing to eat. This is simply false. Those who were forbidden thorough uncleanness to participate in the meal obviously found something to eat, and the fact that the passover was commemorated in conjunction with unleavened bread meant that there was plenty of provision otherwise. (3.) There are indications that children did not in fact participate in the meal. They were to ask, What mean ye by this service? a question which normally excludes the questioner from the activity.

If one is concerned with what Scripture actually teaches on this subject, and not merely in assumptions which are custom-made to accommodate the paedocommunion argument, it will be seen that there is no basis from the Passover for alleging that children ought to be included in the celebration of the Lord's supper.

 

[KMK]

[/COLOR]

Rev Keister points out all of the confessional exceptions that must be taken for paedocommunion thus demonstrating that RBs have more in common with the Reformed Presbyterian than the paedocommunionist. http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/exceptions-required-taken-paedo-communion-49648/#post636855

It kind of makes me wonder why Sproul is considered a Presbyterian at all.

Mr. Klein, I think you are referring to Sproul, Jr., right?

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Peairtach]

1. we know, at least to my knowledge, that young children participated in the passover meals in the old testament. i believe they participated in all the sacrificial meals.

2. it is safe to assume that in the days of Jesus and the early church this was still the practice of the jewish people.

To continue the Scripturally-warranted PB piranha-like feeding frenzy against paedocommunion:

The above assumptions are unwarranted:-

(a) The Passover food was unsuitable for babies and young children being roast lamb, bitter herbs (one could imagine a toddler or baby's reaction to having bitter herbs stuffed in its mouth!), unleavened bread, which in modern Judaism consists of crackers (matza) which could be unpleasant if a pointy piece got stuck in the throat of a toddler, and wine was also added.

(b) Respecting the commemmoration of the Passover (Pesach), which must, importantly, be distinguished from the Passover itself, we are told that along with two other celebrations all adult males were required to attend once a year:

Three times in the year you shall keep a feast to me. You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt. None shall appear before me empty-handed. You shall keep the Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field. You shall keep the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor. Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God . (Ex 23:14-17, ESV)

The Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover, were linked of course. The period of eating no leaven extended from the commemorative Passover Feast for a whole week, so in the above text the Pesach is included in "the Feast of Unleavened Bread". Pentecost (Harvest) and Booths (Tabernacles/ Ingathering/Succoth) were the other two feasts. Women and girls, and boys under 12 or 13, weren't required to attend.

Was Jesus attending His first Passover when He and His family visited Jerusalem, in Luke?

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, (Luke 2:41-43, ESV)

(c) In line with this, there is no hint in the Gospels of Jesus' family or the families of the disciples being in the Upper Room when the Passover was held and the Lord's Supper instituted. Nor would the females and children have been able to attend the ceremonial slaying of the Passover Lamb and the sprinkling of its blood on the sides of the altar at the Temple.

(d) There is no hint that women, girls or young boys were being excluded from the Covenant or Covenant People because they were not required to participate in the Passover.

Once a male reached a certain age and did not partake of the Passover he was, in a sense, excluding himself from the Covenant, or certain aspects of it which outwardly indicated his continued membership of it.

But if anyone who is clean and is not on a journey fails to keep the Passover, that person shall be cut off from his people because he did not bring the Lord 's offering at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin. (Numbers 9:13, ESV)

I don't know the full implications of these things for the Lord's Supper. They don't imply paedocommunion. But it is sinful for someone who is a believer not to become a communicant member once he/she has reached an appropriate age of understanding, since it is our Lord's command.

It may also be sinful for a communicant member not to partake of the Lord's Supper when it is celebrated in his/her congregation without good reason.

 

[Peairtach]

Looking also at the original Passover in Exodus 12, tying in with what Rev. Winzer says above, there is no indication that Moses said that everyone, including the children, in each house had to eat of the roast lamb, bitter herbs and unleavened bread to be in safety or to keep the Passover.

What is emphasised is that the blood had to be on the door posts and lintel and that everyone should stay indoors.

"Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. None of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning.

"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 will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you." (Exodus 12:22-23, ESV)

 

[jwright82]

i appreciate everyones comments and criticisms. since i don't want to violate the rules of this site i have declined from commenting, the line between honest question and advocacy seems razor thin to me and i respect and enjoy this website and all the people on it. it was my mistake in not fully reading the rules before posting this so my apologies to the moderators for that.

 

[Wayne]

James:

Please don't just slough off those answers and replies.

If you would take up a book to read thoughtfully, some might suggest Cornelius Venema's recent Children at the Lord's Table

 

[greenbaggins]

James:

Please don't just slough off those answers and replies.

If you would take up a book to read thoughtfully, some might suggest Cornelius Venema's recent Children at the Lord's Table

In my view, Venema's book is simply the best out there. For fair treatment of the paedo position, and thoroughly biblical and careful argumentation on the relevant passages, there's simply nothing out there to compare with it.

 

[jwright82]

James:

Please don't just slough off those answers and replies.

If you would take up a book to read thoughtfully, some might suggest Cornelius Venema's recent Children at the Lord's Table

i apologize if it appears that i am going to "slough off" the replies but i don't want to break the rules. so i tell you what i will pose some questions related to the replies and give some comment. i also would like to thank everyone for their book recomendations and links they have/will be helpful in the future. if i step over the line than the moderators can correct me, as i said i don't want to break the rules. now i must say that i am much more interested in the validity and analysis of these arguments over advocating anything.

one assumption that many people stated i was inccorect in was assuming that children participated in the passover meals in the OT. now as i have said in other posts my real strength in life is philosophy so i realize and admit that i am discussing this with people who are more theologically adept than i am. that being said to assume that children did not participate in the passover meals holds, in my opinion, the same logical weight as my own assumption and therefore are just as flimsy of an assumpton. now the last thing i want to do is offend anyone here but i am unconvinced that this assumption made by nonpaedocommunists is any stronger than the assumption i made. i will elaborate.

1. to state that we have no direct reason to assume my assumption on the grounds of practicality (bitterness of herbs etc.) is irrellavent to the discussion because we don't know what they actually did we are guessing and attempting to make assumptions on evidence. my daughter doesn't like some foods and would probally acuse me shoving them down her throat but never the less she eats them. actuality, not practicality, matters.
2. comments that are made that seem derogatory to this point of view( unbiclical, devisive, etc..) are almost impossible to prove, and they get us nowhere. if they were to be challenged like that paedocommunonists being devisive for instance, i could ask for proof of this and would probally recieve nothing short of a list of individual paedocommunonists who were "devisive", whatever that means, and this argument would be a formal fallacy of inference, no amount of individual occerences can prove a general statement about a group. so lets try to keep this civil and christian.
3. i find it odd that i have been acused of appealing to custom-made assumptions when going to the text over and against going to the scripture to see what it actually teaches, when we must appeal to custom made assumptions when interpreting verses like 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, lest we become radical fundamentalists and demand that the women in the church wear hats!
4. i like the exigetical arguments made the most. don't get me wrong i have been fully persuaded that my argument holds no logical force, and that is all i really wanted so thanks to everyone for helping me out with that. but that said i do have two sets of exigetical and theological questions to ask and give up for discussion:

A. Exodus 23: 14-17 offers the strongest case against my assumption, besides Luke 2:41-43, so i will point out what i see as a problem in the prevaling interpretation of it. in the first 3 verses the pronoun "you" seems to imply everyone listening (men, women, children) but in verse 17 the you changes not to imply that men only were to partake of this meal but that men only were to preform the special act of "appering before the Lord God", and the you in this verse applys to everyone else, now appearing before God doesn't imply being the only one too partake of the meal it proves only that men preformed this act.

a. the text in Luke doesn't say Jesus didn't go with his parents every year, would they have left an infant home alone, only that this specific time Jesus definantly went up with them for a special reason, verse 42. if one were to argue that the infant Jesus was left with friends or something they would infact be making the same kinds of assumptions i was!

2. it has always seemed odd to me that when a paedocommunionist argues for their position on implications, that they feel are present in the text, from the OT they are told in essence "no we have no reason to assume that", but when the same critics argue for infant baptism they apply the same implicit logic to argue for their case in the NT. also the only argument i know of for claiming a qualitative distinction between the two NT sacraments is that baptism is done once and the Lord's Supper regularly, this of course is an invalid argument because you cannot move from a quantitative distinction only to a qualitative distinction. just because one sacrament is done more doesn't logically imply, by itself, that there is a differance in kind.

well i know that is a lot and i hope i covered everything, also i hope i did not offend anyone as well. i meant this discussion in full christian love and respect and i hope that i maintain that. God bless all of you and kepp the wonderful and insightful comments/criticisms/books coming i look foward to them. if the moderators warn this thread again, for me stepping over the line of course, don't expect anymore replies by me because i want to respect the rules of this website first and foremost. i mean that.

 

[au5t1n]

James,

FYI a number of us believe in head coverings, so you might want to go easy on the "radical fundamentalist" talk!

 

[jwright82]

James,

FYI a number of us believe in head coverings, so you might want to go easy on the "radical fundamentalist" talk!

my apologieze i didn't mean to offend. what i was refering too, i obivously disagree with head coverings, is a methodological problem i see with fundamentalism. so i do apologize for that. my concern is what appears to be a modern rubric of interpritation that is imposed on the text, i mean how we understand things now versus how they understood things then . like machen if i had to choose between fundamentalism or liberalism i would choose the former everytime. i just have some reservations on a methodological level. my argument was that if we understand this text to have a custom based understanding than it seems to conflict with the criticism in question. you take it in more of a literal way, a kind of normative text for women in church. i'm not talking about ya'll but anyone who agrees with me on the text, in my opinion, must explain the difference between this here and paedocommunion being wrong.
to say that such a point of view is radical was a bad choice of words on my part and unecassary to my argument so i apologize.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderator request. James, please do everyone a favor and submit posts that follow conventional rules of English. Please don't type all in lower case.

 

[au5t1n]

No need to apologize, I knew you didn't know there were non-fundie pro-coverers here. You cracked me up with that "radical fundamentalist" statement (hence the laughing smiley).

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from jwright82

2. it has always seemed odd to me that when a paedocommunionist argues for their position on implications, that they feel are present in the text, from the OT they are told in essence "no we have no reason to assume that", but when the same critics argue for infant baptism they apply the same implicit logic to argue for their case in the NT. also the only argument i know of for claiming a qualitative distinction between the two NT sacraments is that baptism is done once and the Lord's Supper regularly, this of course is an invalid argument because you cannot move from a quantitative distinction only to a qualitative distinction. just because one sacrament is done more doesn't logically imply, by itself, that there is a differance in kind.

Well we know from the Bible that baby boys were circumcised, whereas we don't know that any baby boys or girls ate roast lamb, bitter herbs, unleavened bread and wine once a year. This is just the first of a number of material differences between the comparison of baptism with circumcision, and the Lord's Supper with the Pesach that must be considered.

We also don't know that every or any female and little boy had to take the Passover in order to be considered to be continuing in the Covenant in an outward, visible and legal way. Whereas if a child isn't baptised, it is in the Covenant by birth, but is it visibly in the Covenant in any sense? (Genesis 17)

There a number of other significant differences, which mean that paedobaptists who don't accept paedocommunion (including the Westminster divines) aren't talking out of both sides of their exegetical mouth at once.

 

[jwright82]

Well we don't know if any little boys or girls didn't take the food, it is assumed. this only gets to my last post were i stated that to assume something about the original group of people is logically the same on both sides.

 

[au5t1n]

Well we don't know if any little boys or girls didn't take the food, it is assumed. this only gets to my last post were i stated that to assume something about the original group of people is logically the same on both sides.

On that point, what did you think about armourbearer's point that the children were to ask their parents, "What mean ye by this service?" ([KJV]Ex. 12:26[/KJV])

 

[jwright82]

Well that is a good point. I think it only raises the question of mentally handicaped people. Could any mentally handicapped person qualify to partake of any OT or NT rites on the basis of understanding what is going on. The problem in my opinion is we Calvinists reject an Armenian understanding of salvation only to accept an Armenian undrstanding of the Sacraments. Either God is active and soverighn or we contribute to his grace in some way!

 

[au5t1n]

Well that is a good point. I think it only raises the question of mentally handicaped people. Could any mentally handicapped person qualify to partake of any OT or NT rites on the basis of understanding what is going on. The problem in my opinion is we Calvinists reject an Armenian understanding of salvation only to accept an Armenian undrstanding of the Sacraments. Either God is active and soverighn or we contribute to his grace in some way!

I'm not sure you understood the point of quoting the passage. It's not that the children needed to understand, but that they asked the parents why "ye," meaning their parents, observed the passover. If they partook, we would expect them to ask, "Why do we observe the passover?" instead of "What mean ye by this service?"

 

[jwright82]

I can see your point but you are still making an assumption as to what was going on in OT times when this was written. Asking a question implies nothing more than asking a question. This brings us back to where i was a couple of posts ago, making the same sort of assumptions.

 

[au5t1n]

I can see your point but you are still making an assumption as to what was going on in OT times when this was written. Asking a question implies nothing more than asking a question. This brings us back to where i was a couple of posts ago, making the same sort of assumptions.

Why didn't they say we instead of ye?

 

[bill]

James,
I encourage you to look at the OPC web page. It has some good reports about paedocommunion, and might make you rethink some assumptions you make about Old Testament passover and the New Testament institution of the Lord's supper. Venama's book is good, but I prefer the OPC' s minority report against paedocommunion I feel it is more in-depth.

 

[Peairtach]

Well we don't know if any little boys or girls didn't take the food, it is assumed. this only gets to my last post were i stated that to assume something about the original group of people is logically the same on both sides.

Nothing's assumed. You haven't understood my points.

We have clear evidence from the OT that baby boys were circumcised. That is disputed by no-one.

We have no clear evidence that babies and other young children partook of the Pesach, in fact we have evidence pointing the other way, in that God only required adult males to celebrate the Pesach once a year. If God wanted children and women to partake, why didn't He say so? If it wasn't necessary that children partake of the Pesach, why is it necessary that they partake of the Lord's Supper?You'd better find other biblical reasons than the Pesach for why it is needful or commanded for children to partake of the Lord's Supper, because the whole Pesach argument is busted.

God obviously didn't think that women and children were missing out spiritually or that it was inappropriate for them not to partake of His Pesach, or He would have insisted on them partaking, wouldn't He?

So under the Old Covenant it wasn't necessary for everyone in the Covenant to remain in the Covenant by partaking of the Pesach. Is it necessary for New Covenant members to remain in the Covenant by partaking of the Lord's Supper; not according to the Pesach analogy. What then are the principles by which New Covenant members are to partake of the Lord's Supper?

Plus we have other problems like the need to examine oneself and the danger of eating and drinking judgment to oneself, neither of which are associated with baptism.

 

[jwright82]

First off I would like to definantly clarify where I am going with this thread, I'm not persuaded completly by anyside I may lean more in direction than the other but I could still be persuaded in either direction. I am merely interested in the strength of the arguments for and against this issue. Secondly there is not one argument against paedocommunion that I feel like I have disproven. I feel that I have merely pointed weak points in the arguments that show, at least to me, that the issue isn't a slam dunk on either side. With that being said I will reply as best I can to the posts.

Exodus 12: 26. For one I think in the context of the whole chapter it seems clear to me that the household ate the lamb, verse 8. Verses 1-7 only describe that the men of the house are to pick the lamb and kill the lamb but then verse 8 changes the pronoun from him to they shall eat it, in their house. The most natural reading here is that the household ate a meal. I mean why would God go through all this trouble to describe the meal and not say o.k. this is what the women shall eat and this is what the children shall eat. Verse 26 seems to be pedagological in nature, this is a natural question from a child. Asking what the parents mean when they do this limits the scope of what is being discussed, the purpose behind the parents actions, and this nothing about whether or not anyone else is doing it only what the parents mean by what their doing. I completly agree that if the verse used "we" instead of "you" it would clear up the issue. I still don't think this chapter is absolutly clear either way.

I must confess Richard I don't know exactly what the Pesach is, I'll assume it is the feasts you mentioned before, if I'm wrong please correct me. I already analyzed that passage above. As far as your reference to 1 Corinthians 11: 27-34 I will gladly concede that this section forces paedocommunionists to reavaulate how young our children can be to partake of the Lord's Supper. My daughter is not allowed to take it at our church, she is 7, but she seems to have a basic understanding of what is going on so does this automatically disqualify her? Oh for the record I fully respect my church's stance on this and never even raised the issue and have no desire to. I'm not saying that either side is right.

I would like to raise, again, the problem of mentally handicapped adults or people with mental disorders or altziemers? It seems to me that they should be disqualified under your logic as well, but I bet you would say no, so what is the difference?