some thoughts on paedocommunion?

[Wayne]

One key text in supporting credocommunion is 1 Cor. 11:28-29

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

The parable in Luke 18:10-14 then very nicely explains Paul's injunction: communion is for those who know that they are sinners.

Infants cannot examine themselves. In other words, communion is restricted to those who can recognize their sin, to those who can recognize their need of a Saviour. By God's grace, some young children can and do come to recognize their sin and do come to saving faith at an early age.

But my son, who is profoundly mentally retarded, will never in this life be able to make that distinction, will never be able to come under conviction of sin and call out in faith to Christ as his Lord. But the Westminster Confession addresses this situation:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

My son is incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. But the Holy Spirit works when, where and how He pleases. My confidence of my son's salvation rests in God, for God alone is the Author of our salvation. Just as my salvation does not depend upon anything that I do, so my son's salvation does not depend upon any action on his part. As a covenant child, he was baptised, though that activity was carried out as we were obedient to God's Word on his behalf. Thus he has what he needs in his baptism. That is enough. But should I take him to the table? No, it would be sinful of me to take him to the Lord's table because he cannot fulfill Paul's injunction in 1 Cor. 11:28-29. I have every confidence that my son is the Lord's, not because of anything that I did (his baptism), and not because of anything my son might do (communion), but because salvation is of the Lord.

 

[jwright82]

Well first I appreciate your post. You really drove the whole discussion away from, what is in my opinion, somewhat ambigouas texts to the real heart of the issue, 1 Cor. 11: 28-29. On a personal level I am deeply moved by your post as well, so thank you very much. My best response to this text is that I fully believe this text forbids infant communion.

Now from what I understand most Paedocommunionists don't believe in infant communion but in small children communion. I would qualify this even further in saying that the small children need to be able to understand what is going on to be able to come to the Table. It is here where the peoblem lies, how much knowledge qualifies as basic enough to be able to come to the Table? I don't know what the normative stance is in the various Reformed communities represented on this website but i wonder. Do sessions or ruling bodies really bar people for say developing schizophrinia? Are they even qualified to do so, medically speaking? What about the Philosophical problems involved in what is essentially a Philosophy of mind problem?

To round it all out, how does our answers to these questions relate to the principal text involved here, 1 Cor. 11:28-29?

 

[Peairtach]

Children of an adequate age of discretion are welcome, often, to non-paedocommunionist Tables of the Lord, if they indicate that they have personally come to faith in Christ.

They have responded in faith, by God's grace, to the privilege, promises and responsibility of being brought up within the Covenant of Grace. They indicate that they have begun feeding by faith on Christ.

They are old enough to intelligently take the cup and take the bread, rather than have it superstitiously thrust into their uncomprehending mouths.

They are also old enough to examine their hearts and lives and decide whether they should partake on any particular occasion so they don't eat and drink judgment (not damnation) to themselves.

The Pesach is the Passover.

 

[KMK]

What are some of the denominations/sects throughout history who have held to paedocommunion?

 

[Wayne]

James:

. . .most Paedocommunionists don't believe in infant communion but in small children communion.

I don't know that to be a fact. If you do, then fine, but I have certainly heard of those who practice infant communion.

. . . small children need to be able to understand what is going on to be able to come to the Table.

No, I would differ with you here. Small children, like everyone else, need to have a recognition of their sinful nature and their need of a Saviour.
They do not need to be able to understand what is going on in communion. I don't understand what's going on in communion--I have a theological understanding, but I am left with the realization that I've barely looked over the threshold on that subject. Children can't be expected to comprehend complex theological concepts. But they can (and many do) recognize their sinfulness and that Jesus Christ has paid the penalty due for that sin.

Do sessions or ruling bodies really bar people for say developing schizophrinia?

I don't understand how this is appropriate to the thread topic. Nor do I know of any Sessions acting in that way. Save this for another thread.

how do our answers to these questions relate to the principal text involved here, 1 Cor. 11:28-29?

Again, in 1 Cor. 11:28-29, Paul lays down the necessity of examination of ourselves when coming to the Lord's table. The context makes clear that the point is that we must recognize our sin, repent of it, and turn to Jesus Christ as our Saviour. Those who do not recognize their sin should not partake of communion.

 

[jwright82]

Thank you Richard Tallach, that does clear a lot up. I am left to assume than that you put no age requirment on whether or not someone partakes of the Table. That makes our respective P.O.V.'s much closer. It appears, at least to me, that you place only spiritual requirments on younger children, or anyone else. I appreciate the post.

I havn't the slightest idea which ones practice this offhand KMK. Just for information sake if you Google the word paedocommunion there is a website devoted to the subject and they have information there. Thank you for the post, sorry I can't answer your question offhand.

Well Wayne you brought up a lot so here we go. The PCA report, or was it OPC? I will look this up, that I read a week or so ago mentioned that most of the paedocommunionists believed that only smaller children should be able to partake of the Supper. I guess it is like everything else, a case by case basis. As far the majority is concerned I don't know. I was really only concerned with Reformed thinkers on this subject. I have no real disagreements with your requierments on who should be allowed at the Table and who shouldn't, from a spiritual P.O.V. not an age one.

The question about the person suffering from some mental illness is appropiate here because it forces us to really evaluate what the necessary mental faculties must be to come to the Table. These sorts of extreme case scenerios are useful in laying down a broad rule in handling these situations and that, in my opinion, is directly relevant to the issue of younger children and their mental faculties. Does that make more sense? I hope it is. Great post thank you.

 

[jogri17]

Paedocommunion is a reformed heresy that usually presupposes many things (no pun intended) in the subject of solteriology that an extreme few persons historically have argued for. Even Kuyper with his presupposed regeneration didn't take it that far. While one may personally hold to it, to practice it I believe merits being defrocked or in the case of lay-members excommunicated if they refuse to submit to the authority of the Church and not repent and give the sacrament to their children.

 

[Particular Baptist]

[
Brother,

Many of your arguments against paedocommunion are dropped when it comes to the issue of baptism.

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.

You yourself assume that infants MUST have been in the households of those who were baptized. I agree that all we have is what Scripture tells us, but you yourself aren't true to your heurmenutic in this very issue of the sacraments.

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.

There is no indication that children were baptized yet you yourself will not follow this hermeneutic when discussing who is worthy to partake of the Lord's Supper.

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.

Any assumptions that any paedobaptist or believer in paedocommunion (a paedocommunist maybe?.....just joking) are inserted into scripture and not to be found on the pages of it. Either you are objective in giving the sacraments or you aren't.

 

[Wayne]

James, you said:

These sorts of extreme case scenerios are useful in laying down a broad rule in handling these situations

That probably puts the finger on exactly what I would disagree with--setting down a broad rule. We have Sessions overseeing congregations, and they know their people best. A Session has the ability to get to know a person and to know whether that person has a conviction of sin and has turned to Christ as Saviour. Those spiritual conditions can be presented by people exhibiting a wide range of mental ability. Rather than setting down a broad rule, let's set down a local rule, one in which wise elders examine the members of the congregation looking for spiritual reality in the lives of the flock.

 

[jwright82]

James, you said:

These sorts of extreme case scenerios are useful in laying down a broad rule in handling these situations

That probably puts the finger on exactly what I would disagree with--setting down a broad rule. We have Sessions overseeing congregations, and they know their people best. A Session has the ability to get to know a person and to know whether that person has a conviction of sin and has turned to Christ as Saviour. Those spiritual conditions can be presented by people exhibiting a wide range of mental ability. Rather than setting down a broad rule, let's set down a local rule, one in which wise elders examine the members of the congregation looking for spiritual reality in the lives of the flock.

Well I agree to an extant, but whether you like it or not you just laid down a broad rule( one that I agree with). You nade an objective statement concerning all congregations everywhere, thats a broad rule.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

Paedocommunion is a reformed heresy that usually presupposes many things (no pun intended) in the subject of solteriology that an extreme few persons historically have argued for. Even Kuyper with his presupposed regeneration didn't take it that far. While one may personally hold to it, to practice it I believe merits being defrocked or in the case of lay-members excommunicated if they refuse to submit to the authority of the Church and not repent and give the sacrament to their children.

I appreciate the post. I'm not sure what you mean by assumptions in soteriology but if your curious as to whether i make these assumptions (I'm not a full fledged paedocommunionist anyway) please ask. I would never agree with any church that behaved the way describe at the end so we are in agrement there.

---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

[
Brother,

Many of your arguments against paedocommunion are dropped when it comes to the issue of baptism.

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.

You yourself assume that infants MUST have been in the households of those who were baptized. I agree that all we have is what Scripture tells us, but you yourself aren't true to your heurmenutic in this very issue of the sacraments.

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.

There is no indication that children were baptized yet you yourself will not follow this hermeneutic when discussing who is worthy to partake of the Lord's Supper.

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.

Any assumptions that any paedobaptist or believer in paedocommunion (a paedocommunist maybe?.....just joking) are inserted into scripture and not to be found on the pages of it. Either you are objective in giving the sacraments or you aren't.

I'm not quite sure who you're talking to here? The first quote you made was mine, the other ones I didn't say. If i am wrong please correct me. You are wright though those different statements reflect different P.O.V.'s.

 

[Wayne]

. . . but whether you like it or not you just laid down a broad rule( one that I agree with). You nade an objective statement concerning all congregations everywhere, thats a broad rule.

Yes, but it is one that concerns generalities not specifics, or perhaps rather, the "how" and not the "what". In one post you introduced the subject of schizophrenia, and then in another post you clarified your concern over how to deal with those exhibiting illness. But there are thousands of mental aberrations, illnesses, retardations, etc. One broad rule can't cover all, and you can't legislate for each specific type, because every instance is different with every person.

 

[jogri17]

James, you said:

These sorts of extreme case scenerios are useful in laying down a broad rule in handling these situations

That probably puts the finger on exactly what I would disagree with--setting down a broad rule. We have Sessions overseeing congregations, and they know their people best. A Session has the ability to get to know a person and to know whether that person has a conviction of sin and has turned to Christ as Saviour. Those spiritual conditions can be presented by people exhibiting a wide range of mental ability. Rather than setting down a broad rule, let's set down a local rule, one in which wise elders examine the members of the congregation looking for spiritual reality in the lives of the flock.

Well I agree to an extant, but whether you like it or not you just laid down a broad rule( one that I agree with). You nade an objective statement concerning all congregations everywhere, thats a broad rule.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

Paedocommunion is a reformed heresy that usually presupposes many things (no pun intended) in the subject of solteriology that an extreme few persons historically have argued for. Even Kuyper with his presupposed regeneration didn't take it that far. While one may personally hold to it, to practice it I believe merits being defrocked or in the case of lay-members excommunicated if they refuse to submit to the authority of the Church and not repent and give the sacrament to their children.

I appreciate the post. I'm not sure what you mean by assumptions in soteriology but if your curious as to whether i make these assumptions (I'm not a full fledged paedocommunionist anyway) please ask. I would never agree with any church that behaved the way describe at the end so we are in agrement there.

---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

[
Brother,

Many of your arguments against paedocommunion are dropped when it comes to the issue of baptism.

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.

You yourself assume that infants MUST have been in the households of those who were baptized. I agree that all we have is what Scripture tells us, but you yourself aren't true to your heurmenutic in this very issue of the sacraments.

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.

There is no indication that children were baptized yet you yourself will not follow this hermeneutic when discussing who is worthy to partake of the Lord's Supper.

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.

Any assumptions that any paedobaptist or believer in paedocommunion (a paedocommunist maybe?.....just joking) are inserted into scripture and not to be found on the pages of it. Either you are objective in giving the sacraments or you aren't.

I'm not quite sure who you're talking to here? The first quote you made was mine, the other ones I didn't say. If i am wrong please correct me. You are wright though those different statements reflect different P.O.V.'s.

Sure, I have never met a paedocommunionist who wasn't supralasparian, believed in eternal justification and union with Christ before faith and didn't believe presumptional regeneration. All erreurs, in my opinion, that cannot be backed up with Scripture. Also while we must not use the argument of guilt by association, there is something to be said of the fact that padeocommunists have been strongly associated with Federal vision and there are several erreurs in how justification is defined.

 

[Peairtach]

Thank you Richard Tallach, that does clear a lot up. I am left to assume than that you put no age requirment on whether or not someone partakes of the Table. That makes our respective P.O.V.'s much closer. It appears, at least to me, that you place only spiritual requirments on younger children, or anyone else. I appreciate the post.

Well I believe that that is the position of many or most antipaedocommunionist churches. The child must be spoken to by the session to see if he or she has an accredited profession of faith and understands what is involved. The session must decide whether it is appropriate for the child to become a communicant.

Paedocommunionist churches believe that children should come to the Lord's Table because they have been baptised.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

[
Brother,

Many of your arguments against paedocommunion are dropped when it comes to the issue of baptism.

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.

You yourself assume that infants MUST have been in the households of those who were baptized. I agree that all we have is what Scripture tells us, but you yourself aren't true to your heurmenutic in this very issue of the sacraments.

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.

There is no indication that children were baptized yet you yourself will not follow this hermeneutic when discussing who is worthy to partake of the Lord's Supper.

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.

Any assumptions that any paedobaptist or believer in paedocommunion (a paedocommunist maybe?.....just joking) are inserted into scripture and not to be found on the pages of it. Either you are objective in giving the sacraments or you aren't.

Spencer,
Both of these positions--Baptist and PaedoCommunion (which please note James says he does not affirm, though he says he leans that way)--have the same premise: Both ordinances are initiatory and confirmatory.

The Baptist pushes both of them to the extreme of "confirmation" by insisting that for "consistency" verbal faith-profession must antedate both signs. The PC simply pushes them the other way to the extreme of "initiation" by insisting that for "consistency" covenant-relation is all that is necessary to precede reception of both signs.

So, according to either side, the only ones who are "happily inconsistent" are the Reformed/Presbyterians in the middle. But, if one sign is initiatory, and the other is confirmatory, then having different expectations for who may receive the sign is not inconsistent at all. We simply follow the Scriptural prescription in either case.

I think I also pointed out to you in the other thread that our argument for household baptism (including infants) does not rest even partially on the need to find infants explicitly in the NT exemplars. It is sufficient to add to our theological argument: that households (without noted exceptions or exclusions) were, in fact, baptized--where our theology of baptism gave prior-indication we might expect to find them. Please remember that the Reformed & Presbyterians do not base our argument for infant baptism on the historical descriptions or instances of baptism.

Your accusation that our approach is inconsistent seems not to arise from the actual overturning of what we note is present in (and what we note is absent from) the Bible, but from the assumed premise that both rites are initiatory-confirmatory. When you say "no indication" of children's baptism, you are 1) denying apriori the theological correspondence between circumcision and baptism, and 2) refusing to allow that on p-b theological expectations, the indications are present.

But even if the explicit witness of the NT excluded infant baptism as part of the historical record of Acts (something that the very language of Scripture will not exclude in fact), there is still the unity of the people of God.

Now, the facts regarding the OT Passover inaugural are plain enough. One may read-in or read-out a fairly wide or narrow range of participants, based on a range of aprioris. However, regarding the Memorial meal contains even more explicit teaching. Adult males were called to the table. Period. (incidentally, Jesus and his male disciples ate the final Passover apart from any of the women that often accompanied them).

Women having their monthly impurity (at least 1/4 of the whole population) were definitely excluded, every single year. And one month later, the same general set were still excluded when provision was made for males who had inadvertently missed the first. Women were excluded from a great deal of OT religious ritual. Since "no uncircumcised person" could ever partake, one has to wonder if (given the other strictures) that injunction was ever taken in anything less than a literal sense.

If you really want to put yourself into a straightjacket of explicitness, try to justify giving women the Lord's Supper based on the instance examplars of the Gospels and Acts. Even add the Epistles; you will have to make inferences.

Do you exclude women from the Supper? If not, you fail the rule you are setting for others regarding both sacraments. You aren't being any more "objective" in giving out that sacrament than the people you disagree with.

Peace.

 

[Robert Truelove]

James,

In response to your statements...

"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."

Points 1 & 2 are simply contrary to the biblical data. I gave a lecture on the subject of Passover and children in a two part series against paedocommunion. You can listen to this message at SermonAudio.com - Anti - Paedocommunion - The Significance of Passover . If after listening to this message you believe you can still sustain and argument for children partaking of the Passover feast I would be very interested to hear it.


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

Paedocommunion need not be explicitly denied in the New Testament for it to be wrong. Why would it teach against something that was never practiced in the first place? The fact is, the New Testament teaching regarding the nature of the sacrament is in direct opposition to paedocommunion (unless you believe the sacraments work "ex op ere operato")

My other lecture on paedocommunion dealing with 1 Corinthians 11 is at SermonAudio.com - Anti - Paedocommunion - 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 . In the lecture I interact directly with the paedocommunist's recasting of 1 Corinthians 11 and point out the problems with their understanding. Again, if you can maintain paedocommunion after listening to this lecture, I would be interested to hear how you manage it?

 

[jwright82]

. . . but whether you like it or not you just laid down a broad rule( one that I agree with). You nade an objective statement concerning all congregations everywhere, thats a broad rule.

Yes, but it is one that concerns generalities not specifics, or perhaps rather, the "how" and not the "what". In one post you introduced the subject of schizophrenia, and then in another post you clarified your concern over how to deal with those exhibiting illness. But there are thousands of mental aberrations, illnesses, retardations, etc. One broad rule can't cover all, and you can't legislate for each specific type, because every instance is different with every person.

I couldn't agree more, but I still think the whole issues raises serious questions that need to be discussed.

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

James,

In response to your statements...

"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."

Points 1 & 2 are simply contrary to the biblical data. I gave a lecture on the subject of Passover and children in a two part series against paedocommunion. You can listen to this message at SermonAudio.com - Anti - Paedocommunion - The Significance of Passover . If after listening to this message you believe you can still sustain and argument for children partaking of the Passover feast I would be very interested to hear it.


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

Paedocommunion need not be explicitly denied in the New Testament for it to be wrong. Why would it teach against something that was never practiced in the first place? The fact is, the New Testament teaching regarding the nature of the sacrament is in direct opposition to paedocommunion (unless you believe the sacraments work "ex op ere operato")

My other lecture on paedocommunion dealing with 1 Corinthians 11 is at SermonAudio.com - Anti - Paedocommunion - 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 . In the lecture I interact directly with the paedocommunist's recasting of 1 Corinthians 11 and point out the problems with their understanding. Again, if you can maintain paedocommunion after listening to this lecture, I would be interested to hear how you manage it?

In my defence I admitted my original argument was not valid and held no logical force. I am doomed to be a philosopher and one thing we do is analyze arguments logically, so I thought that with everyone here I would definantly be able to find out if the argument held water which it doesn't. I'm not completly convinced that it is totaly absolutly wrong but the form of the argument I presented is totally bogus. This only makes me want to study the issue more.

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------

James, you said:

These sorts of extreme case scenerios are useful in laying down a broad rule in handling these situations

That probably puts the finger on exactly what I would disagree with--setting down a broad rule. We have Sessions overseeing congregations, and they know their people best. A Session has the ability to get to know a person and to know whether that person has a conviction of sin and has turned to Christ as Saviour. Those spiritual conditions can be presented by people exhibiting a wide range of mental ability. Rather than setting down a broad rule, let's set down a local rule, one in which wise elders examine the members of the congregation looking for spiritual reality in the lives of the flock.

Well I agree to an extant, but whether you like it or not you just laid down a broad rule( one that I agree with). You nade an objective statement concerning all congregations everywhere, thats a broad rule.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

Paedocommunion is a reformed heresy that usually presupposes many things (no pun intended) in the subject of solteriology that an extreme few persons historically have argued for. Even Kuyper with his presupposed regeneration didn't take it that far. While one may personally hold to it, to practice it I believe merits being defrocked or in the case of lay-members excommunicated if they refuse to submit to the authority of the Church and not repent and give the sacrament to their children.

I appreciate the post. I'm not sure what you mean by assumptions in soteriology but if your curious as to whether i make these assumptions (I'm not a full fledged paedocommunionist anyway) please ask. I would never agree with any church that behaved the way describe at the end so we are in agrement there.

---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

[
Brother,

Many of your arguments against paedocommunion are dropped when it comes to the issue of baptism.

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.

You yourself assume that infants MUST have been in the households of those who were baptized. I agree that all we have is what Scripture tells us, but you yourself aren't true to your heurmenutic in this very issue of the sacraments.

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.

There is no indication that children were baptized yet you yourself will not follow this hermeneutic when discussing who is worthy to partake of the Lord's Supper.

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.

Any assumptions that any paedobaptist or believer in paedocommunion (a paedocommunist maybe?.....just joking) are inserted into scripture and not to be found on the pages of it. Either you are objective in giving the sacraments or you aren't.

I'm not quite sure who you're talking to here? The first quote you made was mine, the other ones I didn't say. If i am wrong please correct me. You are wright though those different statements reflect different P.O.V.'s.

Sure, I have never met a paedocommunionist who wasn't supralasparian, believed in eternal justification and union with Christ before faith and didn't believe presumptional regeneration. All erreurs, in my opinion, that cannot be backed up with Scripture. Also while we must not use the argument of guilt by association, there is something to be said of the fact that padeocommunists have been strongly associated with Federal vision and there are several erreurs in how justification is defined.

Well first off the whole infra/supra debate has never made any sense to me whatsoever, but that debate is clearly well beyond the scope of this thread. As far as the next two errors you mention i don't know exactally what you mean by eternal justification and union with Christ, are you saying these are errors or truths? As far as linking FV with paedocommunionists, you are correct is assuming that most of them are this but be careful in assuming that all PC are FV's, this argument is dangerously close to the genetic fallacy. Just because you can claim that PC comes out of FV doesn't logically mean that all PD's are FV's.