I am not brand new to the Reformed Faith but am definitely not seasoned yet. My wording may be elementary here...but...

Can someone explain to me why when speaking of covenantal continuance (??) circumcision is replaced by baptism and Passover by the Lord's Supper BUT only baptism transfers to children. This is a struggle our family is discussing at the moment. It seems that Paedobaptism should go hand in hand with Paedocommunion as Credobaptism goes hand in hand with Credocommunion. Children in the OT were not excluded from the passover meal but participants why does this same participation not apply to the Lord's Supper?

2nd question...is there a reformed denomination that holds to both paedo baptism and communion and the confessions, other than the CREC???

__________________
Kristine
Wife of USAF Chaplain
Stationed in Alaska
We are SBC but I am PCA at heart.
I am a stay at home mother and a classical christian homeschooler to nine precious children.
www.mamaarcher.com

Good question. I have been studying baptism, and this is also confusing to me. Looking forward to reading the replies!

__________________
Kim G
Non-denom church (holds to the WCF)
Zion Community Church, Greenville, SC

Teach me Your way, O LORD;
I will walk in Your truth;
Unite my heart to fear Your name.
Psalm 86:11

Excellent question. I really have trouble when Reformed people defend credocommunion using the same argument credobaptists use to defend their practice.

__________________
"Peace if possible, truth at all costs." (Martin Luther)

David G. Suggs Jr.
New Covenant, PCA
Anderson, South Carolina

There are two prongs to the answer. The first is that it is disputed as to whether or not children (as in infants, now) participated in the Passover. Some point to the catechizing mentioned in Exodus 13:14, as well as several other arguments. See Leonard Coppes's book "Daddy, May I Take Communion?" Secondly (and far more weighty, in my mind) are the participation requirements listed in 1 Corinthians 11. The self-examination necessary (vs 28), the judging ourselves (vv 29-30), the proclamation (vs 26), and the remembrance (vv. 24-25) are indicative of the active aspect of faith required to participate in the Lord's Supper, whereas baptism is more passive with regard to the recipient (if an infant).

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Admin Note

This thread will not devolve to an argument concerning the validity vs invalidity of paedocommunion.

You may ask questions all you like, but there will be no advocacy of paedocommunion, or implied assertions of such, since the teaching is contra-confessional.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

You'll find a very helpful article on the subject here.

__________________
Douglas W. Comin
Ordained Minister/Ruling Elder
Manchester Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA)
Upper Burrell, PA
My Blog - "Comin Sense"
Worship From Genesis to Revelation
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1047246

Your second point is what confuses me. Baptism also seems to have "participation requirements." 1) The participant must be a disciple. 2) The participant must have "the answer of a good conscience toward God." 3) The participant must repent. So baptism doesn't seem "passive with regard to the recipient."

If you say that baptism is passive with regard to the recipient ONLY if an infant, but that it is active with regard to adults, then you would have to say that communion is for both children and adults for the same reason (passive for children, active for adults).

It is questioned by some (e.g Ridderbos in The Coming of the Kingdom) as to whether passover is actually the foundation of the Lord's supper.

I don't really care, or give it much thought anymore, because all one has to ask oneself is "where do you see infants, or other children lacking comprehension of the Passover's significance, partaking in it?" All the texts taken together show that the children who partook of the passover had the ability to ask and comprehend the meaning of the passover meal.

Even then there is still a difference between the two. Whereas the passover was something that was an historic event of deliverance for he Old Covenant people of God in the same way that the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ was an historic event of deliverance for all the entire Church, the latter requires a faith that rests in the work of God for our present and future salvation, looking for the return of Christ, while the passover was a historical acknowledgment of God's work in bringing Israel out of Egypt in display of His love for them. It had typological significance in pointing toward Christ to be sure, but one's salvation was not dependent upon "resting in the finished work of the Exodus".

As well, although some in certain circles will still raise the issue, Paul's admonition to examine oneself before partaking pretty much excludes young children (at the very least it excludes infants and toddlers).

Edited to add: much of this post is now redundant, since six of you decided to post in the time that it took me to write that...

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

The difference between the two lies in the audience addressed and the purpose of the various passage governing baptism as opposed to the Lord's Supper. With regard to the baptism passages, the command is ultimately to make disciples. That's what baptism makes a person: a disciple. The person is not a disciple until he or she is baptized. Read closely the wording of Matthew 28, and you will that this is so. The commands that you refer to (about repentance, for instance) are written or spoken to adults, and are not framed as the complete NT teaching regarding baptism, unlike 1 Corinthians 11, which, aside from the record of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the 4 Gospels, are the only instructions we have regarding the Lord's Supper. There is far more available to us regarding baptism. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 11 exerts a far more controlling influence on our whole doctrine of the Lord's Supper than any one passage concerning baptism does for our doctrine of baptism. Hope this helps.

That is all standard Baptist exegesis, that has been addressed on a good number of threads here, but:

1) In Matt. 28:19 baptism is the initial step in making disciples, to be followed by instruction. That is clearly seen in the Greek by the fact that the initial command to make disciples it then explained by two sequential participles of "baptizing" and "teaching". It is at least an option, if not a necessity, that baptism precedes instruction in the process of making disciples. This is one of the most oft repeated gaffs of anti-paedo thought out there. I just can never let that one slide.

I'll let someone with more time answer the rest of them.

Here's where having a Confession really helps.

As I understand this, the Lord's Supper requires self examination. Non-believers and those in major unrepentant sin should abstain.

This comes from the Reformed view that Christ is actually spiritually present during this sacrament. Real grace is actually offered and it is not something to be done carelessly but with great care and with sincere spiritual reflection.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

Lane, you apparently type much faster than do I.

I give up!

I agree with this man because if I were to have taken communion at a young age, say less than ten, I would not have understood what it signifies. Especially in the PC (USA) where the instruction in Sunday school was minimal. I wanted to take it because everyone else was doing it during the service.

Every time we take the bread and wine, we are remembering Christ's death until his return. Can the young remember Christ's death if they don't have a good concept of what the sacrifice of Christ was, or even what death is, let alone an atoning death? Children are very important to the church and the body of Christ. With instruction and with age, they will learn how to reflect on the death of Jesus and what communion means in both senses - the eucharist and communion with the triune God.

Good answers have been given, but I'm fool enough to add my

Grammatically, baptism and circumcision are both stated in the passive. One is baptized, or one was circumcised. The act was performed upon them. As for the objection that baptism requires participation, please see Romans 4 where it is clear that participation was required in circumcision as well (belief in the God who justifies apart from works, and trust in his promise, circumcision of the heart (repentance), etc.). Thus, Paul was baptized, and Cornelius was baptized etc.

However, grammatically, the Passover and the Holy Supper both require active participation: take and eat. These are active imperatives. They are not framed as "be given, and be fed". They require active participation, whereas the initiating signs don't.

Also, in Exodus 12, the child asked his father "‘What do you mean by this service?’". In other words, the child frames the question as an outsider to the participation. What do you mean? Not, what do we mean.

Again, in chapter 12, the stranger who wants to participate is given the following rule:

Exodus 12:47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.”

So, all of his males are circumcised (the rite of initiation), but only he partakes. This is the law for all covenant children, and for those converted to the faith. Anywho, you get the point. Even if we concede that the Passover is "replaced" by the Holy Supper, it does not logically follow that paedo-pushers are right.

I read these passages to some CREC-types once, only I replaced the words "What do you mean" with "What do we mean", and they started celebrating. Then I promptly informed them that the text actually says "what do you mean", and they began to shamefully backpedal.

FORC is quasi-confessional and paedocommunion. My father-in-law ministers in a church of the FORC in Virginia.

Cheers,

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

I have tended toward paedo-communion in the past due to the logical progression metioned above, and that a father is federally responsible to see that his children properly discern the Lord's body, which I see as refering to the Church in the 1 Cor: 11 passage. But recently a brother noted during a discussion of it that there is a distinction that has put me to rethinking it all over again. That was that the baptism is an ordinance that the Church does to a person, whereas communion is one in which we as individuals are commanded to do as a part of the Church. I'm working, very slowly, over what that implies. I am a member of a Church that does not practice paedo-communion, and so submit to my Shepherds in the matter.

__________________
Brad
Member- Eagle Heights PCA
Winchester, VA

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

If I were reading this, coming from certain church backgrounds, my antenae might go up and suspect this is a claim that Reformed believes baptism makes one a Christian (i.e. that Baptism makes the person saved). I know that is not what you mean and that is not what the Confession says. Could you explain this a little more fully for all of us?

Sure, Scott. In the early church, baptism made one a catechumen, a disciple, one numbered in the church, counted as one with the church. That is what I mean. It is the sign of entrance into the visible church. When one enters into the fully committed state by confession of faith, then that brings one into the realm of the table. Some people scornfully call this a two-tiered membership in the church. Peter Leithart's book is entitled _Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated?_, which is a ridiculous question to put into the mouth of a child. The two levels in church membership are parallel to levels of citizenship. We say that, in one sense, a baby born in the US is a citizen of the US. Period. However, at age 16 (in most states), the person is able to drive. At 18, they can vote, and at 21, they can drink.

And is it fair to say baptism of an infant is the enterance into the covenant community?

This being a visible community, which like Israel, was composed of "the remnant" who believed and were saved and "the rest"- others who at a given time were not. Everyone in the community of Israel benefited in some way by being in the covenant community, though not all were redeemed. Likewise, baptism in the new testament marks out children of believers into the covenant community.

Brad,

There is also the fact that it is not the father's primary responsibility to guard the sacraments and teach on them. It is the church's. This is an unwelcome by-product of the resurgence of "family integrated" models of church. It essentially comes down to father's will trumps the elders' will. And that is unbiblical and dangerous.

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

I would agree with you there, Fred. The office of father is not above the office of Elder, which is why I submit to my Elders in this matter.

The quote that I put in red really strikes me the most as to being anti-paedocommunion.

It is spiritual norishment to the soul AND (this is the kicker for me) to confirm our CONTINUANCE AND GROWTH IN HIM.

This would imply that the infant is ALREADY saved and is continuing to grow in the salvific grace of Christ that we attain in regeneration hence as many as those who believe in presumptive regeneration for baptized infants of the Covenant, paedo-communion would logically follow. But since the Divines did not believe in that eitherpaedo-communion would logically be rejected since the infant and/or toddler are not saved at baptism.

Therefore, in my understanding anyways, paedo-communion is to be rejected on the grounds that they are not CONTINUING AND GROWING IN CHRIST since they are not part of the inward spiritual community of the Elect who can only participate since they are really the ones continually growing in Grace that they really and truly have recieved.

__________________
Richard W. Roldan "Ricky"
Member and Teacher of Iglesia Presbiteriana Reformada Berea (PCA)
Winter Haven, FL./ Under Care of the Southwest Presb.(PCA)

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,...” Jesus

" I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel," Paul

Thanks Pastor Comin, that's an excellent article, and it will be very handy to me.

I'm concerned about where my denomination is headed on the issue of PC.

The CRCNA is one year into a 5 year study on the issue. I fear what their decision will be.

Let's face it; our track record over the past 10-20 years been fairly dismal.

__________________
Steve Butts - Former SBC-er
Three Forms of Unity - Bradenton CRCNA - Bradenton, Florida
(A conservative member in a conservative congregation)

"Turning away to false Theology is equal to turning away to false gods" — Francis Schaeffer (Death in the City)

I thought that a year or so ago the CRCNA synod (or GA, whatever they call it) said paedocommunion was ok but perhaps I'm mistaken.

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

They did sorta, but not exactly -- it didn't stick. And to further complicate matters some Councils (Sessions) jumped the gun by assuming that PC is ok based on the 2006 Synod, and they have not yet been 'corrected' (I assume) pending the outcome of the Synod's Study Committee. This committee is to provide yearly reports to Synod for the next 5 years (from 2007). It's all very unclear as to where things are headed at this point.

From Synod 2008:

I'm very concerned because it seems like it's going the way of the Women In Church Office (WICO) decision in the mid '90s.

To address the OP, in reformed theology there are two sacraments, not one. Baptism is for initiation into covenant privileges and the Lord's supper is for confirmation. It is evident that paedocommunionists have fallen into the Anabaptist error of seeing the Lord's supper as nothing more than a continuation of what is signified in baptism. The reality is that the participant is passive in baptism, signifying the reception of saving grace. In the Lord's supper the participant is active, consciously feeding on the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving benefits. In the one a profession of faith is only a fundamental qualification in the case where one has consciously lived as aliens to the covenant, which does not apply in the case of the children of covenant members; whilst in the other the conscious exercise of faith is basic to the sacramental action and therefore required of all participants.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I have found this a helpful way to understand infant baptism, initiation into the covenant community with all the benefits pertaining to that. Not automatic salvation, but many benefits and promises of God's grace- even to an infant child of a believer.

I think I know what you mean here but could you explain this a little more fully?

Well, Rev. Winzer, that is the best description of the thought that has brought me to rethink paedo-communion that I've seen. Thank you. Still working it out in my thick, slow mind, but this really helps.

I would recommend Fred Malone's book: The Baptism of Disciples Alone

In the book, he deals with his own troubles on this topic. This topic is clearly something people wrestle with. To be fair, I have included a link to a critique of his book from ThirdMill.org. While I am a Baptist, I think it important to examine issues such as this from all sides.

http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/jo....disciples.pdf

__________________
Eric W. Greene (My Blog)

Asst. Sunday School Superintendent
Oakdale Baptist Church (SBCV)
Madison Heights, VA
Webmaster: http://virtual.rts.edu

Possible Future Church Plant: http://www.amherstreformedbaptist.org

Yeah what he said, thats what I was trying to say anyways. Great post!

An infant is not saved therefore does not have saving faith hence is fenced from the table, right? or did I say that wrong.


Here is what I stated in my previous post and please correct any misunderstandings that I presented so I can know better to hold my view correctly, thanx......

This also demonstrates his unfamiliarity with the Exodus 12 passages mentioned previously. "What means this observance that you observe?"

Cheers,

I don't think it is either/or. For instance, who chastises a covenant child under age? The eldership or the parents? Are they usurping the "rights" of the elders by doing so? Or, would it be a usurpation of the parents' authority for the elders to start chastening the children of the church? Why is this particular area different? It's not either/or situation, in my understanding. While I think the "first communion" model is a good transition point, where do you think the transitional point would be from family authority to church authority; for instance, when would church discipline kick in vs. family discipline? Would the family have any say as to when the child would take "1st Communion" in your opinion? Even if left to the ultimate decision of the local session?

Curiously yours,

The emphasis on "continuing in Christ" speaks to the crux of the matter. The only question I have pertains to the concept of "the Elect" at this point. There is no reason to conclude that a baptised infant is not a part of "the inward, spiritual community of the Elect." That is something which requires development in order for the infant to be able to demonstrate it.

So do you presume the baptized infant to be regenerated and therefore numbered with the inward true elect?

No, I don't presume election or non-election. I am thankful for God's covenant promises and pray the means might be blessed to the child's soul that he might ever know God as his God in Christ. At the same time I acknowledge that baptism is a temporal election of sorts, and that all in external covenant with God are exhorted, in the judgement of charity, as the beloved and elect of God; but this is not to be regarded as an infallible declaration of eternal and unconditional election, such as is faithfully taught in chap. 3 of the Westminster Confession.

So then the infant is part of the outward physical family of the elect not the inward spiritual, right?

The "inward, spiritual" is known to God. The elect infant enjoys both the sign and the thing signified in baptism. The fact that some baptised children manifest themselves to be reprobate does not mean all children will do so, Rom. 3:3, 4.

What the thing signified that the infant enjoys? I mean I believe that but to an extent so can you clarify a little about the above quote specifically the thing signified. thanx

Right, I know that. But am confused concerning your first statement.

Mamarcher,
you said this in part of your post:
This is the consistent view that many see taught in Acts. The padeo view does not see it this way, and in feeling the force of the verses in 1Cor 11, to properly discern the Lord's body, they insert a difference between the OT passover, and the Nt supper. Most times they wait until the child can"confess, or profess" faith, just as a baptist will before really considering that person an actual "member", and therefore allowed "full" membership.
The confession teaches a two tier system, although it is made to sound like it does not. Many of the explanations have to spend time explaining why the two tier system, [ visible, invisible] or [ outward administration, inward administration] [ benefits of union with Christ,versus actual saving union with Christ] [ Covenant of Grace, with both saved and unsaved in it, different than the Covenant of Redemption, made only among the trinity.} [ a possible election,or possible reprobation , we can never know} [ a promise that is immutable, unless you jump out of the Father's hand in unbelief?]
This is not how it is presented when discussed, and yet when you listen to sermon after sermon on sermonaudio you will hear it spoken of in this way. You can find it in print also.{ read most every commentary you have on Romans 6 and see what they say]
I have heard sermons where the pastor will bristle if someone asks their child if he or she is saved. But having the same concern a baptist parent will have they will ask little Johnny if he wants to "improve on his baptism"
All christian parents want all their offspring in heaven. Which ever system you see as following the biblical model, either set of parents are going to do all they can to present the truth of scripture to their children,praying for God to have mercy on them.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

I am not sure how Fred, being a Presby, would answer this, but from the Baptist perspective, God's different institutions have been given different duties and different jurisdictions.

It is the jurisdiction and the duty of the 'church' to administer and police the sacrements. It is the jurisdiction and the duty of the 'family' to adminster discipline and police underage children.

It is this distinction that is sometimes blurred when the 'family integrated model' is introduced into a church.

BTW, Rev Greco, how would you handle a situation where a father of an obviously believing child refuses to allow that child to partake of the Supper?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

You can listen to my 2 part series against Paedocommunion here...

Anti-Paedocommunion - The Significance of Passover
SermonAudio.com - Anti-Paedocommunion, Passover

Anti-Paedocommunion - 1 Corinthians 11:17-34
SermonAudio.com - Anti-Paedocommunion, 1 Cor 11

You can listen to my 2 part series against Paedocommunion here...

Anti-Paedocommunion - The Significance of Passover
SermonAudio.com - Anti-Paedocommunion, Passover

Anti-Paedocommunion - 1 Corinthians 11:17-34
SermonAudio.com - Anti-Paedocommunion, 1 Cor 11

There is a Presbyterian denomination that allows each local church's Session to determine their practice as regards paedocommunion. It is the Covenant Presbyterian Church. I was one of the founding elders in this denomination but left it earlier this year over this difference on the subject of paedocommunion. While I could not remain in a denomination that allows for this practice, I will affirm that there are some good men in the CPC.

P.S. I formerly held to paedocommunion.

__________________
Robert Truelove
Pastor
Christ Reformed Church
Lawrenceville, GA