I have a few questions that I hope someone can answer.

1) If Baptism is the new circumcision, then why do we baptize females as well as males?

2) If the Lord's Supper is the new Passover, then why are some against paedo-communion?


I ask out of ignorance.

__________________
Boliver
Future Chaplain
EPC
Hankamer, TX

Because the new dispensation has expanded to every nation, and under the expansive nature of the dispensation there is no distinction between male and female in this respect. That's why in the context of baptism we read...


Gal 3:27-28 - For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.



What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?

__________________
Larry Bray
Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
Christian ritual costs nothing and is worth nothing. True Christian religion costs all that we have and is worth everything.

I am not sure of the exact age that children partook of the Passover, but I do know that children were active. For example, the oldest child would stand up at a specific point and ask the father why they observed the Passover. This would prompt the father to retell the story of the Passover to everyone.

This is what I am going on.

And during the Lord's supper our children should ask what it means as well. And we should explain to them the sacrament. But teaching someone what the sacrament means through questions is not the same as partaking of the actual sacrament.

Just curious, why do you think they didn't? We are told that the house ate the Passover. Why would we think children were left out of this?

Am I mistaken here?

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

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

The WCF states that:

"The sacraments of the old testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new."

Is it possible that the passover meal was not a sacrament in the same way that the Lords Supper is, i,e, did it dispenses grace to the recipient in the same way that the Lords Supper does or is such a view unconfessional?

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

If we determine that the Lord's Supper is not the same as the Passover, then how can paedo-baptists use the argument for infant baptism based on the fact that baptism is the same as circumcision? In my eyes I see how they are either the same or different. I cannot make the argument that they are the same, but also different at the same time. Would this not create a contradiction?

I never said that they didn't.
I wanted to know why he thought they did.
Certainly they participated in parts of it, as our infants participate in parts of the Lord's Supper...asking questions and being taught. But did an infant eat the meat and drink the wine?

I don't know if they did or didn't, i simply would like some evidence to support that they did if that's a presumption that's being used in the discussion.

The Galatians 3 passage that i quoted shows that in the context of baptism there is no distinction between male and female. So in that sense the NT itself broadened the sacrament to include women.

Regarding the Lord's Supper we are told...

1 Cor 11:27-29 - Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

So the if in the OT infants completely partook of the Passover, the NT does limit the sacrament to those who can examine themselves and discern the body.

Check the Law of God. Only adult males were commanded to attend the feast. Women and children were not required to attend.

Edersheim notes this point well. Christ's attendance at the passover is when He was 12. It was common for Jewish males to attend the feast the year prior to their Bar Mitsvah where it would be thereafter mandatory for them to attend the feast of the Passover.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

The Lord's Supper is not the same as the Passover. One is a sign of the Exodus while the other is a sign of the NC in Christ's Blood.

Also, Baptism is not, precisely speaking, Circumcision. In substance they signify and seal the same thing but that does not make them equivalent.

Reference?

Everything I am seeing currently is that the Passover was a family meal. I am not seeing anything that states that children did not eat. In fact does not the Bible say something along the lines that the entire sacrifice should be eaten and none left until morning? Would this not indicate a family meal? I do not know too many men who could eat an entire lamb by themselves. Sorry for not giving the reference. This is all off top of my head in between a few tasks I am working on.

Thanks, Rich. Does the work to which you are referring discuss the origins of this practice?

The law required males to bring offerings for the Passover, but it certainly didn't prohibit women and children from partaking in the meal though, right? Thinking strictly of the first Passover in particular -- all were involved. The whole idea is one lamb per house, or family.

Could you post more summary from the book to which you are referring that discusses this?

If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
(Exo 12:48)


It's interesting that the stranger must have all of his males circumcised, yet only he would come and keep the Passover.
Does this infer that his household...he and his children...would be circumcised but only he would be permitted at the Passover table?

To which is added...

There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you."
(Exo 12:49)


And here we are told that they are to take "according to what each can eat" which would seem to exclude infants.

And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb.
(Exo 12:4)

maybe exclude infants, but small children can still eat.

Larry;

If Galatians 3:27-28 teaches that baptism is now open to women, does it not also teach that baptism is for those who have put on Christ and is one in Christ Jesus?

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

And as the Corinthian passage points out, young children aren't excluded from the table of the Lord based on age either. They must be able to examine themselves and discern the body. There's no reason some young children couldn't do that.

But "paedocommunion" is about infants partaking, not children. And the OP asked:

Well...let's see...

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It says those who were baptized have put on Christ. If you are suggesting that one puts on Christ and is then baptized i can't see how you get it from the text.

So can any who put on Christ then in baptism then be lost?

1. circumcision and baptism are both the entry covenant signs, it should not be looked at as if one replaced the other.

2. communion is signifying much more than the passover meal (it signifies us being priests and us sacrificing Jesus Christ as our perfect passover lamb), but basically there were many meals in the OT so it is not possible to compare it the same way with every meal in the OT, therefore we go by the warning of being able to examine ones self when it comes to the Lord's supper.

__________________
~ Charles Stephen Barribeau ~
Christ Presbyterian Church , OPC (They sing alot of Psalms!)
Original Westminster Standards (I need to study more...)
The Puritans were best! Also... I NEED TO READ MORE!!!
Philipians1:29(KJV) For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Janesville, Wisconsin (In the fellowship of Bob Vigneault and Matt+Megan Meisberger)

What exactly is it that you are "seeing" re: the Passover? Do you know where the Passover was celebrated? It was not celebrated throughout Israel but at the Sanctuary in a central location during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Only the males were required to make the journey per the Law of God. Folks didn't just hop into their minivans and drive to Jerusalem but it was a multi-day journey for many.

Exodus 23:14-17
Exodus 34:23-24
Further, when Christ sent his Disciples to prepare a room for the celebration of the Passover was He violating what you've seen about the nature of the Passover in that He celebrated it with men who were not His blood relatives? In fact, hospitality was practiced by thousands in Jerusalem each Passover as hundreds of thousands of sojourners would descend upon the city to celebrate the Passover. Each household would celebrate the meal and it is hardly difficult for a room full of men to finish off a lamb.

Here is Edersheim

One can not put on Christ and be lost.

One can be baptized and be lost.
One who professes faith in Christ, goes to church, etc. can be lost (Jn 15).

The passage speaks of as many as were baptized have put on Christ...i don't think it is a reference to time frame. In other words, the scenario could be baptized as an infant, put on Christ as an adult.

However, in the immediate context it certainly is addressing those first generation Christians who came to faith and were baptized as adults...since they weren't raised in a Christian family.

I know Larry answered this but I'm not sure how this is relevant to your position since your Confession does not believe that the ordinance actually joins a person to the New Covenant nor does it unite to Christ.

Neither do Reformed Confessions teach this.

And yet Reformed Christians believe that there is the one and the same Church from the Old Testament and the New Testament.

If they were already members of the Church by virtue of their circumcision, why then do they need to be baptized into the Church again?

Paedobaptists accuse Baptists of "throwing out" children from membership in the church, but is not everyone "thrown out" if those previously in membership by circumcision need to be baptized into membership with the coming of the New Covenant?

Singular identification within the Church in no small part. There is one faith, one baptism for Jew and Gentile.

Rich, could you explain further - your reply was too concise for the thick-headed. Expand this a bit for my benefit.

1689 LBC 30.7,8

Age is not a requisite requirement for participation in the Lord's Supper - belief is. Additionally, the unbeliever is incapable of examining himself (1 Cor. 11:28) since he is already dead in sin (Eph. 2:1; 1 Cor. 2:14). I require the ability to articulate one's faith in Christ before the Lord's Supper will be administered to that person.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

but we still don't actually know....just sayin...

No, we don't know who is definitively saved, but the elder is to uphold the intent of scripture. We act to the best of our ability and the wisdom that God provides.

Think of the Book of Galatians: part of the problem with the Gentiles is envy of the Jews that is a point of leverage for the Judaizers to cause them to be jealous for their false view of circumcision.

Imagine how difficult it would be for the Church if there had continued to be a point of separation where the Covenant sign for inclusion was different for two sets of people. You really would have a party for the circumcision and for the non-circumcision. Now, you could constantly explain that we're really one in Christ to everybody but there is something to be said, pedagogically, for everyone to participate in the same rite.

There's certainly more to the equation than just this point but Paul does underline the Gentiles' common possession by noting that there is one baptism.

Boliver, to answer your questions in the OP (though some good answers have already been given):

Q #1): "If Baptism is the new circumcision, then why do we baptize females as well as males?"

It would be well to consider what the “old” circumcision signified. Moses makes it clear it was circumcision of the heart, i.e., regeneration leading to repentance (putting off the old man and his sin):

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)

In the OT the sign of the covenant was put only upon the administrators of authority – fathers, brothers, husbands, rulers, priests, kings – which were the males. It was rare, and bode ill, for a woman to be alone, without the covering of any male authority and care.

In the NT Israel – all the people of God, Jew and Gentile – were set free from the authority structure of the Theocracy. The NT house of God was structured differently. Women did not have to be under the headship of a male; they could thrive as singles, or as disciples of Christ when family or husband were not disciples.

So now the sign and seal of that circumcision of the heart effected by the Holy Spirit (regeneration, newness of life in Christ) was to be applied to females, as they were no longer dependent on their males and families for the blessing of God.

Baptism was God’s wonderful provision for administering the sign of the covenant to all in the new House: male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, and free.

Q #2): "If the Lord's Supper is the new Passover, then why are some against paedo-communion?"

Herman Hanko says it clearly and concisely:

Reformed Baptists sometimes argue that just as children are not permitted to partake of the Lord’s supper, so they ought not to be baptized. A condition to participation in the Lord’s supper is faith; hence faith should be a condition to baptism.

Surely this argument is based upon a serious error with regard to the meaning of the two sacraments and their relation to each other. Baptism is a sign and seal of entrance into the covenant; the Lord’s supper is a sign and seal of living within the covenant as God’s covenant people. Because the elect are brought into God’s covenant by a work of sovereign grace, the one baptized is passive. But the Lord’s supper is a sign and seal of the grace which God supplies through the spiritual food of the body and blood of Christ, whereby we are able to walk as members of his covenant in the world. It is the sacrament, therefore, of conscious membership in God’s covenant. It is the sacrament of mature believers who seek the grace and strength they need from Christ. [footnote: It is for this reason, among others, that paedo-communion is wrong.] The Lord’s supper signifies and seals Christ’s daily blessing of the salvation which he has purchased for his people on the cross. Both sacraments point to God’s covenant, but each points to God’s covenant from a different perspective. (From, We And Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism, Herman Hanko, p. 66.)

I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions!

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

thanks for the replies. They are very helpful.

I have never heard this Presbyterian view before. Are there some sources you recommend on the different 'authority structure' between the OC and the NC?

__________________


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?

Here's a very thorough article refuting paedocommunion. I keep it bookmarked as this issue/question crops up repeatedly. The article deals specifically with the Passover question, along the lines Rich was laying out.

Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination

__________________
Mark Van Der Molen
Immanuel URC
DeMotte, Indiana

Ken,

I don't know of any books etc (save the Scriptures) that deal specifically with it, but here are some thoughts from a post in a recent thread on the topic:

--------

In the OT so much of covenant life depended on the headship of the patriarch, and, later, on the heads of the individual families, houses, tribes, and the nation. God dealt with houses, and families, and the nation as corporate bodies. We in this 21st century are staunch individualists! The covenant promises in these days, we opine, are for individuals, irrespective of families!

In the days of the Theocracy, God dealt primarily with Israel, and individual houses, through those who were heads of them; the people of the nation often suffered for the acts of their kings and priests; on the family level, all under the authority of fathers, or husbands, or elder brothers, partook of their blessings or curses. The males were the ones accountable to God.

Circumcision of the males was appropriate to the circumstances of ancient Israel, and the position of authority given them.

In the gospel of the New Covenant God opened to the Gentile nations His gracious salvation. When Jesus came he warned that now things would be different than under the Theocracy of old Israel; there in the families the Law of Moses was acknowledged to be the law of God, and appeal could be made up the chain of command: fathers, priests, judges, rulers, the king. But when Christ came the old authority structure of the Theocracy was set aside; for Jesus said that fathers would be set against sons, and mothers against daughters, and one’s own family members would be one’s enemies and would even put one another to death, houses divided against themselves. The priests and the rulers opposed the Christ, so there was no recourse to their authority.

The old manner of the headship of the father over the family was broken, and the covenant sign placed solely upon him as the covenant head was removed; now women could receive the sign themselves irrespective of their fathers or even their husbands. Sometimes loyalty to Christ separated a woman from her father and brothers. And sometimes from her husband.

Believing parents (or even one parent – 1 Cor 7:14) brought their children into the covenant of their God, where the infant souls are raised (by the parent[s]) in union and communion with God, and where the blessing of God is given equally, as in Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female...” (Gal 3:28), but all have equal access and privilege. From infancy this expansion of the covenant blessings to include all on an equal standing before God was realized and taught.

As the covenant was removed from its limited range in old Israel and transferred to the new Israel reconstituted by its King (Matt 21:43) – the international community of God’s people, a true holy nation – the sign of membership in that covenant community was changed to accommodate the new status of all members in all nations – male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, free – in their greatly enhanced intimacy with their Lord and Savior. Jesus had finally and completely emancipated all women in His kingdom; He had essentially broken the spirit of slavery as well, as now a servant humanly speaking might well be an elder in God’s Kingdom over a master in the flesh. This “servant” / elder could now demonstrate godly servant-leadership to one secularly over him. The Lord turned the ways of the world upside down in His glorious kingdom.

It is often said that “house baptisms” supposedly with infants in them constitute an argument from silence. There is, however, much more to it than “silence”! We in the 21st century West – as mentioned above – think in terms of individuals, but in the Biblical world – and especially among the people of God – they thought in terms of nations, tribes, and families. God dealt with the heads of nations, tribes and families, and those under them were greatly impacted by their male heads. To wit: the entire human race affected by its head, Adam. The house of Noah saved. The house of Abraham, the house of Jacob, of Achan (cursed), of Saul (mostly destroyed), of David, and so on. The redemptive purposes of God were effected through the families – the houses – of the male leaders of these families. The blessings and privileges of the family in covenant relation to God were constantly expanding and becoming more inclusive over the centuries, till in the time of the New Covenant it opened the way of salvation to the entire world. If the blessings of the covenant now narrowed – to exclude the members of the godly houses under their heads – it would have required an open declaration from God, reversing His primary means of operation. The Baptist view of mere individuals is imposing our Western individualistic paradigm upon an entirely different paradigm which was operative in the ancient world, where the family, tribe, and nation were the objects of God’s dealings. The purpose of this covenant headship over the family was to raise up godly seed, under the covenant care of the Lord. This then amounts not to silence, but the very voice of antiquity, and Biblical precedent.

------

End quote.

Does this help?