Biblical Arguments For/Against Paedo-communion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me give you an example, as a covenant theologian, I could not in right conscience, remain in a church that was not presbyterian in government nor see the NOT placing of the sign upon my child as a "great sin". I would leave. Thats conviction I am speaking of! Or, a dispensational church. or, a church that has no membership, etc. etc. etc. I have that conviction. RC, obviously does not have the same level of conviction that the FV camp does (in regard to PC-if he is pro PC at all- no one has substantiated anything, just a bunch of hearsay).

The whole point of placing the sign on our children is covenantal. We covenant with Christ and a covenanting community. The community that you are attached to is not a covenantal community. In that, you are not truly covenanting. You may think you are, but in reality, you are not. Think about it this way, Isaac places the sign, and leaves Israel forever. How has he covenanted? or, he has an egyptian place the sign on his child. Where's the covenant community he has covenanted with?

That is one place where we disagree. I go to an independent baptistic Bible church.

Presbyterianism is based upon presbyterian government. That government is biblically based; on covenant. Independancy is (as Fred G. recenly said) an oxymoron!

But my elders let me have my daughters baptized, since that is my conviction.

You as well have PC convictions; will they allow that also? Who is running the church over there? You or them?


And I am OK with that. I think church unity is more important than such questions over baptism and communion.

Ah yes, unity..........You say you hold to the WCF. The WCF calls witholding the sacrament from our children "a great sin", but for the sake of unity, youi will ignore this. Your pastor is independant baptist, one whom holds to 'believers baptism', yet he will forego all his convictions for your conscience. Incredible! And there you have todays problem in the church. Anything goes.


There's also something else to think about: At this time, there are really not any Presbyterian denominations which accept paedocommunion.

Exactly. because it is blatant error.


But with the support that is gradually being gained within the PCA, OPC, etc., that may eventually change.

The only support is rooted generally in FV supporters. No one was talking about this 5 years ago. It is because of FV.


Once there is a critical mass of pro-PC ministers, there may emerge a PC-accepting Presbytery.

I am sure. We have many abberant groups out there even now.

If that happens, you may be surprised at how many PCA, OPC, and other ministers DO change their church affiliations.

I am sure. FV is viral.


Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
As well, all of these things, according to hypercovenantalism, are linked tight;y together. You cannot be FV and not feed your child. You cannot be FV and not have the (mis)understanding of justification that they hold to.

You are incorrect.

Mark Horne is a FV guy. And he is a minister in the PCA church. AND he does NOT practice paedocommunion, even though he believes PC is biblical.

So, being FV does not automatically put someone on a wholly different sacramental plain concerning paedocommunion. It is possible for one of them to remain in the PCA denomination without practicing PC.

I understand. What I mean is that the two go hand in hand.
 
Again:


Let's get this thread back on track, and go back to focusing on the Biblical arguments themselves.

As I said before:

One of my favorite paedocommunion texts is 1 Corinthians 10:17, which demonstrates that the body of Christ and the table of Christ are coextensive:

"For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

Why are we "one body"? We are one body because "we are all partakers of that one bread."

Are tiny children part of the body of Christ? Yes, of course.
Thus, tiny children are also "partakers of that one bread".

The body and the table are coextensive.

And Gabriel Martini himself admits the following:

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Children of believers are part of the body of Christ and kingdom of God as members of the visible Church, by birth. They enter this community objectively through baptism

Of course I agree, and thus 1 Corinthians 10:17 is a Scriptural mandate for paedocommunion.

However, RAS has offered the excellent question:

Originally posted by RAS

The questions that needs to be answered though are, how do we know they are part of the body of Christ, and are we speaking visibly or invisibly?


Well, who is addressed in 1 Corinthians 10, the invisible church, or the visible church?

The chapter, from the very beginning, is clearly addressed to the visible church.

For starters, Paul draws a parallel between the OT church in the wilderness (Israel) and the NT church. He links the Red Sea crossing to baptism, and their manna & water to the bread & wine of communion. Twice, Paul says that what happened to them was written "for us".

So, was all of Israel regenerate? Certainly not! In fact, that is Paul's point in this passage . . . even though the Israelites received great blessings parallel to what the NT church receives, they were not all regenerate, and many of them fell away, and received judgment. Paul goes on to warn the church that the same thing can happen to them! Thus, unless you are an Arminian, it is impossible to think that Paul was addressing only the invisible church.

1 Corinthians 10:17 is addressed to the visible church. The visible body of Christ partakes of the "one bread". And how many members of the church partake? "ALL" of them do, according to this Scripture.
 
Sorry Scott . . I thought blatant meant loud and obnoxious. . . I see now it has other meanings . . I did not know that. No big deal.
 
The sacraments are only efficacious in the elect, so it does a child no good to partake of communion (an active sacrament, not passive like baptism) before themselves professing faith and examining themselves prior to communion. You are only gambling with feeding them judgment in a much greater way than with someone who professes faith and exhibits fruit of regeneration.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The sacraments are only efficacious in the elect, so it does a child no good to partake of communion (an active sacrament, not passive like baptism) before themselves professing faith and examining themselves prior to communion. You are only gambling with feeding them judgment in a much greater way than with someone who professes faith and exhibits fruit of regeneration.

The sacraments are efficacious to both when attended by the word.
The elect and reprobate alike are fed by the holy feast. The question is whether that food becomes spiritual poison, or spiritual nutrition.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The sacraments are only efficacious in the elect, so it does a child no good to partake of communion (an active sacrament, not passive like baptism) before themselves professing faith and examining themselves prior to communion. You are only gambling with feeding them judgment in a much greater way than with someone who professes faith and exhibits fruit of regeneration.

The sacraments are efficacious to both when attended by the word.
The elect and reprobate alike are fed by the holy feast. The question is whether that food becomes spiritual poison, or spiritual nutrition.

:ditto:

I agree with Mark.

Also, I believe the Lord's Supper can be efficacious in a positive way to the elect, EVEN if that elect person is not saved yet.

The paedocommunion given to a child can be part of the very Gospel that is preached to him, in order to help bring him to faith in Christ.

(This argument is parallel to the same argument regarding baptism . . . the baptism of a child can be means to bringing them to faith in Christ at a later time.)
 
Dr Nigel Lee writes:

Let me state why I, with John Calvin, oppose paidocommunion. But first, to note age thesholds, it would be helpful if the reader would study the following passages preferably in the original Hebrew or Greek: Gen. 2:17-24; 14:13-24; 17:23-27; 22:2-19; Ex. 12:3-4, 8-11, 26-27,37, 43-48; Num. 9:2-13; Prov. 22:6; Lam. 2:12; 4:4; Luke 2:40-52; 22:1-20; John 6:2-4,10,53; Acts 22:3; I Cor. 5:7-13f; 10:1-22; 11:1-10,20-34; 13:11; 14:20-37; Phil. 3:5; I Tim. 2:8-15; 6:12f; Heb. 5:12 to 6:2; I John 2:12f; and Rev. 2:20f.

I oppose all attempts to reconstruct the clearly antipaidocommunionistic teaching of our Westminster Confession 28:1 & 29:3,8 & 31:4 and our Westminster Larger Catechism QQ. 169-177. True Presbyterians and other men of like persuasion respect Calvin's views in his Commentaries on Ex. 12:24-43; Lam. 2:12; John 6:53 & Heb. 6:2; in his Sermons on Deuteronomy 16:1-8 cf. vv. 16f; and his Institutes IV:13:6 & IV:16:30 & IV:19:4f.

In summary:
1, infant baptism signifies regeneration (but not conversion);
2, one's first communion at teenage signifies conversion (not regeneration);
3, Eucharist replaces the Passover (but not circumcision);
4, the 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6's chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20);
5, no females nor any preteenagers ever partook of the Passover till it was thus deformed by Post-Christian Liberal Judaism (+/- 200 A.D.);
6, there is absolutely no trace whatsoever of paidocommunionism in patristic writings but only in pagan sources prior to 250 A.D.;
7, novel paidocommunionism is a ritualistic heterodoxy of the "Eastern Orthodox" and kindred denominations quite opposed to truly-orthodox Reformed Theology;
8, the practice of paidocommunionism abolishes the need first of catechization and then of profession of one´s faith before one´s own very first manducation at the sacrament;
9, paidocommunism ultimately leads to an uncatechized Church (which Calvin says cannot long continue without catechizing); and
10, Calvin in his Institutes (IV:16:30) accordingly concludes against the Anabaptists: "œThey object that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to Baptism than to the Lord´s Supper "“ to which, however, there are never admitted.... The Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed...infancy, are fit to bear solid food.... They cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord´s body. Why should we stretch out poison instead of vivifying food to our young children? ... Circumcision, which as is well known corresponds to our Baptism, was intended for infants. But the Passover for which the Supper is substituted...was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they thus be blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?"

Cordially in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ,

Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
Professor-Emeritus of the Queensland Presbyterian Theological College
Website: www.dr-fnlee.org

God Triune, at the beginning, created the tri-universe (cf. Gen. 1:1)

Still waiting on any pro PC advocates to interact with Dr. Lee's assertions......... :book2:



[Edited on 11-30-2005 by PAIN IN THE NECK]
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Yep . . . according to this site, paedocommunion is the majority practice for Anglican churches in North America.

No bias at all there.
g9bok.gif

Since you seem to be suggesting that the paedocommunion.com site is lying, I figured I would go straight to the horse's mouth just to verify what has been said.

Both the Episcopalian.org and AnglicansOnline.org sites agree that any baptized person may partake of the Lord's Supper, regardless of age.


They do practice "confirmation", but not as a gateway to communion.

In other words, my statement was true. Paedocommunion is the Anglican/Episcopalian majority practice.

[Edited on 12-4-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
Also, I just thought I'd add the interesting note that Dr. Herman Witsius himself taught that even tiny children partook of the Passover in the Old Testament. I just read the following this morning:

The Divine Economy of the Covenants
Book IV - Chapter IX - Paragraph XIV

The guests, who partook of the paschal lamb, are commanded to meet, by houses, or families, Exod. xii. 3. . . . men and women sat down together, old men and young, whole and sick, masters and servants; in fine, every Jew that could eat a morsel of flesh, not excluding even young children.

:up:

Thumbs up to Witsius on this point! He would obviously disagree with Dr. Lee's assertion that neither women nor children partook of the Passover lamb!




[Edited on 12-4-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Also, I just thought I'd add the interesting note that Dr. Herman Witsius himself taught that even tiny children partook of the Passover in the Old Testament. I just read the following this morning:

The Divine Economy of the Covenants
Book IV - Chapter IX - Paragraph XIV

The guests, who partook of the paschal lamb, are commanded to meet, by houses, or families, Exod. xii. 3. . . . men and women sat down together, old men and young, whole and sick, masters and servants; in fine, every Jew that could eat a morsel of flesh, not excluding even young children.

:up:

Thumbs up to Witsius on this point! He would obviously disagree with Dr. Lee's assertion that neither women nor children partook of the Passover lamb!




[Edited on 12-4-2005 by biblelighthouse]

Joseph,
First of all, knowing Witsius, that is not what he meant. Young children are not infants. Infants cannot process solid food; that is why they are given formula for the first year. Giving an infant solid food could kill them. Is that clear? So, at this point, we have clinically excluded the infant from the equation. Infants did not partake of the paschal lamb.


Secondly, Exodus is clear that the children whom partook were cathechized first:

Exo 12:21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.
Exo 12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.
Exo 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
Exo 12:24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
Exo 12:25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.
Exo 12:26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?
Exo 12:27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
Exo 12:28 And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.

I suggest you refer to Richard Bacon's book entitled, "What Mean Ye":

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm

Dr Bacon details this passage from Exodus.

Just to be clear, when Zoe is 5 years old, if she has the basis for examination, calls Christ "LORD", reflects repentance, she will be examined and partake of the supper. If it happens at 4, praise God, so be it. Otherwise, it just isn't gonna happen; it has no biblical basis.



[Edited on 12-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
You (and Witsius) are speaking of the Egyptian passover, not the normative Levitical passover. And ditto what Mr. Bushey said.

Mr. Bushey is my father, dude. :cool:

lgmp0351.jpg


~'Crush', Finding Nemo
 
Joseph, and all, just for clarification:

In talking at great length with the Presbytery about Paedo communion, the denomination is very clear about what they teach and what they allow, or not allow. The RPCGA is TOTALLY against and will not tolerate paedocommunion in any of their churches.

Theologically, the RPCGA condemns paedocommunion as theological error. They do not, in any way, support paedocommunion, and only allowed RC Sproul Jr.'s ordination on the condition that 1) he never teaches it in church, and 2) he never practices it anywhere for any reason. That about denounces it.

They will not call someone a heretic simply as a result of them holding it or thinking it. (For example, I will not call someone a heretic for denying the Covenant of Works, though that really pushing the line, and I'd like to). Its not denying the Trinity, and its not deny Christ's atonement, etc., rather, it is assaulting the doctrine of the church, which is, as we know, essential for the bene esse of the church, but not the esse of the church. That is where the line is drawn and why its drawn there.

Believing in paedocommunion does make one unorthodox in their view of the sacrament and the church, that is why it is not allowed to be taught, or practiced in our churches. It is officially deviant theological error that will not be tolerated.

Just because someone believes something, does not mean that the Presbytery approves of it (they don't), or are tolerant of it (they aren't). That is why he was only accepted as a result of not practicing or teaching it - they won't tolerate it. But, it is not enough, or not great enough, for them to condemn him as heretical. And, he is not divisive over it because he cannot teach it or practice it.

I hope that keeps things clear. I would have not pursued the RPCGA is they tolerated, at any level, the practice of paedocommunion.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Joseph,
First of all, knowing Witsius, that is not what he meant. Young children are not infants. Infants cannot process solid food; that is why they are given formula for the first year. Giving an infant solid food could kill them. Is that clear? So, at this point, we have clinically excluded the infant from the equation. Infants did not partake of the paschal lamb.

Scott,

First of all, I do not advocate giving solid food to a week-old infant. So please don't knock down a strawman. I believe that the Passover was given to little tots that were old enough to eat solid food: probably kids one year old, or maybe a year and a half. I think the same should go for the Lord's Supper.

Secondly, please pay close attention to what Witsius actually said here. He specifically said that "every Jew that could eat a morsel of flesh" partook of the Passover meal. That would definitely include toddlers.

My twins are 2 and 1/2 years old, far too young to make any profession of faith, and yet they have been eating "morsels of flesh" for a LONG time. And my little Andrea is 1 and 1/2 years old. She, too, has been eating "morsels of flesh" for many months.

Witisius' statement does NOT allow for the view that children were "catechized" or that they made any profession of faith prior to partaking of the Passover meal.


Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Secondly, Exodus is clear that the children whom partook were cathechized first:

Scott,

This particular credocommunion argument from Exodus 12:26 is so incredibly weak that it actually inclines me to believing even more strongly in paedocommunion. I mean, if you have to make that big of a stretch to introduce the idea of "catechism" into the OT Passover, then you really must have a weak case indeed . . . you wouldn't even use such an argument, if you had anything stronger or more substantial at hand to demonstrate your point.

Nowhere in Scripture is anything said about the Exodus 12:26 question being a gateway to Passover participation. The passage says nothing about children being barred from the sacrament until they asked the question. On the contrary, as Witsius has clearly pointed out, "every Jew that could eat a morsel of flesh" partook of the Passover lamb. Exodus 12:26ff just merely instructs parents *how* to answer the question once it is asked by the children. It says *nothing* about witholding the sacrament until that time.




[Edited on 12-5-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
Today, I preached the Sermon, "A man MUST examine himself" in preparation for our church's communion meal.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Just to be clear, when Zoe is 5 years old, if she has the basis for examination, calls Christ "LORD", reflects repentance, she will be examined and partake of the supper. If it happens at 4, praise God, so be it.

:up:

Scott, I just want to congratulate you here in a big way!

I know a local PCA pastor who thinks the same way, and I am thrilled!

I am very thankful to hear that you are willing to consider age-appropriate confessions of faith from 4-year-olds. That really pushes the envelope to within just 2-3 years of paedocommunionists. And your view is a far cry from those who suggest that children should wait until a "confirmation" of sorts, at the age of 12 or 13 (cf. Dr. F.N. Lee).

To me, this goes a long way towards "bridging the gap", if you will. And yet, beautifully, it allows you to still keep your credocommunion convictions.

I realize that it's hard to find a good church which practices paedocommunion. And I definitely do NOT want my kids to have to wait until they're 12 or 13 to take communion. So if they are able to start taking communion at the age of 4 or 5, I will be pretty happy with that.

THANK YOU for being a person who agrees that communing 4 and 5 year-olds is a good idea! (assuming a profession of faith, of course)
 
I think it is possible that the departure-Passover was eaten by any and all who "could eat a morsel." But the structure of Exodus 12 (and additional instructions from Nu. 9 & Deut. 16) plainly differentiates the institution of the Memorial Passover. The departure Passover was unique. Some details were by their very nature unrepeatable.

It is entirely probable that many of the "mixed multitude," uncircumcised and non-Jew but in terror of the God of Israel, followed the ritual procedures, killing the lambs and splashing their door posts because they believed in the imminent judgment. This would have spared them, as well as being incentive to flee the land in company with the Israelites. None of this "mixed multitude" could have kept another Passover--not without undergoing circumcision.

The bottom line is, Witsius could very well be correct in his analysis. But that fact hasn't even touched, has not even begun to address the hard data from the foundational texts that limit the Memorial, sacramental Passover to mature, circumcised males.
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

The bottom line is, Witsius could very well be correct in his analysis. But that fact hasn't even touched, has not even begun to address the hard data from the foundational texts that limit the Memorial, sacramental Passover to mature, circumcised males.

Would you please document some of this "hard data" by pointing out some specific passages of Scripture?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top