Confirmation

Status
Not open for further replies.

twogunfighter

Puritan Board Freshman
Why do some reformed churches practice confirmation at a certain age? This seems to suggest that certain age and depth of theology is necessary in order to be a full member of the covenant community. But if an adult converts we do not ask him to be catechized for a year do we? Yet around age 13 some denominations have a "confirmation class" for around a year so that the catechumen can get his doctrine straight prior to communion. I don't get it. Where biblically does this come from?
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Agreed. I really don't even know when and why the practice of confirmation within the Reformed community originated. I see multiple problems with it:

For one, it is not biblical by any means. This does not [i:18fb593b37]necessarily[/i:18fb593b37] mean it is anti-biblical, but it certainly [i:18fb593b37]is[/i:18fb593b37] completely extra-biblical. We never find mention of the term or its equivalent.

Second, it degrades the value of God's promises to covenant children as signified by their baptism. It's like the child is being told, "God gave you many spiritual blessings and promises as a child in His covenant, and we accepted those promises and presumed your election in His kingdom, and baptized you signifying such, but nonetheless we're saying that you don't [i:18fb593b37]really[/i:18fb593b37] become a member of God's community until this confirmation." While I think that a child's initial profession and explicit realization of faith should be acknowledged, confirmation makes that event into more of a rite of passage, rather than rightly acknowledging it as simply being further evidence of that which was already presumed and celebrated.

Chris
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
I have always heard it referred to a communicants class. This class is meant to prepare children to come before the Session to become communing members of a particular church by making their credible profession of faith and be admitted to the Lord's Table.
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Actually, I've known a few people who got "confirmed" (they referred to it with that term) in the PCUSA. But really, I guess that may not even be relevant, since so much of the PCUSA isn't even Reformed by any stretch of the imagination any more...

Chris
 

luvroftheWord

Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree with your concerns, guys. "Confirmation" is inane and is the result of the very flawed doctrine sometimes called the "half-way covenant", which basically means our children are not full members of the church until they have made some kind of profession of faith to satisfy the elders. I think this is unfortunate, but it is all because the church is trying to follow 1 Corinthians 11. Of course, I'm not going to criticize the church for trying to follow Scripture. I just don't think Scripture requires everything the church requires sometimes.

But I am not a schismatic. I'm going to follow the lead of my Reformed forefathers and NOT break away from the church just because I disagree on something. I'll just try to grin and bear it when communion is served and my children are bypassed until they have proven to the session that they are really truly converted. I long for a day in which the WLC is ammended so that my children won't have to go through all this. But yeah, like that's gonna happen. :(
 

Galahad

Puritan Board Freshman
I guess the question I would ask: What is the purpose of the catechumism (sp?) class? As best as I can gather, it is a form of education where children are taught the basic tenants of the faith.

One possible option - should not adult members who desire to enter the church go through something similar? Would that help remove the disparity that has been mentioned?

Some thoughts,
Jeffrey Brannen
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
presumptive regeneration & confirmation

I have often thought it is inconsistant for those Reformed men who stand in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper to not talk about confirmation. Instead the terminology they use is profession of faith.
If we believe Baptism is a means of Grace, in which God actually works on our children, then what is wrong with the Church confirming this work in confirmatiion? Low Church Anglicans have this understanding. So do those who stand in the old German Reformed tradition, [Reformed Church U.S. Eureka Clasis]
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:730036f0c7][i:730036f0c7]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:730036f0c7]
I have often thought it is inconsistant for those Reformed men who stand in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper to not talk about confirmation. Instead the terminology they use is profession of faith.
If we believe Baptism is a means of Grace, in which God actually works on our children, then what is wrong with the Church confirming this work in confirmatiion? Low Church Anglicans have this understanding. So do those who stand in the old German Reformed tradition, [Reformed Church U.S. Eureka Clasis] [/quote:730036f0c7]

Because if so often the primary emphasis would be placed on the confirmation step, implying that when children are confirmed, they [i:730036f0c7]just then[/i:730036f0c7] enter into the status of full, real members of the covenant community, and God's earlier promises and blessings to them as signified by their baptism would likely be downplayed. A simple acknowledgment of their growing, explicit realization and acceptance of the faith would be fine--but as I've heard about it, confirmation usually gives it more emphasis than that.

[quote:730036f0c7][i:730036f0c7]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:730036f0c7]
One possible option - should not adult members who desire to enter the church go through something similar? Would that help remove the disparity that has been mentioned?[/quote:730036f0c7]

Agreed. Without taking it to the level of the modern confirmation step, we have reason to catechize our Christian children because of God's covenantal promises of spiritual favor and blessing to them, which provide the basis on which to presume that catechizing them will be fruitful. Likewise, we have reason to catechize new-professing adults because of their willing profession of faith in Christ, which provides the basis on which to presume that catechizing them will be fruitful. It is indeed the church's responsibility to educate in the faith all new members of the external covenant, both young child and adult.

But a distinction would still need to be made. In the case of the professing adult, that process [i:730036f0c7]would[/i:730036f0c7] indeed correspond with the very beginning of their entrance into the covenant community, and should be recognized as such. However, with children who have been baptized and raised in church, that is precisely the emphasis it must [i:730036f0c7]not[/i:730036f0c7] be given--as if it marked their [i:730036f0c7]entrance[/i:730036f0c7] into the real covenant community. I agree that both groups should go through that same process when making their profession of faith, but care should be taken to ensure that the two processes are not viewed as identical--since one of them (adult) marks entrance into the covenant cummunity, while the other (child) should simply serve to further confirm that already-existent status.

Chris

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Me Died Blue]
 

Galahad

Puritan Board Freshman
I have some friends who are pursuing membership in the Eastern Orthodox Church - they have to go through about a year of training before they can become members. I realize that the Reformed churches don't have something like this, but one constant thing that is brought up here and elsewhere is that most members of Reformed churches were brought up either Arminian or Charismatic. Because of our various backgrounds (and necessarily various theological assumptions), shouldn't some form of adult catachism be necessary?

Because so many professing Reformed have come from non-Reformed backgrounds, doesn't it place a requirement or responsiblity on the church to instruct these neophytes in the faith that they are professing?

Maybe this is worth another thread, but what do you think should be taught?
 

luvroftheWord

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:3fbc6b1731][i:3fbc6b1731]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:3fbc6b1731]

However, with children who have been baptized and raised in church, that is precisely the emphasis it must [i:3fbc6b1731]not[/i:3fbc6b1731] be given--as if it marked their [i:3fbc6b1731]entrance[/i:3fbc6b1731] into the real covenant community.[/quote:3fbc6b1731]

Exactly. Our children are not "lesser" members of the covenant community because they have not yet made a profession of faith. They are full covenant members, just like any of us. Besides, requiring a profession of faith doesn't prove anything conclusive anyway. I know all kinds of people who have made professions of faith, but live like demons. The fact that the children are born to believing parents is just as credible as evidence of conversion as requiring them to make a profession of faith.

Furthermore, for some reason, the Reformed church has interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:28, "let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup", to mean, "let the church interrogate you until you've convinced them you are worthy to take the supper." Self-examination, not church-interrogation is a requirement of the Lord's supper. And as I have said in the past, I do not believe 1 Corinthians 11 excludes my children from the supper, since I am supposed to teach them and instruct them in the gospel and personal holiness from their birth.

Having said all of this, I am not against catechism classes and such. But they are not necessary to make a person worthy to come to the Lord's table.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
[quote:a6808b2106][i:a6808b2106]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:a6808b2106].

Having said all of this, I am not against catechism classes and such. But they are not necessary to make a person worthy to come to the Lord's table. [/quote:a6808b2106]

Craig,
From what I get, they do not use it to determine "worthiness". They use it to validate that which has already been done by Gods grace. To me, this flies right in the face of faith.
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
[quote:cde380b0be]
Furthermore, for some reason, the Reformed church has interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:28, "let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup", to mean, "let the church interrogate you until you've convinced them you are worthy to take the supper." Self-examination, not church-interrogation is a requirement of the Lord's supper. And as I have said in the past, I do not believe 1 Corinthians 11 excludes my children from the supper, since I am supposed to teach them and instruct them in the gospel and personal holiness from their birth.
[/quote:cde380b0be]

First off, the Church "interrogates" no one :mad: A Session is not the "Inquisition". :mad:

All of the Sacraments are for the Church and it is the responsibility of the Church to guard the means of grace given to her. Can I assume that the Church should no longer ask for a profession of faith from a parent when they want to baptize their children? Or does it fly in the face of faith??
 

luvroftheWord

Puritan Board Sophomore
Scott,

[quote:a203425cc5]
[i:a203425cc5]Originally posted by Scott Bushey.[/i:a203425cc5]

From what I get, they do not use it to determine "worthiness". They use it to validate that which has already been done by Gods grace. To me, this flies right in the face of faith.
[/quote:a203425cc5]

Right. That was the sense in which I was using the term "worthy". I guess I could have chosen a better word, but your words reflect what I intended to say.

Wayne,

Sorry. I didn't mean to anger you. My point was just to show that I that (1) the way Presbyterians have traditionally attempted to "guard the table" is unnecessary, and (2) the halfway covenant idea is unbiblical. This has resulted in the church being too exclusive in the administration of the sacrament.

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by luvroftheWord]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
[quote:5fc91308f7][i:5fc91308f7]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:5fc91308f7]
[quote:5fc91308f7]
Furthermore, for some reason, the Reformed church has interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:28, "let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup", to mean, "let the church interrogate you until you've convinced them you are worthy to take the supper." Self-examination, not church-interrogation is a requirement of the Lord's supper. And as I have said in the past, I do not believe 1 Corinthians 11 excludes my children from the supper, since I am supposed to teach them and instruct them in the gospel and personal holiness from their birth.
[/quote:5fc91308f7]

First off, the Church "interrogates" no one :mad: A Session is not the "Inquisition". :mad:

All of the Sacraments are for the Church and it is the responsibility of the Church to guard the means of grace given to her. Can I assume that the Church should no longer ask for a profession of faith from a parent when they want to baptize their children? Or does it fly in the face of faith?? [/quote:5fc91308f7]

Wayne,
Isn't your church baptizing the infants of members only? If so, why would the church have to ask for a profession of faith from one of it's members?
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:5ea40273e5][i:5ea40273e5]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:5ea40273e5]
[quote:5ea40273e5][i:5ea40273e5]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:5ea40273e5].

Having said all of this, I am not against catechism classes and such. But they are not necessary to make a person worthy to come to the Lord's table. [/quote:5ea40273e5]

Craig,
From what I get, they do not use it to determine "worthiness". They use it to validate that which has already been done by Gods grace. To me, this flies right in the face of faith. [/quote:5ea40273e5]

Precisely. Do we or do we not hold fast to God's covenantal promises of spiritual favor and blessing to our children? We cannot consistently answer "Yes" to that question if we are not willing to treat them as if they are just as right-standing with God as ourselves (unless of course they break the covenant and thus show themselves to be apostate). We exercise that faith consistently with baptism, but not with the Lord's Supper. Scripture commands that people "[i:5ea40273e5]repent[/i:5ea40273e5] and be baptized," and we rightly treat God's covenantal promises to our children as sufficient to fulfill the first part for them. But for some reason, when Scripture commands that a person "examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup," we do not likewise rightly treat God's covenantal promises to our children as sufficient to fulfill the first part for them.

Nonetheless, I also see the wisdom in making members (young children [i:5ea40273e5]and[/i:5ea40273e5] newly-converted adults) go through a catechism class, since God works through means, and the Church is His primary ordained means for instructing His people in the faith. But I totally agree, Scott, that making such a class a validation for the child's real covenant status (or admission to the Lord's Table, for that matter) flies right in the face of faith.


[quote:5ea40273e5][i:5ea40273e5]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:5ea40273e5]
All of the Sacraments are for the Church and it is the responsibility of the Church to guard the means of grace given to her. Can I assume that the Church should no longer ask for a profession of faith from a parent when they want to baptize their children? Or does it fly in the face of faith??[/quote:5ea40273e5]

No, it does not, and the two scenarios are like apples and oranges. Of course a profession of faith is required from a [i:5ea40273e5]parent[/i:5ea40273e5] in order to consider their children covenant children, since that is precisely the definition of a covenant child--a child of believing parents. A believing parent is the biblical grounds on which a child's covenant status is declared, and a profession of faith [i:5ea40273e5]is[/i:5ea40273e5] required by adults in order to consider them believers, since, unlike young children, they can show themselves to be apostate.

Young children of believing parents, on the other hand, do not need a profession of faith to be considered of covenant status, since that is presumed on the basis of their parents' profession. And once that is presumed, it does not need to be "validated" by a "credible profession of faith" or a catechism class, since it is rightfully presumed [i:5ea40273e5]until[/i:5ea40273e5] they show themselves to be apostate by a rejection of the faith.

Chris

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Me Died Blue]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Chris,
The command is to "examine oneself".
Can an infant or 1 year old "examine" themselves?

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:1253d859c6][i:1253d859c6]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:1253d859c6]
Chris,
The command is to "examine oneself".
Can an infant or 1 year old "examine" themselves?

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:1253d859c6]

Likewise, in Acts 2:38, the command is to "repent and be baptized." Can an infant or a one-year-old "repent"?

Chris
 

luvroftheWord

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:2ec4276ab0]
likewise, we are told to "repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be saved."

Can an infant "repent?" Guess one can be saved then.
[/quote:2ec4276ab0]

Paul, did you mean that you guess one CAN or CAN'T be saved? It seemed like you were intending to suggest that if we believe infants cannot repent then they cannot be saved. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:74b846eb2d][i:74b846eb2d]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:74b846eb2d]
I meant can'T...sorry guys.

So, if an infant cannot be baptized because the Bible says "repent and believe"

then one cannot be saved since the Bible says, repent and believe, and you shall be saved.

_paul [/quote:74b846eb2d]

I wasn't trying to argue against infant baptism...I was in fact trying to argue for paedocommunion (already assuming paedobaptism to be true) by using the same logical method you just used: that if 1 Corinthians 11:28 bans infants from partaking in the Lord's Supper, that Acts 2:38 would also have to be taken to ban them from baptism if one is to be consistent.

Chris
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Chris et. al.
It has been said:

1) The call to believe is associated with repentance. It follows then that all salvations do require repentance and eventually, along the lines of the ordo salutis, every true conversion will repent.

a) Since infants cannot repent, none can be saved.

We know the above is not true.

2) The command to patake of the Lords supper is that each individual, prior to partaking, "examine" themself.

a)Since infants cannot examine themselves, it follws then that they should not partake.

The above is true.

To try and force an analogy between these two doctrines in erred. This premise cannot be used to disable that which God commands in regards to the table.

Infants of covenant families are baptised based upon the covenant promise and command of God. The petition in Acts to repent is directed to those persons whom are able to repent. Those adults whom repent and are baptised speak in proxy for their infants. Baptism occurs at the family level based upon the federal headship of the parent.

The regeneratory power of God can and does save whomever and whenever it wills, even in infancy. The regeneration of an infant does not necessarily imply conversion; this will happen later in life, under the sound preaching of Gods word. Understanding is essential (in my opinion). In that time, the regenerated person WILL repent and then conversion WILL take place. 'Understanding' will also play a part in the command to "examine" oneself. Without understanding, how can one examine themself; in the light of what? Misunderstanding??? No, understanding!

If we the reformed fence the table, whom are we fencing? Outsiders who visit? Those whom sit amongst us? (For those of you whom believe in paedo-supper) At what age shall we allow the children to partake? As soon as they are able to ingest? 1 year olds?

If 1 years old, how do you know the "self-examination" has taken place? Are you not tying a millstone around your neck by allowing this little one to stumble and even possibly "sleep"?

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:64608f951c][i:64608f951c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:64608f951c]
Chris et. al.
It has been said:

1) The call to believe is associated with repentance. It follows then that all salvations do require repentance and eventually, along the lines of the ordo salutis, every true conversion will repent.

a) Since infants cannot repent, none can be saved.

We know the above is not true.

2) The command to patake of the Lords supper is that each individual, prior to partaking, "examine" themself.

a)Since infants cannot examine themselves, it follws then that they should not partake.

The above is true.

To try and force an analogy between these two doctrines in erred. This premise cannot be used to disable that which God commands in regards to the table.[/quote:64608f951c]

I agree that one cannot make this analogy between salvation and sacrament, since the two are redically different in nature. I only made the analogy between sacrament and sacrament, comparing 1 Corinthians 11:28 with Acts 2:38.

[quote:64608f951c][i:64608f951c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:64608f951c]
Infants of covenant families are baptised based upon the covenant promise and command of God. The petition in Acts to repent is directed to those persons whom are able to repent. Those adults whom repent and are baptised speak in proxy for their infants. Baptism occurs at the family level based upon the federal headship of the parent.[/quote:64608f951c]

You say that the command to "repent" before being baptized in Acts 2 is only directed at those who are capable of such, and further that those people speak in proxy for their infants. I agree, and also think that the command in 1 Corinthians 11 is analogous. For one thing, I think it was speaking to a particular problem in the Corinthians church at that time, but that's another issue altogether. Even if I grant that it [i:64608f951c]is[/i:64608f951c] in fact a general command, what in the text is there to say it is not analogous to the command in Acts 2, and that it was thus speaking to those who are capable of heeding it, and that those people speak in proxy for their children?

[quote:64608f951c][i:64608f951c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:64608f951c]
The regeneratory power of God can and does save whomever and whenever it wills, even in infancy. The regeneration of an infant does not necessarily imply conversion; this will happen later in life, under the sound preaching of Gods word. Understanding is essential (in my opinion). In that time, the regenerated person WILL repent and then conversion WILL take place. 'Understanding' will also play a part in the command to "examine" oneself. Without understanding, how can one examine themself; in the light of what? Misunderstanding??? No, understanding![/quote:64608f951c]

Agreed. Again, I am with you that this analogy between salvation and sacrament is non-sequitor.

[quote:64608f951c][i:64608f951c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:64608f951c]
If we the reformed fence the table, whom are we fencing? Outsiders who visit? Those whom sit amongst us? (For those of you whom believe in paedo-supper) At what age shall we allow the children to partake? As soon as they are able to ingest? 1 year olds?[/quote:64608f951c]

Once they are baptized, and their physical development allows for its safety.

[quote:64608f951c][i:64608f951c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:64608f951c]
If 1 years old, how do you know the "self-examination" has taken place? Are you not tying a millstone around your neck by allowing this little one to stumble and even possibly "sleep"?

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:64608f951c]

See my comments above on the nature of the 1 Corinthians command as compared with Acts 2.

In Christ,

Chris

P. S. If I could convince myself that the 1 Corinthians 11 passage really does warrant what it has come to be taken as in the church, I would gladly change my view. However, as of yet, I simply can't see what makes the command different from that in Acts 2.
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
[quote:f04c67050a]
Wayne,
Isn't your church baptizing the infants of members only? If so, why would the church have to ask for a profession of faith from one of it's members?
[/quote:f04c67050a]

True. And a Profession of Faith is required to become a communing member of a particular Church. Therefore, because of their profession, we can baptize their children.


[quote:f04c67050a]
Sorry. I didn't mean to anger you. My point was just to show that I that (1) the way Presbyterians have traditionally attempted to "guard the table" is unnecessary, and (2) the halfway covenant idea is unbiblical. This has resulted in the church being too exclusive in the administration of the sacrament.
[/quote:f04c67050a]

Craig,

Sorry if I over reacted. These words took me back to a very unpleasant situation our Session had to deal with and these words were used to discribe what we were doing.

The half-way covenant is not a good analogy to the requirement for a child to make a profession. As I am sure you are aware there was more to the half-way covenant as practiced in the New England Churches.


[quote:f04c67050a]
Chris wrote:
Young children of believing parents, on the other hand, do not need a profession of faith to be considered of covenant status, since that is presumed on the basis of their parents' profession. And once that is presumed, it does not need to be "validated" by a "credible profession of faith" or a catechism class, since it is rightfully presumed until they show themselves to be apostate by a rejection of the faith.
[/quote:f04c67050a]

This is where you "presume" to much and go beyond Scripture and where the concept of Presumptive Regeneration starts running amuck. The child is under the authority of the parent, therefore the parents profession is required (1 Cor 7:14, Rom 10:9-11) to show that they are Christians. But when the child comes to an age when they can speak for themselves and discern the Body and Blood of Christ, they must then stand on their own and profess Christ. Making a profession is not a bad thing!! All should be more than willing to profess Christ everywhere and under any circumstance.

The purpose of this is not to determine "covenant" status. This is a serious mistake. When a person is baptised they are baptised into the visible church and have all the rights afforded to them but with limits based on Scripture. Of course a child does not have all the rights that an adult has in the Church. Age is a factor. The church does not grant a child the covenant right to hold office in the church. Scripture sets restrictions as to who can hold office, just as it sets restrictions as to who can come to the Lord's Table. Because children cannot hold office does that mean the church only considers children as "half-way" members? Of course not. To say that a child does not have full rights of the covenant because the Church does not want to feed them damnation is very short sighted. The admonition in 1 Cor 11 has been held by Reformed churches for centuries as the biblical position. I would suggest you read the Puritans, Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Machen and other great teachers of the faith who have all come to the same conclusion.

The problem with your comparison of 1 Cor 11:28 and Acts 2:38 is that you leave off a very important part of Peter's statement, which is verse 39. Verse 39 is integral as to why we do baptise infants in that the "promise is to you and your children". If the promise is not to our children, then baptizing them becomes pointless. Therefore, comparing the requirements of baptism to the Lord's Supper is comparing apples to oranges.
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
Paul,

These are good questions and there are others that peadocommunionist need to answer. Unfortunately one of the problems that I have yet to see from peadocommunionists is any real exegetical evidence for this practice.
 

Tertullian

Puritan Board Freshman
Confirmation (However it is called) is just the recognition that the Presbyterians practice baptism in two steps instead of one, first they put the water on (step 1) then they have the confession or confirmation (Part 2). baptist just view the sacrament as something that should not be divided.

[Edited on 3-17-2004 by Tertullian]
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
[quote:16a8dbbbdb][i:16a8dbbbdb]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:16a8dbbbdb]
Confirmation (However it is called) is just the recognition that the Presbyterians practice baptism in two steps instead of one, first they put the water on (step 1) then they have the confession or confirmation (Part 2). baptist just view the sacrament as something that should not be divided.

[Edited on 3-17-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:16a8dbbbdb]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way :cool:
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
[quote:1f7fedf895][i:1f7fedf895]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:1f7fedf895]
Though i am not convinced, or well studied on the issue of paedocommunion I have a couple of question:

don't you need to show a link between that and passover?

Now, did infants partake of the passover? I mean, could they digest lamb chops? As far as I know they can't.

Doesn't "they asked what was the meal about" assume that they had to be aware of what was going on?

Is there any verse that says "infants partook?" Because if one can't show that there were infants there then doesn't that cause problems.

And, all the above questions i can get around regarding baptism (or at least i think I can) so it won't do good to say, "all those could be applied to infant baptism."

thanks,
-Paul [/quote:1f7fedf895]

No takers on Paul's questions?????
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I haven't really thought about the issue with regard to the passover/communion analogy that much. It just seems contradictory to me to take God's spiritual promises to your children seriously (i.e. in baptism), but then deny them the sacrament that signifies the very thing by which those promises are purchased.

So in that sense, that's why I think the burden of proof would logically stand on those who want to withold the sacrament from infants. And to that people will respond, "OK, fair enough - and our proof is 1 Corinthians 11." But I just don't think that passage restricts the sacrament in the general sense people think it does today, and I haven't heard anyone ably refute the claim that Paul was specifically speaking about the problem in Corinth, about the class disregard when partaking of the Supper. In light of that, 1 Corinthians 11 seems far from conclusive enough to shift the burden of proof from the "credocommunionist" to the paedo.

If anyone has a good refutation of that interpretation of the passage, or if someone sees a hole in my logic, please speak. I'm really trying to understand the reasons for the rejection of the doctrine.

In Christ,

Chris

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by Me Died Blue]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top