covenant succession & paedocommunnion

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Saiph
What, the same hermeneutic used with tongues, and head coverings ?

The fact remains that it is not a suggestion or a good idea, but a command of God. That is, examination before communion.

 

[Saiph]

Head coverings for women, and interpretations of tongues are also commands, but given the contex we both agree they are not universal.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Saiph
Head coverings for women, and interpretations of tongues are also commands, but given the contex we both agree they are not universal.

I fail to see the significance. This was a command pertaining to the Lord's Supper, a universal practice in the Christian Church.

 

[Saiph]

A universal practice being abused in a unique way at Corinth.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Saiph
A universal practice being abused in a unique way at Corinth.

Were Paul's letters distributed among the Churches as universal, or limited to one congregation alone? The fact that you can open your Bible to 1 and 2 Corinthians should answer that one for you. I find your 'logic' troubling.

 

[Saiph]

Gabriel, I respect you on this. I could be off the mark here. It just seems to me like he is making a rule to keep things from getting crazy in the Eucharistic meal. Not making a hard fast requirement for it. I hope you do not think I am applying a hermeneutic to fit my paedoeucharistic leanings.

I respect both sides.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
...

It does not do anyone any 'good' to partake of the Lord's Supper apart from faith. In other words, the sacraments are only efficacious to the elect, and are to be received by faith - otherwise, they are bread, wine, and water (and worse, judgment, in particular cases).

Why not say that it only does harm to partake of the sacraments without examining "the body and blood of Christ" if one is able to do so. But if one is too young, or feeble minded, to examine oneself, then no harms comes to them.

It makes more sense to me that the danger is to those who willfully ignore the warnings and partake of the Lord's Supper. But children and the mentally handicap are not at risk.

I am wary of any view of the sacraments as some sort of magical talismans. The harm in taking the sacraments unworthily is not due to some power imbued in the bread and wine, or some power they have to convey some sort of curse or blessing. It is that the one who willfully ignores the warnings of Scripture to confess our sins is offending God. It is our thoughts that condemn us. The Lords Supper serves to reinforce what we believe - that is the blessing. It is not some mystical-superpower-soul-booster.

But I don't think it has anything to do with "covenant secession" either. My view is the sacraments are signs of what we believe. It seems we should not baptize our children if we think communion is a danger for them.

That's my view right now. I would be happier if I agreed with the historical and present orthodox positions - so please help me out. How can these basic elements harm us? Can this be explained without using terms like spiritual as a kind of mysticism?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Civbert

Why not say that it only does harm to partake of the sacraments without examining "the body and blood of Christ" if one is able to do so. But if one is too young, or feeble minded, to examine oneself, then no harms comes to them.

It makes more sense to me that the danger is to those who willfully ignore the warnings and partake of the Lord's Supper. But children and the mentally handicap are not at risk.

I am wary of any view of the sacraments as some sort of magical talismans. The harm in taking the sacraments unworthily is not due to some power imbued in the bread and wine, or some power they have to convey some sort of curse or blessing. It is that the one who willfully ignores the warnings of Scripture to confess our sins is offending God. It is our thoughts that condemn us. The Lords Supper serves to reinforce what we believe - that is the blessing. It is not some mystical-superpower-soul-booster.

But I don't think it has anything to do with "covenant secession" either. My view is the sacraments are signs of what we believe. It seems we should not baptize our children if we think communion is a danger for them.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Are baptism and the supper the same?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Are baptism and the supper the same?

No, but they BOTH do point to union with Christ.

Baptism symbolizes regeneration, which is synonymous with union with Christ.

Communion symbolizes the faith message of John 6, where Jesus says that no one has eternal life unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood. Well, if we don't give our little children communion, what message are we sending via that symbolism?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
...

It does not do anyone any 'good' to partake of the Lord's Supper apart from faith. In other words, the sacraments are only efficacious to the elect, and are to be received by faith - otherwise, they are bread, wine, and water (and worse, judgment, in particular cases).

Why not say that it only does harm to partake of the sacraments without examining "the body and blood of Christ" if one is able to do so. But if one is too young, or feeble minded, to examine oneself, then no harms comes to them.

It makes more sense to me that the danger is to those who willfully ignore the warnings and partake of the Lord's Supper. But children and the mentally handicap are not at risk.

I am wary of any view of the sacraments as some sort of magical talismans. The harm in taking the sacraments unworthily is not due to some power imbued in the bread and wine, or some power they have to convey some sort of curse or blessing. It is that the one who willfully ignores the warnings of Scripture to confess our sins is offending God. It is our thoughts that condemn us. The Lords Supper serves to reinforce what we believe - that is the blessing. It is not some mystical-superpower-soul-booster.

But I don't think it has anything to do with "covenant secession" either. My view is the sacraments are signs of what we believe. It seems we should not baptize our children if we think communion is a danger for them.

That's my view right now. I would be happier if I agreed with the historical and present orthodox positions - so please help me out. How can these basic elements harm us? Can this be explained without using terms like spiritual as a kind of mysticism?

The problem with this approach, Anthony, is that it denies the distinction between the sacraments. They are not the same, and were not practiced to be the same. Baptism (like circumcision) is an initiatory rite. The Supper (like Passover) is a nourishing and participatory rite. There is a very real and practical danger to allowing those who can not discern to partake of the Supper. It says to them that there is no need to profess Christ, for they already are considered believers. There is no need to profess Christ or even show fruit, because they already have full participation. That is why FV advocates say that no positive fruit of faith is necessary for anyone (including adults), but instead only the absence of apostasy. In this instance, Church discipline is non-existent.

That is why every Western branch of Christendom has rejected paedocommunion. They see the incredible danger. Only the East, with a completely different view of salvation (apotheosis) allows it. They can because they do not view salvation as the Western Church does (even the Roman Catholics).

 

[Saiph]

Innocent until proven guilty Fred.

Explain how the absence of outward apostasy therefore condemns those who are baptized. There is fruit even in the smallest child, or the weakest mind. I seem to remember the brother of Christ sayin that mercy triumphs over judgment. It is not an issue of orthodoxy with those who are simpletons, it is an issue of consistent connection with the covenant people of God. Orphans and widows might be uneducated and/or senile. God seems to care quite a bit that we shelter and FEED the abandoned or fatherless and those bereft of love and care.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

The problem with this approach, Anthony, is that it denies the distinction between the sacraments. They are not the same, and were not practiced to be the same. Baptism (like circumcision) is an initiatory rite. The Supper (like Passover) is a nourishing and participatory rite.

True. But you are forgetting what they both do share.

BOTH are the same in at least ONE respect:

They BOTH represent something without which you cannot be saved.

1) You cannot be saved without regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
2) You cannot be saved without eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood (John 6:53).

Baptism signifies #1.
Communion signifies #2.

If a person is not regenerate, then they don't have the Holy Spirit. This is the picture Baptists paint when they refuse baptism to their children.

If a person is not regenerate, then they have not partaken of the blood and body of Christ. This picture of being unregenerate is what Presbyterians paint when they refuse communion to their children.

You see, Presbyterians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to give their children baptism, which signifies something necessary for regeneration. But they do not want to give their children communion, which ALSO signifies something necessary for regeneration.

It is double-speak . . . a mixed-message.


Jesus is clear: "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53).

And of course the Lord's Supper symbolizes the truth of John 6.

The imagery is crystal clear --- when we deny the Supper to our little children, we are telling them that they have no life in them.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

There is a very real and practical danger to allowing those who can not discern to partake of the Supper. It says to them that there is no need to profess Christ, for they already are considered believers. There is no need to profess Christ or even show fruit, because they already have full participation.

That is a straw-man.

I would like you to show me one paedocommunion advocate who believes this. On the contrary, I would argue that paedocommunion advocates are generally MUCH MORE avid about making sure that their children make a profession of faith once an appropriate age is reached. The covenant-succession teachers do not advocate complacency. Far from it! Rather, they say that we should constantly catechize our children and pray for them fervently, to give them the best environment possible for bringing them to the point of having an active, open, verbal, living confession of faith.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

That is why every Western branch of Christendom has rejected paedocommunion.

This is flatly untrue.

On the contrary, the Anglican church accepts paedocommunion. And the Episcopalian church accepts paedocommunion. Also, a small presbyterian denomination, the Federation of Reformed Churches, accepts paedocommunion.

And are G.I. Williamson, R.C. Sproul Jr., Vern Poythress, etc. not members of the Western Branch of Christendom?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
There is a very real and practical danger to allowing those who can not discern to partake of the Supper. It says to them that there is no need to profess Christ, for they already are considered believers.

Isn't that the same "practical" message we give when we baptize infants? And if they can not discern this, then it doesn't say anything to them. One could say that if you determine you do not believe, then you should stop taking communion. But the same could be said for going to church - you are already fully liable for rejecting the Word of God if you continue to listen to the Gospel preached and fail to believe it.

And if you are discerning, then taking communion is in effect a confession of your faith - for we always assert before communion that it is given for believers to participate. A discerning participant is confession faith by partaking. And since taking communion is done in obedience, it is an outward fruit.

I'd like to explore the angle of being a member of the visible or the invisible church. I suppose baptism makes you member of the visible church. This would be formal membership only. Communion then is given to those who are members of the invisible church. ... That doesn't satisfy the situation - a mere confession is not good evidence of true faith. Communion is still only an outward sign of membership.

You said "the Supper (like Passover) is a nourishing and participatory rite. " How is it nourishing? What does that mean?

Honestly, I really do want to disagree with paedocommunnion - but I don't see it. It's rather frustrating - but I refuse to follow traditions or customs of faith blindly - I need to prove them out. I think Scripture is my only hope in this, and I'm not certain at this point what it is saying on the issue.

Sort of an aside (not meant as a red herring), but how many of you were true believers when they began taking communion? This would be for those who first took communion at a young age, say 10 to 15 years. Me, I'm not sure when I was born again.

I do recognize that communion is different than baptism. They signify different things. And both are matters of obedience. But neither saves us. Both are signs. But the Baptist baptism seems to have the same function as the formal introduction of a person as a communing member. Does this invalidate the Baptist baptism?

My arguments are not very good because I haven't given any Scriptural support to them. I am convinced of the legitimacy of infant baptism from the scriptural arguments I've heard. But I rarely hear communion given that kind of biblical treatment.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by fredtgreco

The problem with this approach, Anthony, is that it denies the distinction between the sacraments. They are not the same, and were not practiced to be the same. Baptism (like circumcision) is an initiatory rite. The Supper (like Passover) is a nourishing and participatory rite.

True. But you are forgetting what they both do share.

BOTH are the same in at least ONE respect:

They BOTH represent something without which you cannot be saved.

1) You cannot be saved without regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
2) You cannot be saved without eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood (John 6:53).

Actually, unless you are a Roman Catholic, you are wrong. John 6 does not refer to the Lord's Supper. You keep saying it does, against all exegesis that has been offered to you - on numerous threads. Simple volume does not make your point.

Even if it were true that John 6 is a reference to the Supper, it does you absolutely no good, because the Vatican itself is vehemently anti-paedocommunion.

Baptism signifies #1.
Communion signifies #2.

If a person is not regenerate, then they don't have the Holy Spirit. This is the picture Baptists paint when they refuse baptism to their children.

If a person is not regenerate, then they have not partaken of the blood and body of Christ. This picture of being unregenerate is what Presbyterians paint when they refuse communion to their children.

You see, Presbyterians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to give their children baptism, which signifies something necessary for regeneration. But they do not want to give their children communion, which ALSO signifies something necessary for regeneration.

It is double-speak . . . a mixed-message.


Jesus is clear: "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53).

And of course the Lord's Supper symbolizes the truth of John 6.

The imagery is crystal clear --- when we deny the Supper to our little children, we are telling them that they have no life in them.

No, Presbyterians desire to be Biblical, just as teh rest of the Western Church.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

There is a very real and practical danger to allowing those who can not discern to partake of the Supper. It says to them that there is no need to profess Christ, for they already are considered believers. There is no need to profess Christ or even show fruit, because they already have full participation.

That is a straw-man.

I would like you to show me one paedocommunion advocate who believes this. On the contrary, I would argue that paedocommunion advocates are generally MUCH MORE avid about making sure that their children make a profession of faith once an appropriate age is reached. The covenant-succession teachers do not advocate complacency. Far from it! Rather, they say that we should constantly catechize our children and pray for them fervently, to give them the best environment possible for bringing them to the point of having an active, open, verbal, living confession of faith.

You need to read Paedofaith. You need to read Rich Lusk in his chapter of The Federal Vision. It is there in black and white.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

That is why every Western branch of Christendom has rejected paedocommunion.

This is flatly untrue.

On the contrary, the Anglican church accepts paedocommunion. And the Episcopalian church accepts paedocommunion. Also, a small presbyterian denomination, the Federation of Reformed Churches, accepts paedocommunion.

And are G.I. Williamson, R.C. Sproul Jr., Vern Poythress, etc. not members of the Western Branch of Christendom?

It is not untrue. The portion of the Anglican Church that allows paedocommunion is tiny. Same for the Episcopal Church. The FORC could meet in my backyard. That is a ridiculous argument. I could name larger "denominations" that believe space aliens are coming back.

Because some individuals within a church think something is true, does not make it true. Some Presbyterians believe infant baptism is something to be ashamed of. Some believe that there is no free offer of the gospel... uh, so what? The respective Churchs that each of those men you cite belong to declares emphatically that paedocommunion is unbiblical, unconfessional and dangerous. I think I will side with a church rather than 4 guys, no matter who they are.

 

[Saiph]

Those blessings could not reach us, did not Christ previously make himself ours. I say then, that in the mystery of the Supper, by the symbols of bread and wine, Christ, his body and his blood, are truly exhibited to us, that in them he fulfilled all obedience, in order to procure righteousness for us, first, that we might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, we might feel the result of this fact in the participation of all his blessings.

Institutes IV.17.11

Do children have a right to experience the result of what Christ has promised to them in His covenant ?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Saiph

Those blessings could not reach us, did not Christ previously make himself ours. I say then, that in the mystery of the Supper, by the symbols of bread and wine, Christ, his body and his blood, are truly exhibited to us, that in them he fulfilled all obedience, in order to procure righteousness for us, first, that we might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, we might feel the result of this fact in the participation of all his blessings.

Institutes IV.17.11

Do children have a right to experience the result of what Christ has promised to them in His covenant ?

Not without examination and faith, according to the same author of your quote above.

 

[Saiph]

True, Calvin is a veritable charybdis of contradictions.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Saiph
True, Calvin is a veritable charybdis of contradictions.

He doesn't contradict himself. Calvin clearly states that only the elect can receive the benefits of the sacraments by faith. Not all covenant children are elect and of faith.

 

[Saiph]

For we do not eat Christ duly and savingly unless as crucified, while with lively apprehension we perceive the efficacy of his death.

Institutes IV.17.5

A rather bold statement, that we cannot find mirrored in scripture.
Followed by the safety net:

Nay, I rather exhort my readers not to confine their apprehension within those too narrow limits, but to attempt to rise much higher than I can guide them. For whenever this subject is considered, after I have done my utmost, I feel that I have spoken far beneath its dignity. And though the mind is more powerful in thought than the tongue in expression, it too is overcome and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the subject. All then that remains is to break forth in admiration of the mystery, which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to comprehends or the tongue to express.

Institutes IV.17.7

Ok Calvin, thanks for sharing.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

BOTH are the same in at least ONE respect:

They BOTH represent something without which you cannot be saved.

1) You cannot be saved without regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
2) You cannot be saved without eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood (John 6:53).

Actually, unless you are a Roman Catholic, you are wrong. John 6 does not refer to the Lord's Supper. You keep saying it does, against all exegesis that has been offered to you - on numerous threads. Simple volume does not make your point.

I never said that John 6 refers to the Lord's supper.

And you are misrepresenting me when you say, "You keep saying it does".

On the contrary, I say that the Lord's supper refers to John 6.


In John 6, Jesus talks about the feeding on him which results in salvation and ongoing spiritual nourishment.

In the Lord's supper, our feeding on bread and wine is a PICTURE of John 6.

And I think it would take a chucklehead to disagree. John had been taking the Lord's Supper for years before penning his gospel. Do you really think it was even remotely possible for him to take the Lord's Supper without thinking about Christ's words that were eventually penned in John 6? Do you think it was even remotely possible for him to pen John 6 without seeing how the Lord's Supper is a SYMBOL of what Christ was talking about there?

Originally posted by fredtgreco

You need to read Paedofaith. You need to read Rich Lusk in his chapter of The Federal Vision. It is there in black and white.

I have not read "Paedofaith". Are you actually claiming that Rich Lusk condones complacency with our children, and discourages the active training of children, to raise them up in godliness? I find that accusation utterly incredible. But I will read the book to see if what you say is true.

However, even if it is true, it would merely demonstrate what Rich Lusk believes, not what any other paedocommunion advocate believes. I am quite confident that Poythress, Wilson, Augustine, etc. would be aghast at anyone who would suggest complacency with our children's faith.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

The portion of the Anglican Church that allows paedocommunion is tiny. Same for the Episcopal Church.

Go to the Anglicans Online website, click on their page of beliefs, and then click on "sacraments". Regarding Holy Communion, they say:

Any baptized person is welcome to share in this meal of bread and wine.

I have also found claims that paedocommunion is actually the majority practice of the Episcopalian church.

But if you are correct that the part of the Anglican/Episcopalian church practicing paedocommunion is "tiny", can you present any evidence to back this up? Is there some research that has been done, some document that has been published?

Whether you are right or wrong, it would be interesting to know definitely how prevalent paedocommunion is in the Anglican/Episcopalian church.

 

[Saiph]

One cannot ignore the Passover context for the feeding of the multitude (v 4): he who is the Living Bread is to die as the Lamb of God for the sin of the world (1:29). Also the inversion of the Exodus narrative:

He feeds them bread - He walks on water
They pass through the Red Sea - He feeds them bread

The Walking on the Sea is portrayed by the Evangelist as a sign of Jesus, Master of the threatening waters, coming to his followers in distress, and so a revelation of Jesus exercising sovereignty over the seas which appertains to God. Hence the climactic "œI am," which prepares for the later "œI am the living bread which came down from heaven."

Accordingly it is not necessary to interpret the statement exclusively in terms of the body and blood of the Lord´s Supper. Nevertheless it is evident that neither the Evangelist nor the Christian readers could have written or read the saying without conscious reference to the Eucharist; to say the least, they would have acknowledged it as supremely fulfilled in the worship event. This twofold reference of the words, however, should guard us against deducing from them the unconditional necessity of eating and drinking the eucharistic elements in order to "œhave eternal life in yourselves" (a view maintained alike by many Catholics and by certain critical exegetes who reject the teaching as contrary to that of the Evangelist).

Beasley-Murray, George R., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 36: John, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998.

I agree with Joseph that the Eucharist looks back to John 6, not contrariwise.

The difficulties in relating the two sections of the discourse have encouraged a variety of approaches to it. Some have interpreted the whole discourse as purely metaphorical, with no relation to the Lord´s Supper; others have proceeded in the reverse direction and affirmed that the entire discourse is sacramental in nature; the majority of interpreters have viewed the discourse as progressing from a metaphorical to a sacramental understanding of Jesus as the Bread of life. It seems to us that the material we have reviewed demands a fourth approach, admittedly close to the last one mentioned, namely that the entire chapter, including signs and discourse, exhibits metaphorical and sacramental features, while yet manifesting a progression to an increasingly sacramental emphasis. This is by no means a new approach (see, e.g., C. H. Dodd, Interpretation, 333"“45, and esp. X. Léon-Dufour, "œLe Mystère du pain de vie," 481"“523), and it has the merit of being able to embrace the historical context of the ministry of Jesus and the interpretation needful for the church of the Evangelist´s day. H. Thyen stated tersely, "œThe theme of John 6 is Christology" (TR 44, 109). That is manifestly true of the Feeding Miracle ("œThe miracle is above all the occasion of manifesting the mystery of the person of Jesus"; so Léon-Dufour, 494); it is equally true of the Walking on the Lake, with its climactic ´Ã†Egwv eijmi; and it is the central meaning of the entire discourse. The metaphorical interpretation of Jesus as the living Bread come down from heaven is transparent; it is related not only to Jewish thought, but to other cultures of the nearer and remoter east. While its typological background is evident, that should not be allowed to blind us to a fundamental element in the concept; bread is necessary for life! E. M. Sidebottom cites Appasamy´s observation that for the Indian, Bhaktas God is milky sugar-cane, nectar, luscious fruit, the finest delicacies, whereas for John, Christ is water and bread; "œWhat the Bhaktas desire is rapture, ecstasy, flights of emotion reserved for the few and that in extraordinary hours. What the Fourth Evangelist emphasizes is the moral strength which all men and women need to exercise every day of their lives" (Christianity as Bhakti Marga, 145"“46, cited in Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, 130 n.6). The acknowledgment of this is fully consonant with the naturalness of meditating on John 6:32"“35 in the Christian Lord´s Supper. So also we readily acknowledge the pertinence of vv 52"“58 to the Supper. Christians of today can hardly read the passage without thinking of that supreme moment of worship, and it is altogether fitting that they should do so in the service itself, as we may be sure the churches of the Evangelist´s day did. Nevertheless it must be recognized that hearers of those words in the first century were well able to make sense of them without knowledge of the Christian Eucharist (despite John 6:52!).
The standard rabbinic interpretation of Eccl 8:15, "œNothing is better than for man to eat and drink and enjoy himself "¦," related the saying to the study of the law and engaging in good works (Str-B, 2:485). A closer parallel to the heart of John 6 is a statement of a certain Rabbi Hillel, son of Gamaliel III (not the famous teacher of that name), which outraged his contemporaries. He said, "œThere shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah" (Sanh. 99a). What motived Hillel to say that is uncertain; he may have wished to counteract the apocalyptic enthusiasm of some of his fellow Jews, or the beliefs of the Christians, but it would appear that he denied a future Messiah for Israel by identifying him with King Hezekiah. For our own interest it is noteworthy that Jewish translations of the Talmud into English substitute the term "œenjoyed" for "œhave eaten"; the blessings awaited from the Messiah were enjoyed by Israel through King Hezekiah´s rule.
It is well to bear in mind, in connection with the discourse, that modern man is more acquainted with the metaphor of eating and drinking than we sometimes allow; we "œdevour" books, "œdrink in" a lecture, "œswallow" a story (if we swallow an insult we forbear to reply!); we may "œruminate" on an idea or poem (ruminate = chew the cud), we "œchew over" a matter, we "œstomach" something said, or find ourselves unable to do so (cf. John 6:60, neb), and sometimes we have to eat owr own words! I have heard fond grandmothers declare they could "œeat up" their grandchildren (i.e., love them to death!), whereas to bite someone´s head off conveys a different notion! Further examples of these metaphors will cooe to mind. It is, however, significant that the profound saying in the heart of the so-called sacramental discourse, i.e., v 57, interprets the language of eating the Son of God in terms of ultimate koinonia such as exists between the Father and the Son. Léon"“Dufour therefore appears to have ground for his affirmation that chap. 6 deals not successively with faith and the Eucharist, but simultaneously with both ("œPain de vie," 489).

Beasley-Murray, George R., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 36: John, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Wait, the Lord's Supper looks BACK to John 6? I don't get that. Jesus didn't wait for John's gospel to be written, go back in time, and institute the Supper. Please explain.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

This is because the Word of God is a necessity for faith and repentance. Romans 10.

Not "necessary".

"The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, ..." ( WCF XIV:1).

Otherwise no infant in the womb or mentally/physically defective person could ever be saved.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Tom,
'is ordinarily wrought....'. This does not mean that the infant does not require the word of God for faith and repentance. What the WCF is saying is that normally, it is by the outward administration of the word, which comes through Christs ministers. In the instance of the infant or mentally handicapped, Christ Himself brings that word to them and regenerates, converts and justifies them.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Elect infants are still regenerated by the Word of God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Wait, the Lord's Supper looks BACK to John 6? I don't get that. Jesus didn't wait for John's gospel to be written, go back in time, and institute the Supper. Please explain.

You lost me. Christ new He would institute the Eucharistic meal in John 6, and spoke metaphorically of it while at the same time spoke literally of His flesh and blood. The Last Supper, looks back to many symbolic references and types of eating with God. What is the problem ?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Wait, the Lord's Supper looks BACK to John 6? I don't get that. Jesus didn't wait for John's gospel to be written, go back in time, and institute the Supper. Please explain.

i.e. The SYMBOL of the Lord's Supper REPRESENTS the truth conveyed in John 6.

Jesus spoke the words recorded in John 6, a long time before he implemented the Lord's Supper recorded in Matthew 26. Thus, when Jesus implemented the Lord's Supper, it would have reminded his disciples of the words He had spoken before in his preaching. Those words he spoke happen to be recorded in John 6, but he spoke them *before* He ever inaugurated the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper hearkens back to Christ's words in John 6.