Exceptions Required to be Taken for Paedo-Communion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Whitefield

Puritan Board Junior
A point of information: Does the issue of paedocommunion concern only infants or does it include children (e.g., a 7 year old)?
Dr. Francis Nigel Lee deals with that in Paedocommunism Versus Protestantism: Why Baptized Children Need Catechizing Before First Communing Not Prior To Puberty. See especially his citation of Samuel Miller and John Gill.
Thank you for the link. It seemed the focus was on infants in the above postings and I wanted to be sure the discussion wasn't just about infants.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
There is no solid proof that infants or women actually partook of the 1st passover.
Exo 12:4 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.
Isn't that like saying there's no solid proof that same sex marriage wasn't universal? That households consisted of only adult men, and that I have to prove otherwise?
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
There is no solid proof that infants or women actually partook of the 1st passover.
Exo 12:4 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.
Isn't that like saying there's no solid proof that same sex marriage wasn't universal? That households consisted of only adult men, and that I have to prove otherwise?
Tim,
I think the point of the poster is that even that point can be disputed, even if the argument isn't particularly strong. The fact that they numbered the "souls" ("persons", above) of the house seems to widen the range of participants, but then it says "according to what each man ("ish") can eat." Is that male reference generic?

At present, I think that the wives did participate, I think the meal was prepared simply on the basis of whichever adults in the house could eat of it. But this would exclude any youth not prepared to take that kind of nourishment.

It isn't established conclusively that women participated in the First Passover. The Ex.12 passage stresses the requirement of circumcision. The Memorial Passover is where we see a quite literal application of this limitation, both in the statements respecting who may/must participate (adult males), as well as the most explicit examples--the best known which is the final Passover Jesus celebrated. Not a single woman present.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
From what Lane has pointed out, it would appear that Reformed paedobaptists and Reformed credobaptists have more in common than Reformed Presbyterians and PC Presbyterians.

It seems to me a Reformed credobaptist would only be required to take exceptions to the following.

Possibly 7:5,6
Possibly 27:1 (Sign and 'seals')
28:1,5,6

(Most credobaptists would take exception to WCF 31, but that is a separate issue.)
 

Robert Truelove

Puritan Board Sophomore
To add another :2cents: ...

As a teaching elder in an elder governed, independent church, I would not allow a paedocommunion exception from an officer candidate. When all is put on the table, I think there are far less problems (both systematically, and practically) with allowing a credo-baptist exception than one for paedocommunion.

This is rather frustrating to me. Presbyteries that will allow an exception for paedocommunion but not credo-baptism. I'm not saying they should necessarily allow a credo-baptism exception but if they are going to allow for paedocommunion, why on earth not allow the former as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top