PaedoCommunion: Can Someone Give me a Sound Explanation?

[MW]

Here is what I stated in my previous post and please correct any misunderstandings that I presented so I can know better to hold my view correctly, thanx......

Therefore, in my understanding anyways, paedo-communion is to be rejected on the grounds that they are not CONTINUING AND GROWING IN Christ since they are not part of the inward spiritual community of the Elect who can only participate since they are really the ones continually growing in Grace that they really and truly have recieved.

The emphasis on "continuing in Christ" speaks to the crux of the matter. The only question I have pertains to the concept of "the Elect" at this point. There is no reason to conclude that a baptised infant is not a part of "the inward, spiritual community of the Elect." That is something which requires development in order for the infant to be able to demonstrate it.

 

[Roldan]

Here is what I stated in my previous post and please correct any misunderstandings that I presented so I can know better to hold my view correctly, thanx......

Therefore, in my understanding anyways, paedo-communion is to be rejected on the grounds that they are not CONTINUING AND GROWING IN Christ since they are not part of the inward spiritual community of the Elect who can only participate since they are really the ones continually growing in Grace that they really and truly have recieved.

The emphasis on "continuing in Christ" speaks to the crux of the matter. The only question I have pertains to the concept of "the Elect" at this point. There is no reason to conclude that a baptised infant is not a part of "the inward, spiritual community of the Elect." That is something which requires development in order for the infant to be able to demonstrate it.

So do you presume the baptized infant to be regenerated and therefore numbered with the inward true elect?

 

[MW]

So do you presume the baptized infant to be regenerated and therefore numbered with the inward true elect?

No, I don't presume election or non-election. I am thankful for God's covenant promises and pray the means might be blessed to the child's soul that he might ever know God as his God in Christ. At the same time I acknowledge that baptism is a temporal election of sorts, and that all in external covenant with God are exhorted, in the judgment of charity, as the beloved and elect of God; but this is not to be regarded as an infallible declaration of eternal and unconditional election, such as is faithfully taught in chap. 3 of the Westminster Confession.

 

[Roldan]

So do you presume the baptized infant to be regenerated and therefore numbered with the inward true elect?

No, I don't presume election or non-election. I am thankful for God's covenant promises and pray the means might be blessed to the child's soul that he might ever know God as his God in Christ. At the same time I acknowledge that baptism is a temporal election of sorts, and that all in external covenant with God are exhorted, in the judgment of charity, as the beloved and elect of God; but this is not to be regarded as an infallible declaration of eternal and unconditional election, such as is faithfully taught in chap. 3 of the Westminster Confession.

So then the infant is part of the outward physical family of the elect not the inward spiritual, right?

 

[MW]

So then the infant is part of the outward physical family of the elect not the inward spiritual, right?

The "inward, spiritual" is known to God. The elect infant enjoys both the sign and the thing signified in baptism. The fact that some baptised children manifest themselves to be reprobate does not mean all children will do so, Rom. 3:3, 4.

 

[Roldan]

The elect infant enjoys both the sign and the thing signified in baptism.

What the thing signified that the infant enjoys? I mean I believe that but to an extent so can you clarify a little about the above quote specifically the thing signified. thanx

The fact that some baptised children manifest themselves to be reprobate does not mean all children will do so, Rom. 3:3, 4.

Right, I know that. But am confused concerning your first statement.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am not brand new to the Reformed Faith but am definitely not seasoned yet. My wording may be elementary here...but...

Can someone explain to me why when speaking of covenantal continuance (??) circumcision is replaced by baptism and Passover by the Lord's Supper BUT only baptism transfers to children. This is a struggle our family is discussing at the moment. It seems that Paedobaptism should go hand in hand with Paedocommunion as Credobaptism goes hand in hand with Credocommunion. Children in the OT were not excluded from the passover meal but participants why does this same participation not apply to the Lord's Supper?

2nd question...is there a reformed denomination that holds to both paedo baptism and communion and the confessions, other than the CREC???

Mamarcher,
you said this in part of your post:

Credobaptism goes hand in hand with Credocommunion.

This is the consistent view that many see taught in Acts. The padeo view does not see it this way, and in feeling the force of the verses in 1Cor 11, to properly discern the Lord's body, they insert a difference between the OT passover, and the Nt supper. Most times they wait until the child can"confess, or profess" faith, just as a baptist will before really considering that person an actual "member", and therefore allowed "full" membership.
The confession teaches a two tier system, although it is made to sound like it does not. Many of the explanations have to spend time explaining why the two tier system, [ visible, invisible] or [ outward administration, inward administration] [ benefits of union with Christ,versus actual saving union with Christ] [ Covenant of Grace, with both saved and unsaved in it, different than the Covenant of Redemption, made only among the trinity.} [ a possible election,or possible reprobation , we can never know} [ a promise that is immutable, unless you jump out of the Father's hand in unbelief?]
This is not how it is presented when discussed, and yet when you listen to sermon after sermon on sermonaudio you will hear it spoken of in this way. You can find it in print also.{ read most every commentary you have on Romans 6 and see what they say]
I have heard sermons where the pastor will bristle if someone asks their child if he or she is saved. But having the same concern a baptist parent will have they will ask little Johnny if he wants to "improve on his baptism"
All christian parents want all their offspring in heaven. Which ever system you see as following the biblical model, either set of parents are going to do all they can to present the truth of scripture to their children,praying for God to have mercy on them.

 

[KMK]

Brad,

There is also the fact that it is not the father's primary responsibility to guard the sacraments and teach on them. It is the church's. This is an unwelcome by-product of the resurgence of "family integrated" models of church. It essentially comes down to father's will trumps the elders' will. And that is unbiblical and dangerous.

I don't think it is either/or. For instance, who chastises a covenant child under age? The eldership or the parents? Are they usurping the "rights" of the elders by doing so? Or, would it be a usurpation of the parents' authority for the elders to start chastening the children of the church? Why is this particular area different? It's not either/or situation, in my understanding. While I think the "first communion" model is a good transition point, where do you think the transitional point would be from family authority to church authority; for instance, when would church discipline kick in vs. family discipline? Would the family have any say as to when the child would take "1st Communion" in your opinion? Even if left to the ultimate decision of the local session?

Curiously yours,

I am not sure how Fred, being a Presbyterian, would answer this, but from the Baptist perspective, God's different institutions have been given different duties and different jurisdictions.

It is the jurisdiction and the duty of the 'church' to administer and police the sacrements. It is the jurisdiction and the duty of the 'family' to adminster discipline and police underage children.

It is this distinction that is sometimes blurred when the 'family integrated model' is introduced into a church.

BTW, Rev Greco, how would you handle a situation where a father of an obviously believing child refuses to allow that child to partake of the Supper?

 

[Robert Truelove]

Anti-Paedocommunion Lectures

You can listen to my 2 part series against Paedocommunion here...

Anti-Paedocommunion - The Significance of Passover
SermonAudio.com - Anti-Paedocommunion, Passover

Anti-Paedocommunion - 1 Corinthians 11:17-34
SermonAudio.com - Anti-Paedocommunion, 1 Cor 11

You can listen to my 2 part series against Paedocommunion here...

Anti-Paedocommunion - The Significance of Passover
SermonAudio.com - Anti-Paedocommunion, Passover

Anti-Paedocommunion - 1 Corinthians 11:17-34
SermonAudio.com - Anti-Paedocommunion, 1 Cor 11

There is a Presbyterian denomination that allows each local church's Session to determine their practice as regards paedocommunion. It is the Covenant Presbyterian Church. I was one of the founding elders in this denomination but left it earlier this year over this difference on the subject of paedocommunion. While I could not remain in a denomination that allows for this practice, I will affirm that there are some good men in the CPC.

P.S. I formerly held to paedocommunion.

 

[fredtgreco]

Brad,

There is also the fact that it is not the father's primary responsibility to guard the sacraments and teach on them. It is the church's. This is an unwelcome by-product of the resurgence of "family integrated" models of church. It essentially comes down to father's will trumps the elders' will. And that is unbiblical and dangerous.

I don't think it is either/or. For instance, who chastises a covenant child under age? The eldership or the parents? Are they usurping the "rights" of the elders by doing so? Or, would it be a usurpation of the parents' authority for the elders to start chastening the children of the church? Why is this particular area different? It's not either/or situation, in my understanding. While I think the "first communion" model is a good transition point, where do you think the transitional point would be from family authority to church authority; for instance, when would church discipline kick in vs. family discipline? Would the family have any say as to when the child would take "1st Communion" in your opinion? Even if left to the ultimate decision of the local session?

Curiously yours,

Family discipline relates to the sphere of the family, not the Church. For example, I would assert that a father has no right to bar his (communing member) child from the Table. It is not his prerogative, and he has no authority over the Table. Christ gave that to His Church not individual families. It would just as wrong (and absurd) for a father to "excommunicate" or "communicate" his child as it would be for a father to presume to dispense the sacrament without (and apart from) the Church.

The two authorities are not exclusive, but rather overlap (the child) in different spheres. In the same way, a Session should not presume to set bedtime for a child, or his allowance, or the hours of homework or chores. Distinct spheres.

A family may (and should) have input as to when a child is ready to be interviewed by the Session, but should not presume to dictate the results of that interview. At the same time, a Session would be wise to talk to the parents - who know the child best - so as to get a good picture of his spiritual state.

 

[fredtgreco]

Brad,

There is also the fact that it is not the father's primary responsibility to guard the sacraments and teach on them. It is the church's. This is an unwelcome by-product of the resurgence of "family integrated" models of church. It essentially comes down to father's will trumps the elders' will. And that is unbiblical and dangerous.

I don't think it is either/or. For instance, who chastises a covenant child under age? The eldership or the parents? Are they usurping the "rights" of the elders by doing so? Or, would it be a usurpation of the parents' authority for the elders to start chastening the children of the church? Why is this particular area different? It's not either/or situation, in my understanding. While I think the "first communion" model is a good transition point, where do you think the transitional point would be from family authority to church authority; for instance, when would church discipline kick in vs. family discipline? Would the family have any say as to when the child would take "1st Communion" in your opinion? Even if left to the ultimate decision of the local session?

Curiously yours,

I am not sure how Fred, being a Presbyterian, would answer this, but from the Baptist perspective, God's different institutions have been given different duties and different jurisdictions.

It is the jurisdiction and the duty of the 'church' to administer and police the sacrements. It is the jurisdiction and the duty of the 'family' to adminster discipline and police underage children.

It is this distinction that is sometimes blurred when the 'family integrated model' is introduced into a church.

BTW, Rev Greco, how would you handle a situation where a father of an obviously believing child refuses to allow that child to partake of the Supper?

Ken,

What you have described is a problem in Presbyterian circles that over-emphasize the "family integrated" model. I say over-emphasize, because family integration is generally a very good and wise thing. But it is when it takes over the duties of the Church that it is unhealthy.

If a child was a communing member and did not partake (for whatever reason), I would ask him why at a later point. If the answer was simply "Dad won't let me" then I would follow up. If the father did not have a legitimate reason, or was usurping authority (there is a line between counsel and compulsion) then I would actually begin discipline - informally at first, with admonition and teaching. If the father resisted the authority of the Church, I would point out his foolishness in insisting on having authority (over his family) and rejecting lawful authority (of the Church over him) at the same time. If he could not be persuaded to abandon that sin, discipline would progress.

 

[Mushroom]

Brad,

There is also the fact that it is not the father's primary responsibility to guard the sacraments and teach on them. It is the church's. This is an unwelcome by-product of the resurgence of "family integrated" models of church. It essentially comes down to father's will trumps the elders' will. And that is unbiblical and dangerous.

I don't think it is either/or. For instance, who chastises a covenant child under age? The eldership or the parents? Are they usurping the "rights" of the elders by doing so? Or, would it be a usurpation of the parents' authority for the elders to start chastening the children of the church? Why is this particular area different? It's not either/or situation, in my understanding. While I think the "first communion" model is a good transition point, where do you think the transitional point would be from family authority to church authority; for instance, when would church discipline kick in vs. family discipline? Would the family have any say as to when the child would take "1st Communion" in your opinion? Even if left to the ultimate decision of the local session?

Curiously yours,

Family discipline relates to the sphere of the family, not the Church. For example, I would assert that a father has no right to bar his (communing member) child from the Table. It is not his prerogative, and he has no authority over the Table. Christ gave that to His Church not individual families. It would just as wrong (and absurd) for a father to "excommunicate" or "communicate" his child as it would be for a father to presume to dispense the sacrament without (and apart from) the Church.

The two authorities are not exclusive, but rather overlap (the child) in different spheres. In the same way, a Session should not presume to set bedtime for a child, or his allowance, or the hours of homework or chores. Distinct spheres.

A family may (and should) have input as to when a child is ready to be interviewed by the Session, but should not presume to dictate the results of that interview. At the same time, a Session would be wise to talk to the parents - who know the child best - so as to get a good picture of his spiritual state.

Interesting. Prior to the last communion at my Church my 12 yo son had been caught in a number of lies and cheating regarding his chores and computer time, so we had some serious discussions about his approaching participation in the sacrament. He was caught and disciplined several times, expressing repentance each time, only to go and do it again when the opportunity arose. I had never heard this view of parental authority, so in my mind I can say I was tempted to not allow him to participate, but instead decided to leave it up to him. He partook, but afterward the Elder (the Clerk of the Session) who served him the elements came to me and asked if my son was a member, because he had taken them rather haltingly, and he couldn't remember if he was. I told him what was going on, and he said it was "up to Dad."

Now this leaves me a little confused. If, as a father, I have no authority in this area, and if this credo-communion view is correct; that the 1 Cor 11 admonition has to do with one's personal inspection of his own heart in regard to sin (rather than his attitude and behavior towards the rest of the members of the Church), there arises a problem. To partake unworthily is a dangerous thing to do. Am I as father supposed to sit by and watch my son do something that endangers his health, even to the point of death, while trusting men who A. forget that he's a member, and B. give him the elements anyway, even when they suspect he should not be taking them, to oversee his participation?

I'm sorry, Fred. I want to find reason to agree with you, and if history had shown me that PCA Teaching or Ruling Elders were as diligent in their duties as that would require them to be, I would. But I can tell you that if I see my son about to partake of the sacrament while I suspected he was doing so unworthily, I would intervene, whether anyone thinks I have the right to do so or not. And if I were an Elder who saw a youngster looking like he was sneaking the elements without being a member, especially if the credo view is correct, I sure wouldn't just give them to him anyway to avoid a scene.

You want me to trust men who would do that with my son's life?

BTW, I was glad that my son took the elements haltingly, to me that indicates he was considering the importance of them.

 

[Mushroom]

After some thought, I had to post another situation concerning what you've said, Fred. This is a very important issue to me.

At my last PCA Church, there was a young man of 18 who came down with cancer. His family had been members for several years. We had a prayer meeting called specifically because he had experienced a relapse, where the Teaching and several Ruling Elders were present. Prior to prayer, as we were talking around about what anybody knew of the situation, the Teaching Elder asked if anybody knew if the child was a professing believer. I sat silently for a minute, then fell out of my chair. None of them knew! I knew he was, but assumed that those given charge over his soul would know that, especially since they had been serving him the sacraments for years! That child, beloved to me, died the next year after a long, painful battle with the disease. That, among a plethora of other issues, was part of why several families left that Church, including mine. One of those families took a while longer to leave. You are intimately aware of their situation, Fred. I live in the house that boy grew up in, we bought it from his parents. I have his picture, emaciated from the disease, with me and my son at his sister's wedding, on my dresser. I was a pall-bearer at his funeral.

Obviously there is a lot of emotional baggage for me in this, brother, so please take what I say with that in mind, but you are a Teaching Elder in my denomination who is aware of the situation at that Church, among many others, who have done nothing to rectify it, but leave it up to chimney sweeps and air traffic controllers and this child's bereaved parents to battle in the Church Courts. His parents are to this day estranged from the Church, and hide in their sorrow in their home, having fellowship with nobody. He died in 2003. Did this boy die because he took the sacraments unworthily? None of the men you would expect me to entrust with my own son's life if I were still there would have any idea! They didn't even know he was a Christian! But served him the sacraments anyway!

Something's not right here, brother. What would you say that is?