Paedocommunion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Goosha


Paul, non-sequitar means that my premises do not follow logically from one to the next but you said that originally that you tried to construct my argument to be valid...apparently you failed. Perhaps one or more of my premises are false but if my argument non-sequitar as you claim then its not even worth debating the propositions since even if they were all true the argument would still be false. Maybe we need to work at first making my argument valid and then debating the individual propositions.

No Jayson. Technically, any fallacy is a non-sequitar. Valid arguments can still commit fallacies. Furthermore, there would be a relation issue. So, for example:

1. If I do my hair nice then women will love me.

2. I did my hair nice.

3. Therefore women will love me.

As we can see, besides the fact that I have no hair, this is a *valid* argument. But since there is no *relation* or *connection* between doing your hair nice and women loving you this would be a non-sequitar. So....

I see....I have created a smaller form of my argument that you may find valid in form but still non-sequitar. However, you still have not answered my challenge which I think is the best way illustrating my argument. Not to mention, it would provide for you a way to actually prove that my argument is non-sequitar.

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Goosha]
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Where does it say that any and all children ate? What do you mean by "whole familes?" Are you saying that 1 day olds also ate? If not then does "whole family" always mean "whole family?" (note, for you baptists: before you say I'm inconsistant, I'm not a big fan of the tradition oikos argument for infant baptism:D ).

Aww, my fingers were just itching to type away at that one! :lol:
 
I have to go to my second job so I will have to address this later. I looking forward to this discussion.

I will make one brief remark: If the original passover doesn't give us any indication of whether or not children partook, then I would still like to know then how the Lord's Supper applies to children and also how the passover related to the family in the old testament. In fact...how any festival related to the family at that matter if the language does not satifactorily prove that children participated.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
you're the asserter baby! I aint gotta prove nothin:lol:

I try to avoid wasting time in this debate...in fact I don't know very many people who don't think that at the very least weaned children participated in the first passover...I was hoping you would simply concede that point based on consensus...most of the folks I debate on this topic don't question whether at least weaned children participated. However, I will summarize my argument.

1.) The amount of food was based on each person's ability to eat (Ex. 12:4).
2.) The corporate term 'family' and 'household' are both used in Exodus 12:3.
3.) The requiremens were simply ones ability to eat and also whether the males were circumcised. Nothing that would even remotely suggest that young children were excluded.

Thus, the Passover was a family meal where everyone who was physically capable (including weaned children) would have most likely participated. Even though Jewish women probably weaned their children much later the way children are weaned now a days, I think the evidence is pretty strong that children ate or at the very least permitted to eat. If the language here doesn't prove it, then there is no way you can prove that children should participate in the Lord's Supper except for maybe inference in which case you have pretty much no idea how children relate to the supper or the passover. You other post appears to try to answer why children should participate and I will try to get around to addressing it this weekend.

[Edited on 28-1-2005 by Goosha]
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Goosha
I have to go to my second job so I will have to address this later. I looking forward to this discussion.

I will make one brief remark: If the original passover doesn't give us any indication of whether or not children partook, then I would still like to know then how the Lord's Supper applies to children and also how the passover related to the family in the old testament. In fact...how any festival related to the family at that matter if the language does not satifactorily prove that children participated.

Proverbs 22:6 6(A)Train up a child in the way he should go,
Even when he is old he will not depart from it.


Deuteronomy 6:7

7"(A)You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.


Genesis 18:19

19"For I have (A)chosen him, so that he may (B)command his children and his household after him to (C)keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham (D)what He has spoken about him."


2 Timothy 3:15

15and that (A)from childhood you have known (B)the sacred writings which are able to (C)give you the wisdom that leads to (D)salvation through faith which is in (E)Christ Jesus.


I think this provides Biblical warrant for catechizing children. They did this in the OT and the NT. In luke 2 Jesus went to the Passover when he was 12!," And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast." At twelve they became 'a son of the law.' They would be chatechized so that they would know all the law and festivals, etc. The uninspired Talmud tells us: "I am ready to slaughter the Passover for you who shall [now] first go up to Jerusalem"' [Pes. 7:6 & 8:1-7]. I think this lends some support. So, the children must be chatechized.

Secondly, they must be able to examine themselves. This, coupled with the above evidence that children under 12 did not partake in the Passover meals, makes for a strong case against paedocommunion.

So, regardless of the interesting questions surrounding me allowing say, a 10 yr. old, we can rest in the fact that these are sophistic attempts to cause possible conceptual headaches within our schema. But(!), we must agree that the counter is false.

I think its interesting that folks always assume that the Luke is referring to Jesus' first passoever. I don't buy that at all...The text explicity specifies that both Mary and Joseph went every year to passover (verse 41)...Now I suppose Mary and Joseph left Jesus at the local daycare center for all the other times Mary and Joseph went to Passover but I don't find this convincing. Not to mention that Jewish tradition is not at all consisent the age...some say 12 others 13.
 
Paul Manata writes:
sure we apply it. Where does it say that any and all children ate? What do you mean by "whole familes?" Are you saying that 1 day olds also ate? If not then does "whole family" always mean "whole family?" (note, for you baptists: before you say I'm inconsistant, I'm not a big fan of the tradition oikos argument for infant baptism ). Why did whole familes partake? Could non-covenant members partake? Any ol' family? So you're really saying that it's founded on the fact that children are in the covenant? Which is what I said above.

First of all, I think the language of Exodus 12 is much more clear than what I wrote in my post. The Lamb was in accordance to what each person was capable of eating. The text actually states the lamb is for the family. Well, I think we all can understand what this means. After all if I go to the grocery store and purchase a stouffer's lasagna for my family, we understand the implied statements. Everyone in the family is welcome to eat it. Infants in the family don’t eat of it because they aren’t capable of eating it not because they aren’t welcome to it…I think this is the same with the Passover. Everyone in the family is welcome but not everyone is capable (i.e. infants). I didn’t think you would contest this so I wasn’t wording it as precise as I could…I hope this paragraph helps.



Doesn't the Lord's Supper replace ALL the OT meals and not just the Egyptian passover? Furthermore, wasn't the Levitcal passover the one in practice at Jesus' time? Furthermore, wasn't the passover served at home? by the head of the household?? Seems like you pick and choose continuity.

Maybe the Lord’s Supper does replace ALL the OT meals and not just the Eqyptian Passover. Personally, my argument doesn’t rest on this point. My point is that the Eqyptian Passover at least gives us a starting point for communion with respect to its practice…I certainly think that all OT meals were family centered and included children. If so, then maybe we should be arguing on whether OT meals in general included children in which case I think paedocommunion would be even easier to defend.


Some have argued that because it’s the levitical Passover upon which Christ established the Lord’s Supper that it is irrelevant to consider the Egyptian Passover. If it is irrelevant, then based off of the Levitical Passover the traditional view still can’t justify giving children the Lord’s supper at all. I have asked repeatedly for the justification from you and I still haven’t heard anything…

If you don’t think Exodus 12 gives justification for believing that children (capable of eating the Passover) participated then you most certainly can’t believe there is any justification to believe the children in the New Testament partook.

In other words, the Old Testament is much more detailed and explicit with whom the Passover should be administered compared to the New Testament and with whom the Lord’s Supper should be administered.

Concerning the head of the household question and the Passover being served at home, I think this is no different than somebody arguing that paedobaptists are inconsistent because they don’t baptize infants on the 8th day. Its irrevelant to the main thrust of the argument; however, it does illustrate that you really don’t use the Passover as a guide AT ALL for the practice of communion. Should you be surprised that Baptists don’t use circumcision as a guide to the practice of baptism? At least Baptists are consistent even if they are wrong.

The "what do ye mean by this" language has been used in Scripture in referrence to Joshua 4:6 "That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, 'What mean ye by these stones?'" And we know that only the heads of households carried the stones out.

I love language and language is perhaps one of my favorite subjects. I’m studying Japanese right now and I totally love it…its so much fun and I hope I can live in Japan one day. However, I have learned that language is very flexible and certain phrases can have multiple meanings and implications to them…perhaps if your position is correct then we can better understand why this phrase was used but it certainly doesn’t prove anything. Not to mention that I find it surprising that you find the phrase “what do ye mean by this” to be more convincing than “take a lamb for his family, one for each household.”

So, I don't know what you mean by founding a practice on the Exodus Passover? I also don't know why you think children were included?

Since many people seem to think that the Leviticus Passover only included men and 12 year old boys, I really can’t make any appeal to it. However, I think that most people think that women and children were participants of the Exodus Passover so I can use this in my argument. In fact, I don’t really care what anybody’s interpretation is on the Passover because my argument assumes that the traditional view doesn’t consider the participants of the Old Testament Passover anyways (which is why I think the position is false).

Lets assume for the sake of argument that
1.) Only 12 year old boys and men took either Passover
2.) That the Passover is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament Laws.

Well, basically the traditional practice has almost nothing to do with the Passover. If God never instituted the Passover, it wouldn’t make any difference. Everything you believe about the practice of communion and how it relates to family is from the New Testament. However, the verse used to establish the requirement of self-examination is an inconsistent hermeneutic. If 1 Corinthians 11:28 implies a command to children, then so should Acts 2:38-39, 1 Peter 3:21 etc must be applied to children as well thus falsifying paedobaptism. Of course, you will say the two are completely different. Well, so what? That doesn’t mean its ok to have a completely different standard of hermeneutics. If all those passages don’t apply to children the same as adults, then neither should you think that 1 Corinthians 11:28 should necessarily apply either. I think at this point every Baptist would agree that its inconsistent to do so. Therefore, you have no material to justify your understanding of the Lord’s Supper. At least the position I am arguing for sees the Old Testament pattern given to us about covenant meals and family and then draws a fairly reasonable inference.
 
I certainly think that all OT meals were family centered and included children.

This is where "I think" needs to give way tot he catechistic nature of the Exodus 12 passage. "What do you mean" is not something the children understood, but were required to ask at the meal. Instead, it seems that the children did not eat, and they were instructed (catechized) to be taught what the passover meannt by those who ate it.

Remember that the paedocommunionist argues that since children were admitted to the Passover meal, by analogy they ought to also be admitted to the Lord's Supper.

Bacon has a good papaer on this issue - some highlights are as follows:

There are numerous other sacrifices throughout the book of Genesis (8:20f.; 12:7f.; 13:4f.; etc.). In each case an adult male brought his sacrifice to the Lord. Thus, the principle was established by the time of the Exodus that these sacrifices were to be made by those males capable of being heads of households.

The paedocommunionist's best argument is a syllogism to this effect:

"[Major:] If infants partook of the Passover, then they are also to partake of the Lord's Supper.
[Minor:] Infants partook of the Passover.
[Conclusion:] Therefore, infants are also to partake of the Lord's Supper."

The paedocommunionist is required to prove either that infants were admitted as participants to the Passover or that they were admitted as participants to the Lord's Supper.

Verse 44 (chapter 12) expressly tells us that servants were not to partake of the Passover on the basis of their masters' inclusion in the covenant. They were not to partake, in fact, until they themselves were confirmed in the covenant by accepting circumcision as adults

The institution of the "second-month" Passover is found in Numbers 9. It is here that we learn the Passover had a significance which required examination of the would-be participants. The Passover was to be kept when and how God Himself instituted it (v. 3). But certain men had been present at a funeral, so by reason of ceremonial or Levitical uncleanness they were not permitted to keep the Passover (cf. Numbers 5:2-3). Both men and women contracted ceremonial uncleanness (Numbers 5:3), so we must suppose that either (1) no women were at the funeral or (2) that women were not required to keep Passover anyway, so being at the funeral made no difference. Since women were never circumcised in Israel and only the circumcised could partake of the meal, it seems more likely that the latter is the case.

In fact, if women had partaken of the Passover, we should expect roughly twenty-five per cent of the women of Israel to be approaching Moses with the same kind of question that these men had, for twenty-five percent of the women of Israel in each of the four weeks of every month would have been unqualified to partake (if for no other reason) due to their menstrual period (Leviticus 15:19-30). Additionally, because Israel observed a lunar month, the solution that God gave to Moses would have been absolutely no relief for menstruating women. They would have been unclean on the fourteenth of the following month as well.

However, there is no such complaint to Moses in Numbers 9. Are we to believe that these unclean mothers cooked and served the Passover to their Levitically clean infants? Surely this is a thought so completely out of keeping with the nature of the meal that even paedocommunionists will reject it. Rather, it makes much more sense both theologically and hermeneutically to maintain that neither the mothers nor the children ate the meal sacramentally.

What we have learned from Exodus, Numbers, and II Chronicles so far is that Passover was not eaten indiscriminately by every member of the nation. In fact, at least three things could exclude someone from eating the meal: uncircumcision (Exodus 12:48), ceremonial uncleanness (Numbers 9:6; cf. 5:2), and an unyielded heart (II Chronicles 30:8).

This covenantal aspect of the Passover is brought out more fully in Deuteronomy 16:5 ff., where it is moved out of private houses and ultimately to the temple in Jerusalem. The Passover in the land was not to be killed within the gates of the home (v. 5). Rather, it was to be killed and eaten near the tabernacle and later the temple (v. 6). Furthermore, the people who partook were not to return home until the next day (v. 7).

We may now approach the New Testament meal of the Lord's Supper with an Old Testament understanding of the Passover. If our model (hypothesis) regarding the Passover is correct, then we should expect to find certain features surrounding it in the New Testament. Additionally, we would be surprised (based on our model) if we found certain other features incorporated.

For instance, on the basis of Deuteronomy 16:2, we would expect to see participants (covenantal adult males) going to Jerusalem to keep the Passover. Additionally, on the basis of our understanding of Exodus 12:26-27, we would expect to see the children of the participants involved in catechism. Moreover, based on Exodus 12:3-4 and 12:21, we would expect to see a counting of adult males (a.k.a. "men") taking place around the time of the Passover. Finally, based on Numbers 9:1-6 and II Chronicles 30:8, we would expect to see an increased awareness and concern over ceremonial cleanness.

On the other hand, if our understanding of Scripture is correct, we would be surprised to find women partaking of the Passover meal. Additionally, our model would be falsified if we found children partaking of the Passover apart from catechetical activity. We would have cause to suspect our hypothesis if we saw the Passover taking place outside Jerusalem. Finally, if there were little or no concern over ceremonial cleanness on the part of Passover participants we would be required to find a reason for the lack of concern. So then, let us take a look at the New Testament based on our model and see if our hypothesis accounts for the facts that we find there.

We have learned previously that the Passover and subsequent feast of unleavened bread required a detailed knowledge of God's law. The participants were to "examine themselves" for conformity to the law and to refrain from eating if they were in any way ceremonially defiled. Although the Pharisees had polluted this requirement with their own leaven, or impure doctrine, nevertheless they still had respect to the letter of God's requirement. Paul has not added a new requirement of self-examination to the Old Testament sacrament, but has stated the Old Testament principle in New Testament terms.


Paul used the illustration of the Passover to insist that the Church is to discipline those whose lives continue out of accord with the teaching of God's law. Paul asked the Corinthian Church in I Corinthians 5:6, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" All leaven is dangerous, Paul insisted. Even one fornicator in the Church will corrupt the entire Church, just as a little leaven in the house disqualified the ancient Israelite from the feast. The command that Paul then gives us is not a new command, but the obvious application of Exodus 12:15 and Leviticus 2:11. Purge out the leaven and keep the feast! But notice that the unleavened bread of our lives is "sincerity and truth." Sincerity is here used for pure motives, as it is in II Corinthians 2:17. We saw the importance of pure motives in offering sacrifices when we looked at the offerings of Cain and Abel. We saw that one of the things that made the offering of Abel acceptable to God was that it was offered from pure motives. Now here, Paul insists that the Lord's Supper must also be celebrated with the unleavened bread of sincerity or purity of motive. This is an obviously adult requirement, even as it was in the case of Abel's sacrifice.

The word for "truth" is also a term that implies rationality at least to the extent necessary to discern the true from the false. Paul in verse 8 insists that the feast of unleavened bread was and still is to be observed with the adult-like qualities of pure godly motivation and the discernment to know truth from error. If it should be objected at this point that Paul applies sincerity and truth only to adult participants, then we must once again remind the reader that any children present at the Passover were to ask, "What mean ye by this service?"

Any children present at the service were required to be sufficiently rational to ask and, we suppose, understand the meaning of the service. But Paul additionally informs us that the meaning of unleavened bread has to do with motives and discernment. Here then we see the reason for children being held back until such time as they demonstrate sufficient lucidity to inquire into the actual meaning of the ordinance. The men in Numbers 9:1-13 were held back because after examining themselves in light of God's law, they found themselves unclean. They had the years and ability to make that discernment. Paul declared in I Corinthians 5:8 that all who keep the feast must do so with pure motives and discernment.

Paul makes his next reference to the Lord's Supper (table) in I Corinthians 10. He introduces his subject with the reminder, "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say" (v. 15). He begins his reference to the table by speaking of the cup of blessing. This was the third cup of wine at the "Permanent" Passover. Remember that the Passover usually was accompanied by four cups of wine; hardly a beverage or quantity fitting for infants. Although it is not mentioned in Exodus 12, the wine was an integral part of the meal as seen from the institution of the Lord's Supper and from Paul's reference to it here in I Corinthians 10:16. The implication is unmistakable that wine is part and parcel of the Lord's Supper and furthermore that in drinking it we also bless it. This matter of "blessing" is also important for our discussion.

The term "we bless" is present indicative active of the verb eulogeô, "speak well of." The Lord's Supper, in other words, requires rational speech on the part of the participant. This is precisely the sort of rational speech used in the catechetical exercise required in Exodus 12:26-27. When children finally became old enough to take a catechetical role in the Passover, they were required to ask, "What mean ye by this service?" They did not simply ask what their fathers were doing. That would be obvious enough. Rather, they asked about the spiritual significance of what they saw their fathers doing. Then, as the fathers answered that it was the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, the people would bow their heads and worship (or "speak well of" or "bless") the Lord Himself (Exodus 12:27). It is also the rational speech in which our Savior was engaged in Luke 2:47 where "all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers" [emphasis added], at the age of twelve. Therefore, when the apostle Paul provides instruction respecting the Lord's Supper, it is unnecessary for him to state that infants are not participants; rather, he presupposes that they are not.

We come finally to the passage to which anti-paedocommunionists usually and naturally refer first. "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world" (I Corinthians 11:27-32).

It was a general principle of Old Testament Levitical cleanness that the unclean person was to be examined and then undergo whatever ritual was appropriate for his cleansing. This was so much a part of the Old Testament economy that God told Israel through Moses and Aaron, "But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord" (Numbers 19:20).

For example, a suspected leper was brought to the priest for examination. This was not because the priest was a doctor, but because the priest was expected to know the details of the law of God sufficiently to be able to examine and verify a case of leprosy. "When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising . . . then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests . . . then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a leprosy" (Leviticus 13:2, 8).

There are no longer specific persons set aside as priests in the New Testament. Instead, each professor is a priest unto God (I Peter 2:9). Along with this privilege comes the responsibility of knowing the law sufficiently to be able to examine oneself. The laws regarding leprosy have passed with the passing of the ceremonial law, but the weightier matters of God's moral law remain (Westminster Confession, ch. 19). The partakers of the Lord's Supper are now responsible before God to "examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, of their faith to feed upon Him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves" (Shorter Catechism, # 97).

Paul requires the same thing of the partaker of the Lord's Supper that was required of the partaker of the Passover in the Old Testament. There are some differences, obviously, between the Old Testament sacrament and the New Testament sacrament. But the spiritual aspects of the meals are the same and Paul insists throughout the book of First Corinthians that those spiritual aspects be acknowledged. This is not an ordinary meal, but a sacramental meal which points beyond itself. Paul requires that we understand that there is a spiritual significance to the meal and that we be able to understand what the spiritual significance is.

Just as the unrepentant were disqualified from the Passover, they are also disqualified from the Lord's Supper. Just as the uncircumcised were disqualified from the Passover, the unbaptized are disqualified from the Lord's Supper. Just as the uncatechized were disqualified from the Passover, they are also disqualified from the Lord's Supper. Partakers must be able to examine themselves and in order to do that they must have a reasonable understanding of God's law.

In the Old Testament, a priest was required for the examination due to his specialized knowledge of the law of God. Today we are to examine ourselves by the same standard. Such examination presupposes a knowledge of the law and the ability to apply it properly. In short, it requires previous catechetical instruction.

This should not be used as a discouragement to the young children in the church. Rather, it should be an encouragement to them to learn and properly apply the means that God has given for holy living. "But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin" (Numbers 9:13). It is not simply desirable to partake of the sacrament, it is as important as is baptism (Genesis 17:14). Avoiding the sacramental meal does not avoid judgment.

Our children should be encouraged to partake in their appointed season. When the child has learned enough to make a good confession he should fear God and partake of the meal. But how does a session know that the child is truly confirmed in the faith (the session does not confirm, but acknowledges the confirmation of the child)? The answer is that the child must exhibit an understanding of what it is to partake of the sacrament worthily. To the parents of such children, this means catechize, catechize, catechize your children. To the children of the Church this means catechize, catechize, diligently catechize and ask until you understand the answer to the question, "What mean ye by this service?"

On the basis of the Shorter Catechism (# 97), just as adults in the church do, the children should continue to ask themselves these four questions:

(1) Am I a believer?

(2) Do I judge my actions by God's law?

(3) Do I love God and my neighbor?

(4) Am I dealing with the sin that God has revealed?

These are the issues of life and it is to these very issues that the Lord's Supper calls each of us: "It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, of their faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves" (Shorter Catechism, # 97).
 
Paul Manata writes
So basically you're just going to assert that the whole family ate it because it just seems that way to you? Did the 2 yr. olds also stand with staffs in their hand? The commmand is: This is the way you are to eat it. So, I guess that doesn't applly to the whole family. Special pleading.

No…I am saying the whole family (those capable) were permitted to eat because that’s what the text says…the Lamb is for each “family.” Do you think “family” means only those who could "hold staffs in their hand?” Do you think family only means 12 year boys and men?

The text also states in Exodus 12:4
….you are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat.
Similar phrase used in Exodus 16:16
Each one is to gather as much as he needs. Take an omer for each person you have in your tent.

Well...since they are similar phrases, it must mean that what is true for one must be true for the other...thus...we can conclude that since everyone ate the manna in Exodus 16 that everyone must have eaten the Passover in Exodus 12. After all, those two verses are alike and we know what that means:)


I've already addressed this. First, if the NT says that those who examine themselves may partake then if a child is capable of examining himself he can partake. I also made an argument from the talmud and the practice of chatechising Jewish children. So, basically all you're doing, again, is asserting your position.

I have repeatedly argued that the taking 1 Corinthian 11:28 and implying that children are required to follow the same command as adults creates an inconsistency to other passages with similar language; this would falsify your view of paedobaptism. You may not agree but I don’t believe I have just asserted my position…you have simply denied my argument. For someone who puts a lot of stock in similarities in language usage, I would think you would immediately see the strength of comparing 1 Co. 11:28 with 1 Pe. 3:21, Acts 2:38-39 etc and either concluding that the language either requires a profession of faith from children in both baptism and the Lord ’s Supper or neither.


Your argument from the Talmud is acceptable…the tradition may have had 12 or 13 year boys participating precisely because of what your arguing for- they had been sufficiently catechized. I’m not convinced that paedocommunion is wrong because of it, but this particular argument does carry reasonable weight.

I gave an argument that "what do ye mean by this" means that the children who were excluded asked this question, as in Joshua. You then say that language is tricky but you want to make the language in your first argument seem so clear that none should doubt it. I sense confusion.

Yeah, I am confused…I don’t understand why the “what do ye mean by this” argument is so convincing…In Deuteronomy 6:20 “In the future, when your son asks you, "What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?" Does this mean that children weren’t participants in God’s laws because of the “what mean ye by this?” Of course not, that’s because language is flexible…even the “what do ye mean by this” doesn’t prove anything, at least to me.

Not to mention according to Alfred Edersheim (The Temple, Chapter 12 under the heading “Herbs), the Talmud suggests that if the child was too young to ask the question that the father would ask for him. So according to Edersheim, your argument regarding the “what do ye mean by this” doesn’t appear very strong.


Apparently you've missed the point that I've argued that the OT tells us that Adults and catechised children partook in the feasts. So why would you say that I'm not arguing from the OT. I have continuity, you don't (according to my argument).

If this is your position, then I respect your position as being at least consistent and if you’re right then your argument is a valid refutation to my argument. However, now the debate is simply on whether weaned children ever participated in the Passover or only those who reached a certain level of understanding partook.

This, I think is the crux of the debate because it requires us to address what is foundational. Any anti paedocommunion position which argues from this perspective is at least reasonable. However, lets be honest…paedocommunion may be wrong but the position itself isn’t totally unreasonable…you and I may never come to agree on this but at least now you understand where I’m coming from and I understand where you’re coming from…

My argument was basically taking the principles found in the Passover feasts and applying them to the Lord’s Supper. The impression I receive from anti-paedocommunion folks is simply to ignore the Passover feasts or make them irrelevant; however, my argument is that for consistency they MUST be relevant.
 
Matt,

I would have replied to your post too but I will have to wait until the weekend and then try to go through your post.
 
Ehhh......be honest....I wish someone else who holds to paedocommunion would debate you guys....I'm busy learning Japanese and debating you guys is too tough....both of you make arguments that I can't just reply with three sentenses or just point to a verse or anything...I have take the time to read and reread and contemplate your arguments for validity and they craft a response and its actually interfering with my japanese studying...so I just say..."I don't agree but you guys win!" Perhaps somebody better than myself could give you guys a run for your money...I have Japanese to study...so...I'll be going back to lurking for awhile. Maybe I'll pick this up sometime in the future when I'm fluent in Japanese. Catch you on the flip side!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top