Reprobate Covenant Children and the Lord’s Table
- Thread starter Peters
- Start date
- Status
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Covenant children are not viewed as "reprobate" until that time they apostasize and break covenant w/ God, and even then, only God knows as they may be a prodigal. If they break covenant and there is no repentance, they are excommunicated.
The supper is delegated upon the premise that the person is able to 'examine' themselves and has made a credible profession to the elders of their respective church.
In any congregation, Presbyterian or credo, there are people whom are partaking for whom Christ did NOT die for. It's just a fact. A profession does not a Christian make.
[Edited on 10-23-2005 by Scott Bushey]
The supper is delegated upon the premise that the person is able to 'examine' themselves and has made a credible profession to the elders of their respective church.
In any congregation, Presbyterian or credo, there are people whom are partaking for whom Christ did NOT die for. It's just a fact. A profession does not a Christian make.
[Edited on 10-23-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
No, because it seems that Judas partook of the Lord's supper.
Luke 22:14-39. The only way we can remove Judas from the Lord´s Supper is to remove verse 19-20 from the chorological order given here and place it at a later time: with Matthew 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25.
Which I do not think is viable.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Mark,
I know you know this, so I am just talking essentially to hear myself:
I don't believe this example is the stalwart for the doctrine. It goes well beyond that rationale.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Scott check your U2U message.
I think his question might be the difficult dilemma regarding why we paedos say baptized children are christians and disciples and members of the body of Christ, yet they are non-communicant members, and under discipline until they are examined by the elders, to prove by their good works of memorizing the catechism that they are worthy to partake of the Lord's supper.
I think his question might be the difficult dilemma regarding why we paedos say baptized children are christians and disciples and members of the body of Christ, yet they are non-communicant members, and under discipline until they are examined by the elders, to prove by their good works of memorizing the catechism that they are worthy to partake of the Lord's supper.
Saiph,Originally posted by Saiph
Scott check your U2U message.
I think his question might be the difficult dilemma regarding why we paedos say baptized children are christians and disciples and members of the body of Christ, yet they are non-communicant members, and under discipline until they are examined by the elders, to prove by their good works of memorizing the catechism that they are worthy to partake of the Lord's supper.
Scott answered the question right away. Paedobaptists use the following to support their reason:
(1Co 11:28) Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
It has only become a "dilemna" in the minority paedocommunion movement. I know there are those that argue the parallels between Passover and the Lord's Supper (and there are many). I submit to my Church's teaching on the issue and do not consider myself clever enough to overthrow the history surrounding the practice of examing a child before they become communicant members.
To the original point:
Peters,
I know you are a man who loves God and I want to tell you that I used to have a view of the Scriptures similar to your own and had a view of election that became kind of the overriding hermaneutic for every issue. I don't disagree that the issue is important but it is after all an issue we affirm and then leave to the Secret counsel of God's will. The WCF rightly states that it is an issue that needs to be handled with great care. If you are in pastoral training, you ought to consider how you will handle the issue with future congregants.
Think about how many things Paul tells us in his epistles concerning our status in Christ and how we ought to live in accord with that Truth. How many times does Paul command someone to do thus and so and then qualify it with a "...oh, and if you're elect you'll do that and if you're not then you won't...." It simply does not happen because there is a place to understand election for our comfort and then there is a place to instruct in how we love God and not get caught in needless speculation.
Nobody withholds any sacrament in the Church because a person might be reprobate. We would admit the sacraments to nobody if that was the fear. Paul does not appeal to election when he commands the Church regarding the right administration of the sacrament and neither should we.
While he does not see the opposite view to be problematic, George Gillespie gives reasons for why Judas may not have been at the first Lord's supper.
Link Here.
Link Here.
Interesting. Chris, doesn't Rutherford, in answering a separatist, argue that Judas was at the supper and thus in favcor of the admixture of hypocrites with believers in the visible church.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Personally, I think that Judas was not at the Supper and I think Gillespie is right in this:
"3. Luke says not that after supper, or after they had done with the sacrament, Christ told his disciples that one of them should betray him; only he adds, after the history of the sacrament, what Christ said concerning the traitor. But Matthew and Mark do not only record Christ´s words concerning the traitor before they make narration concerning the sacrament, but they record expressly that that discourse, and the discovery of the traitor, was [ejsqivontwn ajutw`n]: "œAs they did eat," Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18, "œNow, when the evening was come, he sat down with the twelve," and immediately follows, as the first purpose which Christ spoke of, "œAnd as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me;" which could not be so, if Luke relate Christ´s words concerning the traitor in that order in which they were first uttered; for Luke having told us, ver. 22, that Christ took the cup after supper and said, "œThis cup is the New Testament," &c., adds, "œBut behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." So that if this were the true order, Christ did not tell his disciples concerning the traitor, as they did eat (which Matthew and Mark do say), but after they had done eating. If it be said that [ejsqivontwn ajutw`n] may suffer this sense, when they had eaten, or having eaten, I answer, The context will not suffer that sense; for they were, indeed, eating in the time of that discourse, Matt. 26:23, "œHe that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me;" John 13:26, "œHe it is to whom I shall give a sop after I have dipped it."
"And as they did eat" is the clincher. with Matthew 26:33 and John 13:26.
But in terms of the original question, no, its not just that they think their children are not saved, rather, it is because the Supper surrounds growth, not birth. In other words, baptism is "birth" and the Supper is "growth". The exception to "all" partaking is the qualifier for "growth" which is "self examination." Children cannot do that.
Now Paedocommunionists use 2 Thessalonians 3:10 as an argument that this does not apply to infants. They quote, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." They say, "Paul was writing to the church, but he could not mean the infants. This does not apply to infants. They cannot work. It has nothing to do with them. This idea of working cannot be applied to infants, so infants can eat. They must be fed."
They take this clever idea and apply it to 1 Cor. 11. They say, "In the same way that an infant cannot work, he also cannot examine himself and so since he cannot work, and it does not apply to him there, so it cannot apply to him in 1 Cor. 11 because he cannot examine himself."
This is a hermenuetical error though. It is a misnomer.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 is talking about workers.
1 Cor. 11 is talking about those who partake of the Supper.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 applies to those who work or do not work. It applies to those two classes.
1 Cor. 11 applies to those "eating" the sacrament. It applies to all who eat.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 doe snot apply to infants because they are unable to work.
1 Cor. 11 applies to infants because Paedocommunionists give them the supper. This overthrows the directive for ALL those who eat to examine themselves. Infants cannot do this. They are excluded.
[Edited on 10-24-2005 by webmaster]
"3. Luke says not that after supper, or after they had done with the sacrament, Christ told his disciples that one of them should betray him; only he adds, after the history of the sacrament, what Christ said concerning the traitor. But Matthew and Mark do not only record Christ´s words concerning the traitor before they make narration concerning the sacrament, but they record expressly that that discourse, and the discovery of the traitor, was [ejsqivontwn ajutw`n]: "œAs they did eat," Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18, "œNow, when the evening was come, he sat down with the twelve," and immediately follows, as the first purpose which Christ spoke of, "œAnd as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me;" which could not be so, if Luke relate Christ´s words concerning the traitor in that order in which they were first uttered; for Luke having told us, ver. 22, that Christ took the cup after supper and said, "œThis cup is the New Testament," &c., adds, "œBut behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." So that if this were the true order, Christ did not tell his disciples concerning the traitor, as they did eat (which Matthew and Mark do say), but after they had done eating. If it be said that [ejsqivontwn ajutw`n] may suffer this sense, when they had eaten, or having eaten, I answer, The context will not suffer that sense; for they were, indeed, eating in the time of that discourse, Matt. 26:23, "œHe that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me;" John 13:26, "œHe it is to whom I shall give a sop after I have dipped it."
"And as they did eat" is the clincher. with Matthew 26:33 and John 13:26.
But in terms of the original question, no, its not just that they think their children are not saved, rather, it is because the Supper surrounds growth, not birth. In other words, baptism is "birth" and the Supper is "growth". The exception to "all" partaking is the qualifier for "growth" which is "self examination." Children cannot do that.
Now Paedocommunionists use 2 Thessalonians 3:10 as an argument that this does not apply to infants. They quote, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." They say, "Paul was writing to the church, but he could not mean the infants. This does not apply to infants. They cannot work. It has nothing to do with them. This idea of working cannot be applied to infants, so infants can eat. They must be fed."
They take this clever idea and apply it to 1 Cor. 11. They say, "In the same way that an infant cannot work, he also cannot examine himself and so since he cannot work, and it does not apply to him there, so it cannot apply to him in 1 Cor. 11 because he cannot examine himself."
This is a hermenuetical error though. It is a misnomer.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 is talking about workers.
1 Cor. 11 is talking about those who partake of the Supper.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 applies to those who work or do not work. It applies to those two classes.
1 Cor. 11 applies to those "eating" the sacrament. It applies to all who eat.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 doe snot apply to infants because they are unable to work.
1 Cor. 11 applies to infants because Paedocommunionists give them the supper. This overthrows the directive for ALL those who eat to examine themselves. Infants cannot do this. They are excluded.
[Edited on 10-24-2005 by webmaster]
He may; been a while since I read that. Be interesting to see if R brings it up again in his later work Divine Right of Church Government, and if he says anything different. The piece on Judas by G is from Aaron's Rod and both works were written while both were in London and in the same time period I think.
Yep; but the link is a little funky.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
One can hold the view that Judas was at the supper and NOT be paedocommunion. Note my response post said "non-communicate" members NOT "ex-communicate members", which is what I would have emphasized had I been trying to support PC.
I was pointing out the idea that a reprobate may take part in the eucharist while being in the covenant community. I thought this helped answer the original question.
I was pointing out the idea that a reprobate may take part in the eucharist while being in the covenant community. I thought this helped answer the original question.
Marcos, I believe the best way to look at it is that as Presbyterians, we believe that to partake of the Lord's Supper requires an active participation that would exclude most very young children. "Take and eat" requires the mouth of faith. The type of faith that remembers, proclaims and discerns.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Pastorway, I think I can accept either view. To me, Judas eating is the most natural reading, but Gillespie's points are good also. We just cannot know for sure I guess. It does not affect any major point of theology either way.
If one considers, that Christ was at His own table, he has the authority to administer His meal in any way He sees fit, and therefore, by feeding Judas, showed us a living example of the danger tied to eating it in an unworthy manner, for afterwards it was revealed what Judas was.
Keep in mind Paul even mentions "on the night He was betrayed, He took the cup . . ."
This argument is better for the non-paedocommunionist if you ask me.
If you say Judas did not eat, because Christ hedged the table lest he drink judgment upon himself, well, thats kind of silly because he was the son of perdition anyway, already predestined for such destruction. In one sense, eating the eucharistic supper externally sealed his fate.
But the chronology issue is valid.
Adam,
Here is a problem where I side with the credobaptist. Why is the "mouth of faith" not being manifested in an infant, unneccessary for baptism, yet regarding the Lord's supper it is ? Does not the following verse argue for the faith you say "remembers, proclaims, and discerns" by an appeal to God ?
[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]
If one considers, that Christ was at His own table, he has the authority to administer His meal in any way He sees fit, and therefore, by feeding Judas, showed us a living example of the danger tied to eating it in an unworthy manner, for afterwards it was revealed what Judas was.
Keep in mind Paul even mentions "on the night He was betrayed, He took the cup . . ."
This argument is better for the non-paedocommunionist if you ask me.
If you say Judas did not eat, because Christ hedged the table lest he drink judgment upon himself, well, thats kind of silly because he was the son of perdition anyway, already predestined for such destruction. In one sense, eating the eucharistic supper externally sealed his fate.
But the chronology issue is valid.
Adam,
Here is a problem where I side with the credobaptist. Why is the "mouth of faith" not being manifested in an infant, unneccessary for baptism, yet regarding the Lord's supper it is ? Does not the following verse argue for the faith you say "remembers, proclaims, and discerns" by an appeal to God ?
[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]
Mark, I would first say that in baptism the subject is passive. I think the verses in 1 Peter actually make that point (not by the external performance of the rite, but via union with Christ.)
Secondly, the WSC Q. 95 & WLC Q. 166 makes the warrant for baptism not the faith or presumed faith of the recipient, but rather the child's relationship to the visible church/covenant community (if you are a member of the covenant, you are entitled to the sign of the covenant.)
I appreciate this, brother, and take the caution to heart. I´m pressing the eternal perspective because I think it may be relevant to the issue.
Brother, Paul uses our election as a motivation for our walk with Christ all over the place.
Why is it wrong to assume that someone may be reprobate if they can´t examine themselves before the table? Maybe I should have directed the question to Peadocommunionists.
Is this not a somewhat individualistic view of salvation and the Lord´s Table?
Don´t you want your covenant children to grow? If their positioning around gracious benefits is one of the things that distinguishes them from heathen children, then why do you keep this means of "œgrowth" from them? You will say: "œBecause they cannot examine themselves." But why don´t you do that for them? Do you not presuppose that your covenant children are believers until they prove to be unbelievers by breaking the covenant?
Trying to understand"¦
Yes, he uses election many times as a motivation to remind us of our status and call us to be true to that election. I didn't dispute that. What I said was that, where the Apostles remind us of our election it is appropriate to do so but where they do not bring election into the discussion, we ought to consider whether it is appropriate for us to do so.
In the issue of the Lord's Table, there is nowhere any warrant where the command to the Church is to be sure not to administer the sacrament to the reprobate members of the congregation. As I stated, if that was the fear, then Elders could only truly administer the Sacrament to themselves based on their own assurance for they do not have the mind of God to test anyone else's assurance. They have only external evidences of the members' credible profession and external evidences of Godly living.
To base any decision in the visible Church on dividing the Elect from the Reprobate is not only something unwise but something we are specifically commanded not to do. (Matt 13:29)
Because nowhere are we told to do so. When Paul commands Corinth to put somebody out of the Church, the purpose is to protect the Church but also to bring repentance. The person put out might be a true believer and, if so, will be "woken up" by his discipline. How long might a person be Prodigal? The Bible doesn't give us a rule. Assuming reprobation is NEVER our purview and is very dangerous. We treat people put out of the Church like pagans but not because we know they are reprobate. Only God knows that.
[Edited on 10-24-2005 by SemperFideles]
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Adam, you are right the I Peter verse subject is passive. But the gift of faith received, expresses itsef in active obedience. And, I do not think the verse is asking for a confession before the administration of the sign.
Marcos,
I simply do not take Paul's command to "examine" as a universal rule for all eucharistic meals. The church at Corinth was involved in gross abuse of worship in many areas. He is giving them strict guidelines to get back on track. That is the context. If we start to see that kind of abuse, we apply those wise restrictions.
[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]
Marcos,
I simply do not take Paul's command to "examine" as a universal rule for all eucharistic meals. The church at Corinth was involved in gross abuse of worship in many areas. He is giving them strict guidelines to get back on track. That is the context. If we start to see that kind of abuse, we apply those wise restrictions.
[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]
What then qualifies a person to eat and drink from the Table? Is it their ability to examine themselves? Is the self-examination of the Lord´s Table something that can only be performed by a true Christian? If not, then why keep your covenant children from the Table. If it is, then what does that say about your covenant children when you keep them from the Table?
[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Peters]
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Marcos, a few more points to ponder.
In John 6, when Christ calls himself the new manna, He also refers to his blood. In verse 45, right before He says He is the bread that gives real life, Christ specifically quotes Isaiah 54:13
Isa 54:13
And all thy children [shall be] taught of the LORD; and great [shall be] the peace of thy children.
Also, Paul in I corinthians 10, one chapter before addressing gluttony and drunkeness at the Lord's table says this:
So should not all Israel after the Spirit, partake of the one bread also ?
Are baptized children considered to be part of the body of Christ ?
Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
We should bring our children to Christ for blessings should we not ?
[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]
In John 6, when Christ calls himself the new manna, He also refers to his blood. In verse 45, right before He says He is the bread that gives real life, Christ specifically quotes Isaiah 54:13
Isa 54:13
And all thy children [shall be] taught of the LORD; and great [shall be] the peace of thy children.
Also, Paul in I corinthians 10, one chapter before addressing gluttony and drunkeness at the Lord's table says this:
So should not all Israel after the Spirit, partake of the one bread also ?
Are baptized children considered to be part of the body of Christ ?
Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
We should bring our children to Christ for blessings should we not ?
[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]
Mark, I think by taking that position, you are excluding what appears to me to be the most likely option, which has Paul using the opportunity of the problems at Corinth to address not only the abuses there, but to lay out general guidelines for the celebration of the Lord´s Supper. In other words the choice isn´t an either - or, but instead a both - and.
I think the "œwhoever," "œanyone" and "œlet a man" language Paul uses
indicates that the instructions Paul gives have application beyond just the specific abuses at Corinth (while certainly not excluding them either.)
Excellent answer, as usual, Adam.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Adam,
By the context would not "unworthy manner" be gluttony, or drunkeness, or total disregard for the poor and children ?
What translation did you use ?
Can we really protect people from drinking judgment on themselves by questioning them before the elders ?
As we mature into adults, we become experts at sin. Children have a simple childlike faith, and a simple idea of their own sin. How are we held accountable at the table for not discerning the body ? What does it mean to discern the body ?
By context, I take it to mean that discerning the body involves propriety, and consideration of others when coming to the table. Do little infants and children really have an issue with that ?
By the context would not "unworthy manner" be gluttony, or drunkeness, or total disregard for the poor and children ?
What translation did you use ?
Can we really protect people from drinking judgment on themselves by questioning them before the elders ?
As we mature into adults, we become experts at sin. Children have a simple childlike faith, and a simple idea of their own sin. How are we held accountable at the table for not discerning the body ? What does it mean to discern the body ?
By context, I take it to mean that discerning the body involves propriety, and consideration of others when coming to the table. Do little infants and children really have an issue with that ?
- Status
