Quote
Ehud states,

I attempted to search for some previous threads on this subject and did find some helpful comments. A man must examine himself (1 Cor 11:28). But if we refuse 3-year olds on this passage alone, then we have got some other texts to deal with. Primarily, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Thes 3:10). If we approach this passage the same way as 1 Cor then a lot of 2-year olds will go hungry tonight at the family table. And what is to keep Presbyterians from using the Baptist hermeneutic against baptizing children "Repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). If a 2-year old cannot examine himself at the table, then how is an infant to repent at the baptismal font? Sure this doesn’t automatically interpret 1 Cor 11 for us but I could sure see how someone might want to reevaluate their interpretation of Cor 11.
The Scripture is very clear that infants are not suppose to work (Eph. 6:1-4; 1 Tim. 5:8) – you are (even Jesus as a child had to be protected (Matt 2:12-14, etc.). Your faulty hermeneutic is taking a verse meant for adults (2 Thess 3:20) and applying it illogically and unbiblically to infants! In addition, the scripture does not state that an infant must examine himself before baptism — just like they did not examine themselves prior to circumcision, however the Scripture DOES state that a man MUST examine himself prior to the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 11:28) and an infant is not capable of this action!

As above, “Repent and be baptized” is meant for adults, but you are applying it to infants – a faulty hermeneutic. If you will simply look at the “household baptisms” in the NT then you will see while one party in the family repented, the scripture remains silent on the repentance of the rest of the family members and yet they were baptized (Acts 16:15; 16:33, 1 Cor. 1:16, etc.). In addition, Peter (1 Pet. 3:21) clearly shows that ALL Noah’s family were baptized and yet for sure we know that not ALL of them truly repented, or were true believers. Or, look at 1 Cor. 10 when all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Were these infants repentant? And please don't even begin to tell me that infants practiced the Passover in the OT – your explanation of how they drank at least 4 cups of wine would be very amusing to say the very least. Your argument is based on “a partiality of scripture” which conveniently leaves the rest of the truth untold!

Quote
Ehud states,

As for the improper eating/drinking at the Lord's table I'd have to pose another question to padeobaptist including myself, "Isn't their a greater punishment for those who reject their baptism?" In other words the possibility of future judgment doesn't keep us from obeying the Lord and baptizing our children, therefore if we use the same covenantal application to the Lord's table shouldn't we also have the same trust in obeying God as we do with baptism?
Since a man MUST examine himself (1 Cor 11:28) to partake of the Lord’s Table the argument cannot be “the possibility of future judgment doesn't keep us from obeying the Lord and baptizing our children,” but one of disobeying the holy writ, as written. Your argument has no foundation in light of 1 Cor. 11:28.

Quote
Ehud states,

Thirdly, 1 Cor 11:25 commands us to "Do this in remembrance of Me" eis tnv emnv avamvnsiv (please forgive my unbearable Greek to English rendering). However, the genitive "tnv emnv" can be translated not only "of Me" but also as "My" rendering the passage "Do this in(eis) My memorial." Throughout scripture when a memorial comes before God, He remembers His covenant and His promises. Just as when God places the rainbow in the heavens after the flood it is a memorial to God that He will never destroy the Earth with water. When Cornelius prays in Acts 10, his prayers are a memorial before God and He remembers His covenant with Abraham to bless the nations. The emphasis with memorials is on what God remembers and not us. Thus, when the church eats and drinks, God remembers His covenant with us in the sacrifice of His son upon the cross. This treatment of 1 Cor 11:25 has been dealt with at large by others so I won't go further.
You have misread the Scripture. While your point that God remembers his covenant is true it is also true that YOU MUST remember what he did as well. Paul’s wording is not unique. He is quoting from Luke 22:20 here. How does your argument stand up against Luke? Is it Jesus who needs to remember, or his disciples? The context shows that it is the disciples (poured out for you) and thus the Lord’s Table is for the “the disciples of Christ” in the New Covenant who profess Christ as Saviour and not for those who are merely members of the covenant (infants).

And your Greek needs some context please. Look at the verse in its context:

Quote
1 Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this [you, vs 26] do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 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.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
Clearly the context reveals that God remembers his covenant – so much so that he remembers his curses that are associated with it as well. Paul is beseeching the Corinthians – not God – “to remember” in lieu of the curse that will be (and has been) immanent if they don’t! And please don’t forget that 1 Cor. 10 leads up to 1 Cor. 11 and speaks of the table as well – our remembrance of it (15f). Clearly, in 1 Cor. 10 Paul is speaking to the Corinthians “that can understand” what the Supper is all about! Once again you would have us to ignore the whole text of Scripture to accept your interpretation — something a saint of God is not willing or should not be willing to do!

I am sure Pilgrim will respond in kind to the remainder of your post. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

Reformed and Always Reforming,