The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Paedocommunion

Greetings Highway, <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

I hope that all are doing well. It has been a while since I have posted anything anywhere but I have been checking up on ya'll from time to time. I will be honest and admit that I have come to have some FV sympathies and I understand the guidelines and purpose of this forum and will graciously take my leave if I ever cross over the boundary in discussing such issues. I know of two other folks who were recently banned from a message board because they had links to Douglas Wilson and Jeffery Meyers on a page that was linked in their signature. That being said I think Paedocommunion/early childhood communion is worthy of some attention.

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.

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?

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.

I quoted the following from you, Pilgrim, from the other thread on the attractiveness of FV.

I guess I'd have to ask you to define hyper-covenantalism to understand your first point. But "discerning the body" brings up another question. Why is it that whenever Paul is speaking about the elements, he always uses "bread and cup" or "body and blood". But here when Paul commands us to discern the body (1 Cor 11:29) he doesn't tell us to discern the body and the blood. Certainly we could infer that body means "body and blood" together but by itself this could also refer to the church body. Paul does refer to the church as "the body" in several places in this letter (10:17, 12:12). And the passage emphasizes that none are to be left out of the supper. "When you come together to eat, wait for one another"(11:33). A 2-year old at my church sits down in his seat, hears the proclamation of the Jesus' death, and in his eating and partaking with everyone else to some extent, I believe, he does know that he is apart of the body of Christ.

Now if we want "discern the body" to mean that we are to comprehend the fullness of Christ's death and resurrection and the glory and majesty and the wisdom and greatness of the love of God in such an event, then I say "Let he who has been God's advisor, be the first to cast out the little ones."

I'd like nothing more than to mull this over.

Faris

Ehud,

Let me first say that when I read this, although it wasn't so much of a surprise since NPP/FV is taking many captive lately, but rather it made my heart heavy. When the soul of someone I know is in danger, it hurts me deeply.

Galatians 1:6-9; 3:1-3 (ASV) "I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; 7 which is not another [gospel] only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. 9 As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. . . . 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified? 2 This only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?

Ehud asks about paedocommunion:

1) The Lord's Table is a sacrament which the Lord Christ instituted for believers wherein He communes with them by His Spirit. Without possession of a true saving faith, which is the fruit of regeneration, there can be no Communion.

2) The Elders are given the "keys of the kingdom" and rule over the Church which includes examining those who would desire to join a church. One of the prerequisites is a valid profession of faith. Thus at bare minimum, one must be able to answer questions concerning God, Christ, sin, salvation, exhibit a spirit of repentance and articulate their faith. Infants and most children are unable to meet those requirements.

3) A second requirement for one who would take of the Lord's Table is that they be able to "discern the body", i.e., they are capable of examining themselves. Again, the ability to do this requires that one be in possession of some knowledge both of sound doctrine and of themselves; the latter being restricted to those who are indwelt by the Spirit (regenerate). Again, infants and most children are not capable of examining themselves.

4) Although no man is able to infallibly judge the spiritual state of another's soul, it is still given to the Elders of the Church to discern whether or not, as best as they are able, if one is a believer in Christ and thus qualified to partake of the Lord's Table. Zwingli was in error when he determined that the Table is nothing more than a "memorial". Likewise, the Roman State Church is mistaken as to the "Real Presence", aka: transubstantiation and assigning to the Table a salvific element.

Broadly speaking, I define "hyper-covenantalism" as anything that assigns a salvific element to the Covenant of Grace, i.e., salvation is owned, totally or in part, on the basis of belonging to the covenant community. The Scriptures teach that one is a bona fide covenant member in a spiritual sense, because they are saved; not vice versa. True believers are de facto covenant members. Thus those who embrace "hyper-covenantalism" invariably hold that infants of believers are to be assumed regenerate or belong to some quasi-saved/potentially saved state because they are "in the covenant" via a parental relationship. I've expressed how this view is not biblical and antithetical to the doctrines of grace on numerous occasions here and thus I will not repeat it. In summary, one does not possess salvation to any degree because they are members of the covenant community, aka: a church, whether by making a profession of faith or by proxy, being a child of believing parents. There simply is no biblical warrant to support this view.

To return just briefly to the matter of NPP/FV, the entire foundation of this heresy is based upon the erroneous formulation of "Second Temple Judaism" (N.T. Wright, Saunders, et al). Although there are few at the present time who have published thorough critiques and refutations of this heresy, the ones that are available are worth reading. One I particularly recommend is The Gospel of free Acceptance in Christ, by Cornelis P. Venema and published by Banner of Truth.

Genesis 3:6 (ASV) "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat."

Matthew 16:6 (ASV) "And Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

In His grace,

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!

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.

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:

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="" />

Two points here:

1) How is the hermeneutic used to oppose paedocommunion "Baptist"? Presbyterianism historically has always opposed paedocommunion, and on the basis of Paul's command that those who partake in the supper must first "examine themselves."

2) What's so bad about Baptists? I mean this question in all seriousness. I have encountered several FV proponents who have the most condescending attitudes toward our Reformed Baptist brethren, even one who wondered why Presbyterians would want to be more like Baptists than like Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox!

First, I was only meaning that if a Presbyterian was true to his hermeneutic for "Repent and be baptized" as not speaking to infants then he has no reason to assume that "a man must examine himself" is speaking to infants either. Because the defense given in a Presbyterian/Baptist discussion is always that "Repent and be baptized" is not a passage referring to infants.

Secondly, I wasn't trying to imply bad things about baptists. In fact, I meant to imply that a Baptist is more consistent in his interpretation of "Repent and be baptized" with "A man must examine himself."

But a historic Presbyterian IS true to his hermeneutic in both allowing infants to be baptized and in disallowing them to come to the Table. The two sacraments in question, i.e., baptism and the Lord's Table are decidedly two different things which have their own and different purposes. The former is for inauguration into the covenant community and a declaration of salvation by the Church to those who actually possess faith. The latter is applicable and open to all who have faith and profess to own it with the ability to discern themselves in preparation to partake of it. Each is exclusionary in their own way; i.e., the purpose and requirements of each are not synonymous and thus cannot be compared. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Joe,

I never wanted to interpret 2 Thes 3:20 as referring to infants. I only did that to make a point. Whenever we read 2 Thes 3:20 we don't question the fact that this is an "adults only" passage. We say, "Of course an infant’s eligibility to eat food at the family table cannot be based upon his ability to work." That would be both insane and ridiculous.

But again the 1 Cor 11 passage says that "A man must examine himself." Why do we automatically assume this is both a "child and adult" passage?

Again I agree that "Repent and be baptized" is meant for adults. I whole heartedly agree with that! This only begs the question again. Why is "let a man examine himself" not only meant for adults?


This is precisely what I'm debating. Is "a man" referring to the adult or both adults and infants?


Are you saying that each person eating the Passover was required to drink 4 cups of wine a piece? I did not understand this to be the case, but would like to know more.


If Jesus is saying "Do this as My memorial" then it is specifically Jesus who is remembering? The bow in the clouds is for the promise to the world that it will be safe from destruction of the flood. But that protection comes through God's remembering His covenant.

Genesis 8:


I put the recipients in bold face because they are mentioned here several times too just like in Corinthians but the memorial, I think, is clearly for God.

I am all for the people of God to exam themselves at the table, but the problem at Corinth is that some folks are excluding other folks for whatever reason it may be. Chapter one deals with some of this as some say that they are of Apollos and some are of Christ and some are of Paul, but Paul says that we are all of the same loaf (1 Cor 10:17). Furthermore Paul starts chapter 10 with the eating and drinking of Israel in the wilderness that we cannot help but think that it included the children.

I Cor 10:1-5

When there was starvation throughout the camp, do we suppose that the children ate the manna? When there were only waters of bitterness do we not suppose that the children also drank from the "spiritual Rock that followed them" that Rock being Christ? The warning against judgment tells us that just because we are all eating and drinking together does not mean that we get a free pass.

Suppose a 90 year old grandfather who has been active in the church, has been seen to have a credible profession of faith for his entire life, and is in good standing, suppose he becomes senile or suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, are we to deny this weak old man in his years the opportunity to commune just because his intellect is sub par? Judgment will definitely come because of disobedience just as in rejection of baptism. The point of the passage is to quit being disobedient not to quit coming to the table. Of course if someone is not baptized, excommunicated they should not be allowed to partake because they are not apart of the body. However, does our Lord not bid the babes to come to him? Does our Lord not bid the feeble and even the weak to come taste and see? What does it say about our understanding of the gospel when we reject the weaker baptized members of our body?

I do not wish to reject, overlook, or misinterpret any of God's word.

Faris

Pilgrim,

I do undestand that historic Presbyterianism is to allow for infants at the font but to withold them from the table until they have made a valid profession. But when a Presbyterian defends the passage "Repent and be baptized" as only referring to adults, I mean to say that historic Presbyterianism contradicts itself when it then shifts gears and denies the children at the table.


I understand that this is what we Presbyterians have asserted, but I'm questioning if this is what the text is teaching.

Pilgrim,

Would you say that these men are hyper-covenantilist and their views on baptism present a danger to the faith?

-John Calivn, Institutes, 4.15.3

-John Knox's 1560 Scots Confession

-Cornelius Burges, Westminster divine, The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, 1629

Joe,


I could easily turn this around to defend credobaptism.

"Since Peter being the teacher of "Repent and be baptized, was going to the house of Cornelius knew that infants could not repent and therefore in the household baptisms Peter excluded the infants."

As for Ephesians 6:1, it says that "Children are to obey their parents in the Lord ." If our children are not Christians then how do we teach them to obey us? To teach them the commandments of God apart from the redeeming work of Christ sounds like moralism to me.
Children should obey. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. Should we teach our children that they can do the right thing apart from the saving grace of Christ?!?! To tell a 2 year/3 year old that they must obey the parent but that they are not yet able to obey God would seem to bring on a type of schizophrenia. I don't yet have a familly so maybe I am speaking out of turn here.


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />I guess what I'm asking here is, "What Biblical passage does God command that each person drink four cups of wine?" I'm stumped but it wouldn't be the first time. After 4 glasses of wine I'm not sure I'd be able to talk theology. Those guys must have been championes. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

I will take some extra time and attempt to digest the Bacon quotes.


I'm not blind to them. I'm just looking at them differently than you are. I see "discerning the body" meaning to recognize that all of God's people ar e all to partake of one loaf, that though there are many members there is only one body and Christ being the head. I see discerning the body as recognizing that there is now in Christ neither Jew nor Greek nor rich nor poor but that all of God's people are to eat the supper together. I Cor 11:33 "So then, my brethern, when you come together to eat, wait for one another." My understanding is that to refuse Christians, who have been baptized into Christ, the supper is to not judge the body rightly. I am very aware of the curses.


Really?

Ehud,

You have done a masterful job of making my point for me. "Hyper-covenantalism", which as I previously defined for you, is most always based upon the erroneous doctrine of presumptive regeneration. And as I have argued elsewhere with others who hold to the same heretical view of presumptive regeneration, to embrace this view of necessity denies the fundamental doctrines of grace, e.g., Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the saints. IF, as you have at least intimated, believe that all baptized (or even not baptized) children of believers are to be deemed "Christians", i.e., they have been regenerated and thus united to Christ by faith, then you are forced to defend some radical views which are inconsistent with those fundamental doctrines. If nothing else, an infant of a believing parent who has been baptized and thus deemed "Christian" cannot ever fall away, i.e., he/she is eternally guaranteed preservation by God and thus will infallibly inherit eternal life. Further, you will have to show that God's election is inclusive of ALL baptized covenant children. The Lord's Table is restricted to only those who have actually and truly come to faith. All others who do not possess saving faith eat and drink to their condemnation.

1 Corinthians 11:28-29 (ASV) "But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body."

I seriously doubt you are willing or capable of dealing with the contents of that Pandora's Box..... are you? Once you step on that slippery slope it is very difficult if not impossible to gain your footing and to return to a place of security.

NPP/FV is a poisonous fruit. Those who insist on eating it will surely die. Take heed therefore and guard your soul with diligence, for I fear that the allurements of NPP/FV have become to you as that which is: "good for food, and that it is a delight to your eyes, and that this teaching is to be desired to make one wise." Be not as Hymenaeus and Alexander who made shipwreck of the faith.

Lastly, contra your faulty logic, i.e., children unable to obey their parents unless they are "Christians", aka: regenerate . . . The Gospel calls upon ALL men, unregenerate men to obey God, to conform themselves perfectly to the law of God and to repent of their sins and believe upon Christ. Of a truth, no one no not one is capable of doing these things, yet they are responsible to do so. Further, it is by God's benevolence that unregenerate men are able to live relatively peaceful lives, adhering to various laws of their land and thus children also are capable of adhering to their parent's instructions. The natural man, although totally depraved in nature is not utterly depraved and is thus capable of rendering reasonable obedience to authority.

In His grace,

I absolutely hate falling on the negative side of you and Joe's posts. I am humbled by your exhortations. Know that in everything I have done my best to be slow to speak and quick to hear.

I realize that I didn't make myself clear in my reference to Eph 6:1. Certainly I did not wish to say that the unsaved are not responsible and should not be commanded to repent and trust and obey God. I affirm that men are totally depraved and also totally responsible for their actions. I also affirm with you that it is the grace of God that keeps men from following after their own lusts to the point of destruction. In addition I do not believe that anyone is a Christian apart from baptism (i.e. born of blood) and of course I know about the thief on the cross.

The emphasis I meant to bring out with Eph 6:1 was this: Christ says, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). If we do not call our children Christian, then by default they do not love Christ. So ,it seems to me, the best we can do with our children is to teach them to obey exclusively through fear of punishment apart from them loving Christ. This smells fishy to me. I can't help but think that it is wrong somehow to indirectly reinforce our holy baptized children that they are to obey without loving Christ. This means we can't even teach our children to pray in Jesus' name because they are not Christian. Yet Paul uses the peculiar language, "in the Lord." Does God really want children to obey their parents apart from loving Christ in Eph 6:1? Joshua says, "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord." Were 2-year olds apart of Joshua's household? I don't know. But whoever is in that house is going to be serving the Lord.


If you are going to say I hold to presumptive regeneration as a heretical view and deny Total Depravity, etc. don’t you have to say it about Calvin too?


How does one escape calling Calvin a presumptive regenerist? I don't think you would speak of baptism the way Calvin does here. Please correct me if I am wrong about that. However, Calvin would never say nor would I that Baptism is a free ticket or a zap of magical power.