The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Paedocommunion

I too dare not be dogmatic about the Lord's Supper. If I had my personal preference, it would be a weekly practice using wine and unleavened bread; and I would not withhold the sacrament from weaned covenant children of any age.

Robin,
Are you talking about children who have not yet believed?

Jacy asked:



Yup. I don't wish to hijack the thread, but some of we Presbyterians who baptize our covenant children long before they are able to articulate their faith in an adult manner, also would not withhold the Lord's Supper from them. Most Presbyterians in my country do, however, withhold holy communion from children until the Elders determine their eligibility. I just feel that no one of any age should be kept from the Table unless they are under church discipline. But I am in the minority on that point (which is based on 1st Cor. 11:28-29), and I wouldn't "go to the stake" for paedocommunion (as it is called) nor turn the Reformation on it's head for the sake of paedocommunion as those in the Federal Vision camp have done.

-R

Robin
Knowing you the way I do, I suspect you have thought this matter through.
But I am curious, based on the verses you mentioned 1Cor. 11:28-29. In these verses it is clear that before someone eats the bread and drinks the cup, they need to examine themselves.
That being the case, how/why would a child who has not yet believed do that?
Also, if paedocommunion is indeed the correct view, would it not also give credibility to the presumptive regeneration camp with in those who believe in paedobaptism?

This thread was originally a poll about how often churches serve the Lord's Supper and what elements are used. In my response I specifically said I did not want to hijack the thread and turn it into another debate about paedocommunion. Next thing I know the poll is gone and the thread re-named. I'll know better next time.

These are all the same questions raised by those in the Federal Vision movement, and also the reason for the confusion in that movement about presumptive regeneration, or salvation by sacrament! One simply does not have to carry every little thing to extremes. For example, the verse says, "Let a man examine himself." One might say that that verse prohibits women and children from participation in the sacrament, because it says "let a MAN examine HIMself." One can even conclude from that verse that only ONE man should participate. A man (not men), himself (not themselves).

Looking at the rest of the Scriptures and taking this passage as part of the whole, I just don't see the justification for keeping children from the Table unless we also keep them from being baptized until they are examined and found to be in the faith. At least our Baptist brethren are consistent here while most of us Presbys are not.

The greatest in the kingdom of heaven are those who "are converted and become as little children (Matthew 18:3-4)." We already know it isn't any supposed innocence of childhood that Christ places such high value on, but rather the humility (dependence, trust) of children. They are not considered knowledgeable or wise, but Jesus describes conversion in terms of becoming like little children, and commands His disciples, "Let them come; forbid them not (Mark 10:14)." Can a humble person examine himself (or herself)? Probably with far greater accuracy and honesty than most adults I know.

The urge to nitpick something to death and make a law out of each jot and tittle is what drives us, I suppose, to grab a verse here and a verse there and turn it into a point of doctrine or a test of orthodoxy.

-R

The original thread with the poll is NOT gone and it is still has the same name. In fact, it is in its original place here: Questions about the Lord's Supper.

Since your comment could have lead to the hijacking of the original thread, which it obviously would have since there are replies to it, I thought it best to let this subject have its own thread. Thus it is here in the Theology Forum and renamed to reflect the actual subject. IF you are not interested in explaining your view, re: "paedocommunion" and/or defending it against those who would disagree with you, simply let people know that you are not interested in doing so and don't respond.

Your friendly and courteous Admin!

Thank you for explaining your views, Robin. Sorry, I didn't mean to create a firestorm by asking what you meant. I should have started a new thread with the question. I have never heard that view before.

Oh, there's no firestorm, Jacy. I simply should have left that little quip about paedocommunion out of my reply to the poll.

There are previous threads here on the topic of paedocommunion that might offer some insight, but I prefer not to rehash it all again.

Thanks,
Robin