Paedocommunion - Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:50 AM
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
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.
Quote
IMHO, Paedocommunion is inseparable from "hyper-covenantalism" and its prerequisite(s) of presumptive regeneration, presumptive faith, etc. The ONLY legitimate warrant for one to attend the Lord's Table is that the individual possess a living faith in the Lord Christ. And the Church's responsibility is to make sure that there is a valid profession of faith, since it is impossible to make an infallible judgment in some cases as to one's actual spiritual state. A secondary requirement is that the one who professes faith be able to comprehend to some degree the institution of the Lord's Supper and thus be able to "discern the body", i.e.,. to examine oneself.
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