infant communion

[Jon_]

I am not going to denounce my vows in this forum or any other forum for that matter. I am not here to defend a catechism, nor am I here to slander anything Reformed. I am merely putting it to you that you should build your argument on Scripture and not on a Catechism.

You see, I just have trouble reconciling your disregard for the catechism as somehow being uprepresentative of the Scripture while in the same breath claiming to be Reformed from head to toe. That's quite inconsistent.

Prove to me that 1 Corinthians expressely forbids paedo-communion.

What is your criterion for proof?

Now to your distinction of visible and invisible Church, show me this distinction from Scripture. Such a distinction has no beariing on the topic at hand.

Are you being serious? Have you not read?

(Romans 9:6, 7 KJV) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.



​

Don't they teach these things in seminary or are you expected to already know them? The distinction between visible and invisible church is a basic Christian doctrine. The visible church is the many congregations and the invisible church is the body of Christ, i.e. the elect. The distinction between visible and invisible church is also clearly expounded in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, which, if you are as Reformed as you claim to be, you ought also to have read.


Furthermore, it is very relevant as one of my primary arguments is the distinction between the sacraments as one being a sign for the visible church and the other being for the invisible church.

Is a baptised child of a believer a member of the Covenant, or not?

He is.

If they are then they are entitled to the same privilege that you and I enjoy.

I have made this same argument twice now, let's see if we can't shoot for having it ignored a third time. If a baptized member of your congregation is currently walking in transgression, he is denied the Lord's Table, is he not? At such time that he should repent, he will be readmitted to the Lord's Table, yes? Why do you insist that this pattern be forfeit with regard to infants and very young children who are as yet unable to repent or manifest conversion?

If you believe that baptism is a mere "dedication" then you are consistent in your argument. But as soon as you say that then you are no longer Reformed in your view of baptism.

You still have yet to show how a covenantal view of paedobaptism is inconsistent. Considering the sheer irrationality and emotionalism of your responses so far, I am hardly on the edge of my seat waiting for such a demonstration, though.

My children are not the spawn of Satan, they are covenant members and should be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper.

What? Why would you even bring that up? That's a straw man, an argument from outrage, and a complete distraction from the topic at hand. Moreover, I never said that children should be forbidden the Lord's Table. The discussion has always centered around infants and very young children that are incapable of manifesting a profession of faith and the evidences of conversion. I am not one of those who insist the Lord's Table be fenced and everyone under the age of x be kept out. Anyone making a credible profession of faith and manifesting the evidence of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit should be encouraged and are commanded to partake of the elements.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Here's what I'm not sure about. I don't think we can say that baptism is for the visible church and the Supper for the invisible. We simply aren't able to work with that distinction, because we are only given the visible church to work with. How can we ensure that only the invisible church members participate?

Allow me to clarify. I do not mean that we only administer the Lord's Supper to members of the invisible church. Of course, that is quite impossible. What I mean is the "theoretical" basis (that is, the biblical framework) for the sacraments clearly spell out this distinction.

We read in Romans 9:6, 7 that they are not all Israel that are of Israel, but that through Isaac's seed will the children of the promise be called. Circumcision was the outward sign of the covenant for all Jewish children. All males being born to a Jewish parent were to be circumcised according to the law. In this sense, the sacrament of baptism is similar to this practice in that each new member of the visible church (the "nation" of Israel) are to be baptized as a public sign of the person's introduction into the covenant. The promise is also expounded by Peter in his sermon in Acts 2 (vv. 38, 39).

Communion is a different sacrament. In communion, our Lord said that we should partake of the elements in remembrance of him, that his blood was shed for us. Of course, being the consistent Calvinists we are, we know that Christ's blood was shed for his elect and his elect only. We therefore conclude that the sacrament of communion is for the invisible church only.

Now, this does not mean that we are capable of discerning the elect. All we can do is to require a credible confession of faith, baptism, and the evidences of conversion. If we are deceived, the fault lies with the deceiver, and he eats and drinks condemnation upon himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

I hope that clarifies my argument.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Allow me to clarify. I do not mean that we only administer the Lord's Supper to members of the invisible church. Of course, that is quite impossible. What I mean is the "theoretical" basis (that is, the biblical framework) for the sacraments clearly spell out this distinction.

We read in Romans 9:6, 7 that they are not all Israel that are of Israel, but that through Isaac's seed will the children of the promise be called. Circumcision was the outward sign of the covenant for all Jewish children. All males being born to a Jewish parent were to be circumcised according to the law. In this sense, the sacrament of baptism is similar to this practice in that each new member of the visible church (the "nation" of Israel) are to be baptized as a public sign of the person's introduction into the covenant. The promise is also expounded by Peter in his sermon in Acts 2 (vv. 38, 39).

Communion is a different sacrament. In communion, our Lord said that we should partake of the elements in remembrance of him, that his blood was shed for us. Of course, being the consistent Calvinists we are, we know that Christ's blood was shed for his elect and his elect only. We therefore conclude that the sacrament of communion is for the invisible church only.

Now, this does not mean that we are capable of discerning the elect. All we can do is to require a credible confession of faith, baptism, and the evidences of conversion. If we are deceived, the fault lies with the deceiver, and he eats and drinks condemnation upon himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

I hope that clarifies my argument.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Yes, it does. Thanks. I need to think a bit more before I ask anymore questions.

 

[DrWarfield]

Allow me to clarify. I do not mean that we only administer the Lord's Supper to members of the invisible church. Of course, that is quite impossible. What I mean is the "theoretical" basis (that is, the biblical framework) for the sacraments clearly spell out this distinction.

We read in Romans 9:6, 7 that they are not all Israel that are of Israel, but that through Isaac's seed will the children of the promise be called. Circumcision was the outward sign of the covenant for all Jewish children. All males being born to a Jewish parent were to be circumcised according to the law. In this sense, the sacrament of baptism is similar to this practice in that each new member of the visible church (the "nation" of Israel) are to be baptized as a public sign of the person's introduction into the covenant. The promise is also expounded by Peter in his sermon in Acts 2 (vv. 38, 39).

Communion is a different sacrament. In communion, our Lord said that we should partake of the elements in remembrance of him, that his blood was shed for us. Of course, being the consistent Calvinists we are, we know that Christ's blood was shed for his elect and his elect only. We therefore conclude that the sacrament of communion is for the invisible church only.

Now, this does not mean that we are capable of discerning the elect. All we can do is to require a credible confession of faith, baptism, and the evidences of conversion. If we are deceived, the fault lies with the deceiver, and he eats and drinks condemnation upon himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

I hope that clarifies my argument.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

You wrote, "Communion is a different sacrament."

Come on you are grasping at straws, talk about building straw men. Old Covennant children were circumcised and they ate the Passover meal. New covenant children ought to be baptised and recieve communion. Please I implore you build your arguments on the Bible. We are either covenantal or we are dispensational, anti paedo communion smacks of dispensationalism to me. What's next? Am going to have to defend the abiding validity of the Decalogue?

Regards,
DrWarfield

 

[Jon_]

You wrote, "Communion is a different sacrament."

Come on you are grasping at straws, talk about building straw men. Old Covennant children were circumcised and they ate the Passover meal. New covenant children ought to be baptised and recieve communion.

Sheesh, you don't even know what a straw man argument is. A straw man is an argument that attacks an opponent's weakest argument or that assumes an argument that is not the opponent's for reason of vigorous refutation. The fallacy is that the refutation is either inconsequential or completely invalid.

That doesn't even apply here. I haven't misrepresented your view nor have I assumed that you made an argument you did not. Don't they teach logic in seminary or are you supposed to know that already too?

In any case, I have already addressed your objections. I'm done repeating myself.

Please I implore you build your arguments on the Bible.

Practice what you preach. You haven't even cited a single Scripture, much less made even an attempt to defend your position.

We are either covenantal or we are dispensational, anti paedo communion smacks of dispensationalism to me.

Judging by the lack of content in this response and the continued ignoring of my main points, I take it that you are done arguing this issue. If you should want to discuss it further, then please, feel free to respond to my arguments. Implying that I am dispensational won't get you far. I am thoroughly anti-dispensataional.

Moreover, I would think that the minority opinion, i.e. yours, would be the one with the greater burden of proof. I have already submit three sound arguments, whereas you have only charged me with being inconsistent, and made the baseless assertion that consistent Covenant Theology requires paedocommunion.

What's next? Am going to have to defend the abiding validity of the Decalogue?

Here's a good example of a slippery slope argument. As it stands, I question that you'd even be able to defend the Ten Commandments. You haven't defended anything except your own emotions thus far.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

Just to add in my own two sense, my church requires that only members in good standing of a Biblical church can take the Lord's Supper. To become a member in my church, one must be seventeen. Now, the more I think about this, the more I begin to wonder. . . Alright, maybe they are trying to keep unconverted people from violating the Lord's Supper, but I don't think that you could make a case for this Scripturally. I know that I had participated in Communion in my previous churches where the only requirement was to be a Christian. When I came to my church, I was denied the Lord's Supper for five years until I chose to become a member. This grieved my soul. To be denied what the Lord commanded His own to take? I think that it should really be left up to the conscience of the person. Regarding children, the acid test is at home. . .I think that maybe it should be up to the parents to decide whether or not their child should partake of the Lord's Supper.

 

[jak]

I was/ am rather confused which denomination I belong to according to the classification,
so I came along here. Thought this thread sounded interesting because of course this is one issue Christians are still debating about.
In a church I was involved with, oh dear, I'm not sure if it was reformed; anyway; the pastor handled the issue creatively. His view was that since the communion was originally a love feast, surely children would also have participated. Yet, now the communion has narrowed down past the "communal meal" to a communal sharing of only one small piece of bread/ sip of drink, and is probably far more concentrated in its reminding us of the Lord's death. How to get the children to participate in a limited way, without offending the sensibilities of the stricter members? He finally started keeping candies on the table, and asked the parents to bring the children up too. He'd bless them, smile at them, tell them something like "jesus loves you" or "Jesus died for you" and give them a candy.

So they were taking part in the communion, in a way...

reactions?

 

[DrWarfield]

Sheesh, you don't even know what a straw man argument is. A straw man is an argument that attacks an opponent's weakest argument or that assumes an argument that is not the opponent's for reason of vigorous refutation. The fallacy is that the refutation is either inconsequential or completely invalid.

That doesn't even apply here. I haven't misrepresented your view nor have I assumed that you made an argument you did not. Don't they teach logic in seminary or are you supposed to know that already too?

In any case, I have already addressed your objections. I'm done repeating myself.


Practice what you preach. You haven't even cited a single Scripture, much less made even an attempt to defend your position.


Judging by the lack of content in this response and the continued ignoring of my main points, I take it that you are done arguing this issue. If you should want to discuss it further, then please, feel free to respond to my arguments. Implying that I am dispensational won't get you far. I am thoroughly anti-dispensataional.

Moreover, I would think that the minority opinion, i.e. yours, would be the one with the greater burden of proof. I have already submit three sound arguments, whereas you have only charged me with being inconsistent, and made the baseless assertion that consistent Covenant Theology requires paedocommunion.


Here's a good example of a slippery slope argument. As it stands, I question that you'd even be able to defend the Ten Commandments. You haven't defended anything except your own emotions thus far.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Magnificent, beautiful, and stunning. I won't defend myself against a crass attack. I think I am right and you think you are right. That is alright with me brother, for when we get to heaven you see that I was correct all along!

I am joking!!! That is about the heaven bit. Seriously as I have posted earlier I am persuaded of my position and you won't change and I suspect that the same is true of you. I do however, want to add that I am not prepared to die over this point. Furthermore, some of my closest friends disagree with me. But I am left with Luther's thoughts, shall go with the flow or what I believe the Scriptures as a whole teach. I will stick with what I believe the Scriptures teach, for that is by far the safest ground.

"That's all I want to say about that", Forest Gump.

 

[Jon_]

I was/ am rather confused which denomination I belong to according to the classification,
so I came along here. Thought this thread sounded interesting because of course this is one issue Christians are still debating about.
In a church I was involved with, oh dear, I'm not sure if it was reformed; anyway; the pastor handled the issue creatively. His view was that since the communion was originally a love feast, surely children would also have participated. Yet, now the communion has narrowed down past the "communal meal" to a communal sharing of only one small piece of bread/ sip of drink, and is probably far more concentrated in its reminding us of the Lord's death. How to get the children to participate in a limited way, without offending the sensibilities of the stricter members? He finally started keeping candies on the table, and asked the parents to bring the children up too. He'd bless them, smile at them, tell them something like "jesus loves you" or "Jesus died for you" and give them a candy.

So they were taking part in the communion, in a way...

reactions?

Well, your pastor is quite wrong about the severity and purpose for communion. It never was a "love feast" in which children would have participated. During the passover in which Jesus instituted the sacrament, it says he took some bread and wine (from the passover feast) and blessed it for the purposes of communion. Moreover, Paul condemns the Corinthians (ch. 11) for their indulgence in the body and blood. They were "feasting" upon the body and the blood, instead of reverencing the sacrament and partaking of a broken portion of the bread and a drink from the cup.

Also, I am not aware of any evidence that the early church practiced communion in this fashion (as a "love feast"), except for the Corinthian church, which Paul spoke harshly against for their impiety.

Now, simply because your pastor's argument is bad does not mean that children should be forbidden. The Scriptures are clear that communion is for those who Christ shed his blood for. We are to practice communion in remembrance of his sacrifice and for spiritual nourishment. Obviously, children are capable of believing, and at such time that they should make a profession of faith, and that conversion should be manifest in their lives, we should not forbid them from the table.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon