paleodoxy said:
That's right. It is conditional in this passage. Paul teaches that in order for the adult Corinthians to partake worthily, they would need to start discerning the Body (those whom they were depriving). A conditional statement. It is not a doctrine of universal introspection that Paul is propounding here.
Even if you're point of view was correct, and it is pretty far off the mark, this alone would wreck your argument for infant communion because they have no way of discerning.
You just linked repentance with communion. I would assume, then, that you believe all infants belonging to those in the worldwide Anglican communion should be excommunicated and treated as tax collectors, publicans and sinners?
If there's one thing I hate it's hyperbole, which is insulting to my intelligence.
a) I didn't link repentance to communion- St Paul did.
b) I didn't invent the practice of offering communion only to penitent sinners in unity with the Church- St. Paul did.
c) The Anglican liturgy and practice has always agreed with St Paul.
d) The Anglican church does not excommunicate children, as they have not communicated yet. That's a silly comparison.
Right. The Corinthians who were partaking unworthily (not discerning the members of Christ's Body - like you) were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Pop quiz: Is the Body of the Lord in the bread of the eucharist or not? Does not the Greek grammar allow only that understanding or not? If you think I'm wrong, show me the Greek, and admonish the entire Western Church.
Failing to discern Christ's Body (His members / Bride) is one and the same as failing to discern Him sacramentally. (Cf. I Cor.10:16.)
Just because St. Paul draws a likeness of the communion with the koinonia of the Church does not mean that this is the only aspect of the doctrine he is focussing on. This is a grave mistake where "one text is the sum of all", an exegetical error. This error empties the other relevant texts of their substance and truth. A classic mistake done by JW's and the like.
We have already proven that St Paul is speaking of the sacrament itself in Chapter 11, and that the grammar demands no other understanding. This is a non-negotiable text. In any language, the rules of grammar determine the meaning, and in scripture of course there is no exception. Therefore chapter 11 tells us to discern the sacrament itself, whereas chapter 10 tells us to keep the fellowship pure.
The problem you have is that you accept Chapter 10 but have not accepted Ch 11. Both are true. Both are absolutely complimentary. Both speak of discerning, a point which alone nullifies your whole argument.
You mention this below:
Babies are incapable of failing to discern the Body of Christ's elect the way these adult Corinthians were. Your argument constitutes a simple red herring, and is completely ancillary the issue.
There is a classic argument from silence cogitated by darkened human reason and thus in fact a false syllogism.
You have no way of knowing how or when or if a baby can discern anything so deep as this. Yet, in no place anywhere in the texts cited does there allow anyone to partake without discerning. Not one place. The solution is not to allow those who cannot discern to partake because they cannot discern, but to be obedient to Christ's Apostle and practice communion the way he clearly sets out before us. St. Paul allows no loopholes here. To communicate, you must discern the body, examine oneself and recognise the sacarmental presence. If one lacks the ability to do so one is not given a loophole and thus allowed.
Simply put, your argument is unscriptural and follows your own wishes.
Doesn't get much simpler than that.
The practice of the Anglican communion is very simple indeed. We baptise our children, and when they come of age we confirm them and allow them communion. What you propose is a spiritual minefield. Here's the kicker- if we are wrong, no one gets hurt. If you are wrong.....
How could i have missed this thread for so long? I'm going to have to go back and read 94 posts now...
