Insert Pedo into this article where it reads
Credo and some would think that you had certainly made a mistake and truly meant Credo. However, many who would think you made that mistake apply this very reasoning to God's Covanent children by rejecting them from Christ's table "until such a time that a child is considered salvifically “viable” as witnessed by a advanced state of consciousness". Such is the case in the denomination my family is in. I would like your permission to copy this to respectfully submit to my elders.

In Christ,

Matt Davis

Matt,

I'm very sympathetic to the argument made for paedo-communion. The opponents of that position, in my opinion, haven't done a good job of answering the paedo-communion objections.

You're welcome to use anything I write as long as my name is still attached....

But be forewarned... if people know it is coming from me your argument is going to lose all credibility.

Can't have people who make sense being taken seriously you know.

I still don't get this line of reasoning.... what is the EXACT connection between the water and communion? It is readily apparent that baptism is the new sign and seal, but communion is what exactly as it relates to OT tradition?

I'm hoping that when Green Baggins gets back to paedo-communion it can be done civily. It left off with opponents using the "whoever" of 1Cor 11:27 as a universal which would exclude children because they can't examine themselves. I responded that 2Thess 3:10 uses a universal "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat." This universal can't include our little ones. They would starve. Contextually 1Cor 11 isn't talking about children. My post was deleted.

Communion would correspond to the passover meal in the Old Covenant. Thus the question is asked..."Did little children partake of the passover meal?" I've read enough to know that that is a disputed point.

The idea Dave, is that if one is in the covenant, then they should have all the privileges and benefits of the covenant including the table. Giving children baptism without the table is like proclaiming that someone is kind of pregnant. Either they are or they are not. Either the children are in or they are not. If they are in give them the table. If they are not then don't baptize them.

Finally, should we honestly believe that Christ, by His Spirit, conveys and gives Himself to His people in and at the table why would we want to deny our covenant children that blessing.

Of course the danger here is to view all this as magic and to forget that the covenant privileges of bringing our covenant children to the table implies the covenant privileges of raising our children in the fear and admonition of Christ.

Jerry,

I guess I'm kind of surprised by that. I've always thought of Green Baggins as pretty even handed.

But this is a change that traditionalists find very threatening and they are on the slim side of the argument.

Bret

I'm not allowed to post on The Puritan Board because of the exception. It's their board and that's fine but it's hard to consider any discussion on p-c over there well rounded.

This is an honest question. My attitude is one of asking you this as a trained superior to me. Look at Ex 12:4 and Ex 16:18. Isn't the Hebrew construct there exactly the same? They took as much "as they had souls or moths to feed". You know it included weaned children in Ex 16, why wouldn't it include weaned children in Ex 12 if it is the exact same construct? It seems to me the only thing which would stop someone from partaking of passover would be that they were unclean. Provision was even made for that with the 2nd month communion of Numbers 9.

I believe that WCF contradicts itself on this. 27:5 says "The sacraments of the
old testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new." One text note is given, 1Cor 10:1-4 "all ate the same spiritual food,
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." Manna and the water were sacramental, and all partook. WCF 29 says something different.

I still don't get this line of reasoning.... what is the EXACT connection between the water and communion?

The connection, one that is missed by Baptists and unfortunately Bapterians alike is the state in which the child is viewed. Covenant children should be presumed regenerate.

For a detailed exposition read the detailed argument by Robert Rayburn at the link provided below.

http://www.faithtacoma.org/doctrine/covenant.aspx

Rayburn also wrote the minority opinion for the PCA study of the issue of paedo-communion and it ought also to be read.

www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-498.pdf

David,

The stuff by Robert Rayburn is really quite good, and it has the advantage of not being book length. His writings provide a good entry for this issue.

Jerry,

I'm sympathetic to that argument. I've read two books on the subject and I've not yet seen anybody answer the ideas put forth in the books. In those books were included the argument that you're using.

The strongest argument thus far that I've come up with maintaining status quo is not Scriptural. That argument sees that the Reformed were trying to find a mediating position between the collective borg character of Rome and the hyper individualist character of the ana-baptists. By retaining Baptism for children and the table upon profession of faith the Reformed cut the middle on that issue.

Also, Schlissel's argument seeing communion as the equivalent of a full citizen getting a drivers license is interesting to consider.

Still, in the end, I agree with the paedo argument though I don't think I'm fully converted because I could never go for intinction. I guess you're weaned comment would satisfy that reservation.

""mouth" instead of "moth" in my previous post

& Rayburn is excellent.

I would see intinction as unscriptural and being done in zeal for the doctrine but not zeal for the scriptures

Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ?
A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.

www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-498.pdf

http://www.faithtacoma.org/doctrine/covenant.aspx

Dave,

As you have time give the above two links a read.

Also, see the quote I provide from Rayburn in my "Daily Reading" quote.

Finally, we would say that the requirement to "examine themselves" does not apply to infants any more then the requirement applies to infants that they must repent and believe before they are Baptized.

Those who advocate paedo-communion recognize and admit that their's is a position that deviates from historic Reformed thought. They just say that historic Reformed thought is wrong, and they argue that from the Scriptures.

Thank you.