|
CONSIDERATION OF THE PAEDOCOMMUNION POSITION
"THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING", JOHN 6:63
(Partial Summary of Daddy, May I Take Communion)
Dr. Rev. Leonard J. Coppes
[Edited and inserted by Shawn C. Mathis with permission; any errors in transition are mine--go here for book summary or other books]
I have worked on this matter for many years and have come to the conclusion that the practice of paedocommunion is contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture. With this brief document I intend to present the contents of the argument detailed in my book, Daddy, May I Take Communion? Hence, if one is interested in a more detailed historical, exegetical theological argument I refer him to that work.
There are two positions included under the general heading paedocommunion: infant communion and child communion. The first is what all the biblical argumentation supports while the second rests upon practical considerations. Those who hold the first have extensively written defending their position with clear biblical arguments. Those who defend the second, it seems to me, offer no exegetical argumentation but conclude that the inability of infants to digest the elements offered in the Lord's Supper preclude their participation. However, for me, it is neither convincing or consistent to set forth the arguments for infant communion and then conclude with an entirely different position. Nonetheless, since both positions rest on the same biblical argumentation, the argumentation I offer here counters both positions.
The argument for paedocommunion is simply expressed: the New Testament teaches that the Lord's Supper is the continuation and fulfillment of the Passover, i.e, the New Testament "equates" the Passover and the Lord's Supper. Hence, the Lord's Supper relates to baptism just as Passover relates to circumcision. Circumcision is a prerequisite for and admits its object to participation in the Passover. Baptism is a prerequisite for and admits its object to the Lord's Supper. Therefore, just as under the old covenant all circumcised children (and all girls whose fathers were circumcised) were admitted to the Passover, so under the new covenant all baptized children are to be admitted to the Lord's Table.
Upon examination this argument involves numerous logical and biblical fallacies.
The New Testament "equates" the Lord's Supper with the Passover. There are three lines of argument offered in support of this conclusion.
I. ARGUMENT NUMBER ONE: The New Testament specifically calls Christ our Passover and thus identifies or "equates" the Passover meal and the Lord's Supper.[1] Therefore, the terms of admission governing the Passover govern the Lord's Supper. But there is a serious problem here, for if the New Testament identification of the Passover and the Lord's Supper proves the terms of admission are the same for both rites then the New Testament identification of the Lord's Supper with other Old Testament meals and rites proves the terms of admission are the same for the Lord's Supper and all those other Old Testament antecedents. Therefore, this argument proves too much: the New Testament material demonstrates that there is no single antecedent to the Lord's Supper, and that there are multiple "terms of admission." So, an examination of the biblical material shows this argument reduces to an absurdity.
The following chart will help to set forth the salient material. We note here the Old Testament meal or rite, its terms of admission and, where the material is not commonly known, the New Testament passage(s) which identifies or "equates" the Old Testament antecedent and the Lord's Super. In the chart the numbers (1-8) enumerate the various meals and sacrifices while the letters (A-F) order the meals as to how broad were their terms of admission (meal A admitted the widest diversity of participants; meal B the next widest, etc.).
|
Meal or Rite
|
Terms of Admission
|
|
1/C The Egyptian Passover meal
|
Admitted circumcised and uncircumcised people; including a mixed multitude of uncircumcised non-Israelites (Lk. 22:7, 15-16 (?); Exod. 12:37-38; cf. Num. 11:4).
|
|
2/A The manna & water (meals) supplied in the wilder-ness
|
Admitted circumcised and uncircumcised people and animals including a mixed multitude of uncircumcised non-Israelites (John 632-33, 35, 51, 53-58; I Cor. 10:1ff.; cf., Num. 11:4, Exod. 17:6, 3 (water for the animals and the mixed multitude, Num. 11:4, 6).[2]
|
|
3/D The levitical Passover
|
Admitted only circumcised males and those under their spiritual headship (Lk. 22:7, 15-16 (?); Exod. 12:43-48).
|
|
4/F The covenant instituting meal on Mt. Sinai
|
Admitted only the titular heads of Israel: Moses, Aaron, Nadab & Abihu (the two sons of Aaron), and 70 elders of Israel (Exod. 32:11; cf., Exod. 32:8 and Lk. 22:20, Heb. 10:29).
|
|
5/E The guilt offering meal
|
Admitted only ordained priests (Lev. 6:17-20; cf., I Cor. 11:26-301).
|
|
6. The sin offering
|
Admitted only priests (I Cor. 5:21, here, Christ is called the sin -offering).
|
|
7. The great atonement
|
Admitted no one to a meal and only the high priest to participation and that only once a year (Heb. 10:19-22; 13:10).
|
|
8/B The fellowship meals
|
Admitted all Israel and sometimes uncircumcised so-journers (Deut. 31:12; cf., I Cor. 10:18, Heb. 10:4-12).
|
PROBLEM NUMBER ONE: This argumentation proves much more than the paedocommunion protagonist desires. If the paedocommunion protagonist consistently sticks to the logic of his argument and submits to the biblical material then he proves that there are no less than eight different "terms of admission" to the Lord's Supper.
NEXT (Part 2)
TOP
© Leonard J. Coppes
Top
|
