Arguments for paedocommunion - a response (3)

The substance of my argument isn't, I believe, affected because Joseph's necessary clarification does not make a material difference. When we examine the kind of "ownership" which Christians, through their union with Jesus, have of the earth, it still fits into the category I was talking about.

Israel were promised and possessed the land of Canaan in an absolute historical and outward sense. What I mean by that is that their king was the sole lawgiver in the land, and no-one else had any legitimate territorial claim. Accordingly, the Israelites moved in and carried out God's justice against those who defied God's word - they were evicted! The space was literally sacred space; and the unholy were forbidden.

There is a sense in which we can say similar things under the New Covenant, but only by "spiritualising" the language. We don't mean that we can legally evict Mr. Smith next door from his plot of land and annex it to our own property, because the fellow isn't a believer. Christians are indeed carrying out a conquest of the nations - using preaching, persuasion and prayer. The nations belong to Christ, and those who refuse to bow the knee are indeed usurpers of his kingly prerogatives; but the literal right to physically possess the space they occupy is not given to Christians. I really hope we agree on that!

What this means is that in some sense, the "privilege" has contracted. Jesus' kingdom is where Jesus is served as king; and that territory will not be co-extensive with the whole earth until the second coming. Until then, it is the Lord's will that the wheat and the tares - the ungodly and the righteous - will grow together side by side until the final separation takes place at the end of the age (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). The only way to not keep company with fornicators, covetous people, extortioners, idolaters and other enemies of God is to leave the world altogether (1 Corinthians 5:10). Unlike the Old Covenant, there is no "sacred space" that belongs to the church, and is not occupied by the world.

Hence I think that this "expanded" covenant privilege is still of the kind I was talking about. Our children today have the gospel taught to them, woven into their upbringing, are invited to feast upon Christ in it - a privilege which transcends that of mere physical eating, an automatic privilege which has fallen away. In the same way, Christians are promised that they shall inherit the earth, and indeed we already do, and this is being partly realised "on the ground" in the present age and will be perfected when Christ returns - but the "privilege" of space that is ours, always ours, only ours in the sense that Israel had it, has fallen away as part of the scaffolding that is now rendered obsolete.

Old Covenant Judaism was a territorial religion, but not an expansionist one. The evil scourge of Islam is a territorial religion, and an expansionist one, in a violent, protectionist way. I think that Joseph's comments are likely to cause confusion as to the difference between Islam and Christianity.

Arguments for paedocommunion - a response (2)

The (now finished) series of posts: Part one, part two, part three, part four, part five, part six, part seven. You can read the paragraphs I'm responding to now here.

I think I'd like to return the complement to Joseph by also agreeing with him. Not just in highlighting an inconsistency in how paedo-variouses argue for the idea of "expanded covenant privileges", but also in that the nations now belong to Jesus Christ.

The Old Covenant was local; the New is universal. The Old had limited territorial aims; the New does not. The Davidic King under the Old Covenant had the right, under the Covenant, to rule only over the portion of land which had been described to Abraham; King Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18ff), and his Father has granted him his request for all of the nations (Psalm 2:8). Jesus is Lord of all, and that really does mean all. Thus Joseph in Omaha and I in Nairobi can join in a glorious fellowship of those who go out and tell people anywhere and everywhere that the King Jesus now demands (not requests!) that they bow to him in repentance, and offers them everlasting life in his name.

I don't know Joseph, and do wonder if he meant more than this, but I can go with him at least thus far, in recognising that the Scriptures explicitly teach a universality of the New Covenant in this present age.

Nevertheless...

I failed to make the above observation when I said "the New Covenant fulfillment of the Old Covenant land promises should be seen in terms of a spiritual inheritance during the present time and a physical inheritance only in the age to come". It is implied by the understanding that the "age to come" is already present, though not climaxing until Christ's return; I'm grateful for being able to add the clarification . However, I don't believe that this observation materially affects the argument I was making.

I sought to explain the privileges which infants of believers enjoy in this era, as they are raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4), having the gospel explained to them in its New Testament revealed clarity, as being a privilege which far transcends the previous privilege of participation in the Passover Feast. I also sought to clarify that the infants who we are particularly interested in here are ones who don't express faith - because those who do are (as we all agree) of course eligible to partake in all of the Covenant's ordinances.

Continued...

Arguments for paedocommunion - a response

Joseph Gleason, a church planter in Omaha, Illinois, who I think was the original author of the words that I took as a launching point for the recent discussion of paedocommunion, has been by, and taken the time to write a few words in response.

You can read the whole thread, complete with comments from others, here: http://www.biblelighthouse.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1672

Here's what Joseph had to say (emphases his):

What interests me here is that I agree with David. I think he makes a valid point. This is one reason why I think many paedobaptists are inconsistent when they argue for paedobaptism in such a way, because they do not also apply that same logic to paedocommunion and the land-promises to Israel. To resolve the tension, one must either become a Baptist, or affirm that the land promises still physically apply to the Church TODAY . . . not just spiritually, but physically, and not just post-second-coming-of-Christ, but in the here-and-now.
 
Indeed, the land promises made to the OT Church (Israel) were not removed from the NT Church. Our promised land includes the little postage-stamp of land we call "Israel", and the promise has expanded, much farther past those old boundaries.
 
For the Church, the entire planet earth is our promised land. And by the power of the Holy Spirit, we will take dominion over it, prior to the return of Jesus. It took Abraham's descendants centuries to fully realize the fulfillment of the OT Israel-boundaries land promise. It is taking the Church thousands of years to realize the fulfillment of our NT no-boundaries land promise. But like Abraham and his immediate descendants, we progress toward the goal.
 
God promised Abraham (and thus the Church) that he would be heir of the entire world (Romans 4:13).

I'll give us all a bit more time to chew that other, and aim to post my own response later in the week.

Bad arguments for infant communion (part 7)

Part one, part two, part three, part four, part five, part six.

If we're going to think clearly about the actual nature of the New Covenant, we need to face the "you can't have your cake and eat it" problem.

Professing Calvinists, such as the paedo-communionist writer whose words we started out with, have faced up to this problem when talking about the sovereignty of God in salvation. Given that universal salvation is a Biblically incorrect teaching, there are only two possibilities for the death of Christ. Either Christ made a perfect atonement for a limited number of people so as to guarantee their salvation, or he made an incomplete atonement for all people though without guaranteeing the salvation of anyone in particular.

Either the atonement perfectly saved the elect, or it made everyone savable without definitely saving anyone. It was perfect in power, or universal in scope - but not both. You can't have your cake and eat it. Charles Spurgeon memorably summed it up like this:

Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream. (http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm)

It's the same with the New Covenant. Either the New Covenant is perfectly salvific though with a restricted membership, or it can have a wide membership but still leave its members' salvation in doubt. Either Christ can perfectly mediate on behalf of all and only those who are in covenant with God through him, or he can mediate on behalf of a much larger number, but with a mediation that's only partly effective. Unless you embrace an error such as baptismal regeneration, such that all of those who go through the right automatic ritual get to heaven, you can't have it both ways.

In my view the sacramental theology of Reformed advocates for paedo-communion is at odds with their Calvinism, and needs further reforming. There's one thing I'm sure of - that the Scriptures teach a perfect mediation on behalf of Christ. Thus, I believe that Spurgeon's article is not only good in refuting Arminianism. I can say also that automatic infant covenant membership is like a very wide bridge with only half an arch. It doesn't go across the stream, but only half-way; you join the covenant and Christ becomes your covenant mediator, but sadly can't promise that he won't end up dropping you in the middle of the river. I would rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford bridge (which if you've seen the other posts this last few days you might have guessed I've paddled under!) which goes all the way across. I'd rather have our Jewish friend sad because his children don't get to join in quite as early as they used to do. Rather that than have them fill their faces yet knowing that they, like I, were after all only members of a covenant which at last might leave us lost. Another faulty covenant like the one that went before, having an imperfect mediator and imperfect promises.

"Thank You, Lord Jesus, for fulfilling the OT Feast of Pentecost on this glorious day today! For many years my family and I have celebrated the Feast of Pentecost in Your Presence, rejoicing before You, in eager anticipation of today. Thank You, Lord, that my little children can also be filled with this same Holy Spirit as they also are taught the gospel and believe it, and come into covenant union with the perfect Mediator, Jesus Christ. Thank You Lord that, unlike the days before, everyone in this covenant knows the Lord and will enjoy him forever and that this promise is not restricted to one tribe or nation, but is given freely to everyone, young and old, who believes. Thank You, Lord!"

(The end!)

Bad arguments for infant communion (part 6)

Part one, part two, part three, part four, part five.

Or, alternatively, consider how real Jewish fathers must have praised God in Acts 2, after the Holy Spirit filled His Church:

"Thank You, Lord Jesus, for fulfilling the OT Feast of Pentecost on this glorious day today! For many years my family and I have celebrated the Feast of Pentecost in Your Presence, rejoicing before You, in eager anticipation of today. Thank You, Lord, that my little children will no longer be permitted to feast in Your Presence, now that the fulfillment of Pentecost has finally arrived. Thank You, Lord!

This paragraph is more of the same. Only a spiritual dullard could, when the glorious reality of the New Covenant had arrived, complain that his infants were no longer able to join in the outward ceremonies associated with the types and shadows. Only be overlooking the enormous advance which our children in New Covenant times have gained, now that they can hear and be instructed in the gospel in all of its revealed clarity, could we end up complaining about now being able to get some ceremonial food down their throats. The Lord's Supper is more than mere physical eating - when it is accompanied by a living faith in the gospel which it was instituted to commemorate. Our Jewish friend's real complaint seems to be that his little ones don't yet have that faith which qualifies them to eat.

The not eating here, is not, though, a real loss of privilege. Is not the Lord free to arrange his own covenants whichever way he pleases? On the one hand, he could administer a covenant, as I believe he did with the Old, so that there was an "easy" criteria for membership, but no automatic enjoyment of salvation privileges for those who were members. You just had to be born into the right family to be in covenant with God - but it was no guarantee of heaven. On the other hand, the Lord can administer a covenant, as I believe he has with the New, so that membership is restricted so that nobody has an "automatic" right to it (you must be born again - a sovereign work of God), but that all those who enjoy the membership are also guaranteed to be heirs of the fulness of salvation. Whether you agree that this is the way that Christ has done things or not - is he not free to do so?

If you agree that theoretically the Lord is free to administer the covenants in this way, then you've also seen through the theoretical argument presented above. There's no automatic right for the Old Covenant believer to complain that the New Covenant isn't like the Old, and whine that the Lord is being mean to his children.

The argument we've been examining hinges upon the notion of an automatic right - "expanded covenant privilege". I think I've now shown that this argument is biblically untenable.

To be continued...

Bad arguments for infant communion (part 5)

Part one, part two, part three, part four.

"Thank You, Lord, for blessing me and my family with this great feast in Your Presence! Thank You for redeeming all of us from slavery in Egypt. And thank You for the great day that is coming, when Your Spirit will fill all of us, Your people, except for our little children. I thank You, God, that the day is coming when this feast of Pentecost is fullfilled, and our little children will no longer be permitted to feast before you as they do today! Praise the Lord!"

I find it rather astonishing that someone as erudite as David Field found the above paragraph a "nice argument" for automatic infant communion. Why?

For starters, why does our hypothetical Jewish friend simply states a falsehood. Why does he say that his little children would no longer permitted to take part in the feast? On the day itself, Peter said exactly the opposite, making clear that the commands he was giving, and the blessings he was offering, were universal:

"Then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.'"

Peter said that everyone - including children - who repented and believed would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Why, then, does our imaginary Jewish friend object that his little ones are excluded? Only those who don't believe are excluded. The complaint, then, appears to amount to a complaint that unbelievers won't share in the benefits of the New Covenant. What kind of complaint is that? In fact, the teaching that there is no benefit under the New Covenant for those with merely fleshly descendence from Abraham but who lack faith, is one repeatedly made in the New Testament. Do not think that you can say that you are Abraham's children, because God is able to raise up children for Abraham from the stones. You must be born again. It is not the seed of the flesh who inherit the promise, but the children of the promise (Romans 9:8, John 3:7, Luke 3:8).

Maybe our Jewish friend by "little children" means "those too young to be able to make a credible profession of faith". What, though, exactly are such little ones missing out on? According to the words we're looking at, he's missing out on "feasting". What does this mean? This is, after all, supposed to be an argument for paedocommunion. Is our friend trying to say that mere eating of the Lord's Supper, whether or not the person taking part is able to intelligently comprehend the meaning of the supper (in this case because they're too little to understand), is a spiritual benefit? Is this some kind of unrestrained sacramentalism we're face to face with here? Eating without understanding brings benefit which infants, too young to intelligently respond to the gospel, will benefit from even without the gospel? Or is our friend saying that the Lord's Supper is literally a physical feast, just as the Jewish feast days were, and that the little ones are being left out of the fun? Paul seemed to correct that error in 1 Corinthians 11 when he told the church at Corinth to stop confusing the remembrance of the Lord's death for a physical feast. Here's the beauty and also the weakness of a rhetorical argument like the one above - it means everything and nothing.

It seems then that we need to understand exactly what the anti-type of the "feasting" is. What was the actual meaning of Pentecost, considered with New Covenant eyes? The answer has already been given, in the quote from Peter - Pentecost was fulfilled in the giving of the Holy Spirit. Physical eating or being born of the right set of parents (Jewish or Christian) means nothing without this glorious reality.

And that's a reality which little children can share in - and if they do, by the Lord's sovereign grace (not through works, or anything to do with the first birth) share in it, then what loss is it if they don't eat some food at the feast? In due time they will be able to express that reality, and be welcomed to the Lord's table. Our Jewish friend, though, is not complaining specifically that his regenerate, Spirit-filled children can't partake - he's complaining that his children can't qualify simply on the grounds of being children. This brings us full circle, back to the vacuity of the "expanded privileges" point we've been discussing at length already. When rightly understood, the reality of the New Covenant building, now fully constructed, is so glorious that only a dullard who can't see the light of the sun would complain that he no longer enjoys the outward privileges of some of the scaffolding.

To be continued...

Bad arguments for infant communion (part 4)

Part one, part two, part three.

"Thank You, Lord, for blessing me and my family with this great feast in Your Presence! Thank You for redeeming all of us from slavery in Egypt. And thank You for the great day that is coming, when Your Spirit will fill all of us, Your people, except for our little children. I thank You, God, that the day is coming when this feast of Pentecost is fullfilled, and our little children will no longer be permitted to feast before you as they do today! Praise the Lord!"

If you've been following the plot so far, then you'll understand that the above piece of rhetoric with which we began this series has no more necessary Biblical logic to it than this one:

"Thank You, Lord, for blessing me and my family with this great feast in Your Presence! Thank You for redeeming all of us from slavery in Egypt and giving us this land. And thank You for the great day that is coming, when You will take it from us again. I thank You, God, that the day is coming when this feast of Pentecost is fullfilled, and our little children will no longer be given the covenantal privilege to live here as they do today! Praise the Lord!"

Similarly, we were invited to consider this fine speech:

"Thank You, Lord Jesus, for fulfilling the OT Feast of Pentecost on this glorious day today! For many years my family and I have celebrated the Feast of Pentecost in Your Presence, rejoicing before You, in eager anticipation of today. Thank You, Lord, that my little children will no longer be permitted to feast in Your Presence, now that the fulfillment of Pentecost has finally arrived. Thank You, Lord!

The counterpart of which reads like this:

"Thank You, Lord Jesus, for fulfilling the OT Feast of Pentecost on this glorious day today! For many years my family and I have celebrated the Feast of Pentecost in our promised land, rejoicing before You, in eager anticipation of today. Thank You, Lord, that my little children will no longer be permitted to feast in this land, now that the fulfillment of Pentecost has finally arrived, but will be kicked out before this generation passses away. Thank You, Lord!

I take it that the brother who composed the above paragraphs thought that they were really solid arguments for paedo-communion. What rotter could believe that God would start becoming mean to children once the New Covenant came, as if the New Covenant were meant to be worse than the Old? I take it also, though, that the same brother can see the gaping logical fallacies when the same "expanded covenant privileges" argument is used to argue that the same children ought to retain possession of the land as well?

To be continued...

Bad arguments for infant communion (part 3)

Part one, part two.

At this point, a further Baptist assertion can be made. The debate over infant communion and infant baptism is often framed by the paedobaptist or paedocommunionist in terms of "whether there is continuity between the covenants or not". This is actually a red herring. Once the paedo-whatnot has conceded that the New Covenant fulfillment of the Old Covenant land promises should be seen in terms of a spiritual inheritance during the present time and a physical inheritance only in the age to come, he can't frame the debate that way any longer. At this point, both Baptist and non-Baptist have agreed that Old Covenant promises do not have to move in only one direction and dimension (expanded privileges, nothing can be withdrawn). We have agreed that they can evolve in a complex way such that today the physical territory doesn't actually covenantally belong to anyone - that in one sense the privilege has contracted. If the paedo-baptist/communionist admits this, then he can't any more just slap down the "expanded privileges" card when talking about baptism or communion as if it were a trump suit. If the way in which the expansion of covenantal blessing works out for land is in some sense a spiritual and/or future fulfillment, then he's accepted the principle that Baptists argue for in the case of baptism and the Lord's Supper. He can no longer rule it out a priori as an illegitimate option. In other words, if he argues like a Baptist on one point, then this means that we're no longer debating "continuity or not" - we both accept that continuity is not a straightforward yes/no option. We're now debating the extent to which "spiritualisation" and "futurisation" take place and where it applies, not whether they take place at all. On this issue of the land, it's ironically only the Zionist dispensationalist who's actually taking the supposed principle of irrevocable covenant privileges and applying it consistently, though he seriously misidentifies who God's covenant people actually are.

It appears at this point that our imaginary Jewish friend, quoted in part one, is taking a rather simplistic view of things. Next, I want to examine what he's actually said.

To be continued...

Bad arguments for infant communion (part 2)

It's not too tricky to find other examples though which show that the "expanded privileges" formula is overly simplistic, and needs careful examination in each case rather than allowing a blanket application:

• The Old Covenant believers were given a physical territory - New Covenant believers aren't.
• Old Covenant believers had the visible presence of the Shekinah glory - we don't.
• Old Covenant believers were defended from physical harm by an earthly king - we aren't.

Now, I don't doubt at all that any half-educated paedo-baptist will point out something about the above cases. He'll point out that our New Covenant privileges in the relevant area far exceed those of the Old; that the thing mentioned was largely external, and foreshadowed a far greater reality to come. That reality in each case would be heaven and/or the new heavens and the new earth, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, or the kingly rule of our Saviour at the right hand of God. The Jew's privileges were just part of the scaffolding, whilst the New Testament church was being constructed.

To that I say, amen and amen. It's just that Baptists say the same thing about infant participation in the outward ordinances of the Old Covenant. The membership of the physical seed of Abraham in the covenant was a shadow of the spiritual seed of Abraham. It was part of the scaffolding, because it maintained the existence of a people of God on earth despite rampant apostacy, ready for the time of the coming of the Messiah. It ensured that there would be a distinct people for Christ to appear amongst - and other purposes.

The privileges enjoyed by my children are vastly greater than those enjoyed by those of the Old Covenant, whether they eat or drink something or not. They have the glorious truths about the Lord Jesus Christ and his saving work taught to them daily. Though they may not eat the bread and the wine, it's biblically indefensible to hold that they're worse off than the Jews when they are presented with message of the cross and the resurrection without types or shadows clouding the view. Sometimes when I read such "expanded privileges" arguments as quoted in my opening post, I wonder if the person making such an argument really realises what he's saying. Has he become a full-blown sacramentalist who thinks that hearing the gospel is only a minor consolation compared to being able to eat bread and drink wine? Or does he think that Baptists leave their children in the car park when they go to church?

I'd challenge any paedo-communion-ist who affirms that the inheritance that we promised us in the gospel is greater than the physical land possessed by the Jews, and who affirms that the indwelling of Christ in believers is a greater privilege than the Shekinah glory in the temple, as to why he cannot also affirm that being raised and instructed with the gospel in its New Testament clarity is a far greater privilege than it was to eat the Passover.

To be continued...

Bad arguments for infant communion

Recommended at David Field's blog as a "fine thing", we are given the following from here as a "nicely phrased argument ... for paedo-communion":

I believe in paedobaptism and paedocommunion. But just for a moment, let's consider the alternative. If [those who reject paedobaptism and paedocommunio] ... are right, then carefully consider what was being anticipated and celebrated by God's people in the OT. How would they praise God during the Feast of Pentecost? . . .

"Thank You, Lord, for blessing me and my family with this great feast in Your Presence! Thank You for redeeming all of us from slavery in Egypt. And thank You for the great day that is coming, when Your Spirit will fill all of us, Your people, except for our little children. I thank You, God, that the day is coming when this feast of Pentecost is fullfilled, and our little children will no longer be permitted to feast before you as they do today! Praise the Lord!"

Or, alternatively, consider how real Jewish fathers must have praised God in Acts 2, after the Holy Spirit filled His Church:

"Thank You, Lord Jesus, for fulfilling the OT Feast of Pentecost on this glorious day today! For many years my family and I have celebrated the Feast of Pentecost in Your Presence, rejoicing before You, in eager anticipation of today. Thank You, Lord, that my little children will no longer be permitted to feast in Your Presence, now that the fulfillment of Pentecost has finally arrived. Thank You, Lord!

In the debates over infant baptism and infant communion, this argument is normally called the "argument from expanded privileges". Its form is something like this:

1. The privileges enjoyed by any individual under the New Covenant cannot be less than those under the Old, because the New is more glorious.
2. Person X enjoyed privilege Y under the Old Covenant.
3. Therefore they must enjoy it under the New also.

When our children are involved, this argument can be worded quite emotively. The above "nice phrased argument" is an example of such. The upshot is that Baptists are baddies because they're mean to children who treat them worse than even infants under the Old dispensation were treated.

With many paedo-baptists, Baptists can use argumentation like the above as a point in their favour. Most Reformed paedo-baptists historically haven't accepted the doctrine of paedo-communion. As such, when an argument with the same form as the above is used in favour of infant baptism, the Baptist can simply re-work it to show that it just as much support paedo-communion, and if it's not necessarily valid in the one case then it's not in the other either. Obviously this doesn't work as any kind of argument with those who do accept paedo-communion!

To be continued...