Answering the Fool: Exposing the Folly and Hypocrisy of Colin Pearson

Proverbs 26:5 says: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Recently, I had to put this passage into practice. I had to confront the folly and hypocrisy of a rowdy and seriously misguided internet warrior: Colin Pearson.

The following dialog is made available for the sake of those in the “Truly Reformed” camp, who are familiar with Colin’s online behavior and might be tempted to follow in his ways. When the Bible says, “A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself” it’s describing a very immature person. What it really means is that he pretends to have more wisdom than he actually does. In reality, he has little more than a desire to “discover” his own heart, or as another translation puts it: “He delights in airing his own opinions.” Those who’ve been recklessly condemned by Colin can attest: that’s exactly what this man does.

Now, beyond this, I don’t have much more to say. I’m not interested in a long, drawn-out back-and-forth with his cronies. I’m posting this for the reason I mentioned: to expose the folly and hypocrisy that floods the internet these days. It’s sad, but unfortunately true, that people like this often run headlong into the sins of slander and false accusation, sometimes even against their own brothers and co-laborers in Christ. And actually, that’s exactly where this conversation leads; Colin is quick to use words like “heresy,” “wolves,” and “satanic,” to describe his own brothers who serve in other parts of Christ’s Vineyard. And this behavior is nothing new for him.

But — the problem? I call it: “Denominational-ism,” that is, treating one’s particular tradition as if it were the sum and substance of Reformed and even Protestant “orthodoxy.” Denominationalism seeks to elevate one’s own “party” to an unbiblical and even idolatrous level. And it’s a lot more common than we realize. In fact, this is precisely what earned the disciples the correction they received from Jesus (Mk. 9:38-41) and the Corinthians the rebuke they received from the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 1:12-13). This is the spirit to which I am responding in the following conversation.

Disclaimer: This conversation has been edited to (1) remove the names of innocent parties, (2) remove the comments that are irrelevant to the flow of the discussion, (3) re-format the discussion for a more intelligible presentation, and (4) make minor alterations in spelling, grammar, and wording to bring out the clarity of the intended meaning — without changing the substance of anything that was said.

---

Inquirer: What is the C.R.E.C. ?

Colin Pearson: It’s a big C (W)rec(k)

Paul Liberati: Actually, we're the denomination everyone loves to hate. Well, not everyone. Just those who worship at the altar of Reformed tradition and denominationalism.

Colin Pearson: Paul, Nice slander. Typical of those who defend a fake denomination that protects heretics.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, who is the slander against? Name the person, and then we can talk.

Colin Pearson: Paul, You didn’t name names, but you included anyone who criticizes the CREC. Pretty broad brush you paint with and very serious charges. Guess you’re too cowardly to actually name names. Figures. Typical CREC folks. Blast people with blatant, unmitigated slander and then retreat.

Nathan Beatty: Paul, who worships at that altar?

Paul Liberati: Nathan Beatty and Colin Pearson, I'm not running. If the shoe fits, wear it. If you're the kind of person who thinks that belonging to a certain denomination gives you favor with God, then Yes, I am describing you. You are obviously worshiping at the wrong altar. If you're the kind of person who likes to exalt himself with the notion that you are the Truly Reformed, then Yes, that certainly fits my description. I am talking about you. You are boasting in the wrong thing. Try boasting in the Lord alone, which is what you're supposed to be doing.

It's sad that so many are preoccupied with hating on the CREC. If you want to debate a point of doctrine, I'm right here. But it's more than a bit of irony to hear you say that I'm the one who blasts people with unmitigated slander "and then retreats." Bro, I'm not the one who uses my Facebook status to take cheap shots at other denominations. And then cry when they push back.

Nathan, what substance is there in anything you wrote in the OP? Obviously, there is none. The OP is just another expression of what I mentioned above: a love to hate on the CREC. But like I said: If you guys have something of substance to say, I'm all ears. So, do you want to debate something, or not?

Colin Pearson: Paul, No need to debate. CREC promotes and tolerated FV. Toleration of heresy, a false gospel, is sufficient warrant for criticism. Whine all you want. I’ll say the same thing a thousand times, but you’re the coward that comes out with false accusations.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, have it your way.

Colin Pearson: Paul, no need to rehash what’s been settled. FV is heresy. Always has been. You support and promote heresy by being a part of CREC. Repent of your divisiveness and tolerance of a false gospel.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, thank you for your opinion. But it doesn't carry much weight with me anymore. Not after you blocked me on Facebook for teaching "heresy" concerning the Atonement when all I was arguing for was the universal sufficiency of the death of Christ. Remember when you mistook that for Amyraldianism?

Colin Pearson: Paul, sorry that the whole of Protestant and Reformed orthodoxy is an insufficient warning to heed.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, the entirety of Protestant Christianity? Okay, prove that.

Colin Pearson: Paul, name the Protestant who defines faith as necessarily obedient.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, you need to give me more than that to work with. First, explain what "faith as necessarily obedient" means. Second, show me that we actually teach it according to the explanation you provide.

Colin Pearson: Paul, it means defining saving faith as, in essence, including obedience. This is taught by the FV joint statement as well as every proponent of FV.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, can you quote the FV joint statement, please?

Colin Pearson: Paul,

“We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and personally loyal faith. Justifying faith encompasses the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.”

You would be aware of this if you had taken the time to read the reports of every Reformed church against FV before jumping into the wolves’ den.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, I see nothing in the statement you provided that has not been stated even more forcefully by well-known Protestant Divines:

// We absolutely deny that we can be justified by that faith which can be alone; that is, without a principle of spiritual life and universal obedience, operative in all the works of it, as duty doth require. For those who assert it must be Antinomians, and I know not what; such as oppose or deny the necessity of universal obedience, or good works. If they mean those who believe that faith alone is on our part the means, instrument, or condition of our justification, all the prophets and apostles were so, and were so taught to be by Jesus Christ. But if they mean those who affirm that the faith whereby we are justified is alone, separate, or separable, from a principle and the fruit of holy obedience, they must find them out themselves, for we know nothing of them. For we allow no faith to be of the same kind or nature with that whereby we are justified, but what virtually and radically contains in it universal obedience, as the effect is in the cause, the fruit in the root, and which acts itself in all particular duties. Yea, we allow no faith to be justifying, or to be of the same kind with it, which is not itself, and in its own nature, a spiritually vital principle of obedience and good works //

— John Owen

Colin Pearson: Paul, of course, you pick one part of the quote that no one disputes. Please actually take the time to study why every Reformed church has condemned FV instead of continuing the same satanic obfuscation that they have for decades.

“Living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer” makes works part of the definition of faith, rather than a product of faith. This is made clear in the writings of Leithart, Lusk, etc., which you can find in plain detail in the reports you won’t bother reading. I’m not going to do your homework for you anymore. You’re an adult.

Nathan Beatty: Paul,

// If you're the kind of person who thinks that belonging to a certain denomination gives you favor with God, then Yes, I am describing you //

But that's not what you accused people of. You accused people of worshipping at the altar of Reformed tradition and Denominationalism. I'm curious who does that. I don't think I actually know anyone like this…

Colin Pearson: Paul,

“Yes, we do have the same obligation that Adam (and Abraham, and Moses, and David, and Jesus) had, namely, the obedience of faith. And, yes, covenant faithfulness is the way to salvation, for the “doers of the law will be justified” at the final judgment. But this is all done in union with Christ, so that “our” covenant faithfulness is dependent on the work of the Spirit of Christ in us, and our covenant faithfulness is about faith, trusting the Spirit to will and to do according to His good pleasure.”

— Leithart

Notice his conflation of faith and works to be actually the same thing, covenant faithfulness is doing the law, but this is about faith and trusting the Spirit to work in and through us to obey. Not faith the open hand that grasps Christ, but faith, which is itself working. This incorporates works into the definition of faith and conflates sanctification with justification.

Compare his statement on “the doers of the law” (Rom. 2:13) to that of literally any Protestant:

“Will be pronounced just before God's judgment seat: which is true indeed if anyone could be found that had fulfilled the law: but seeing that Abraham was not justified by the law, but by faith, it follows that no man can be justified by works.”

— Geneva Bible

“Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.”

— Calvin

“The scope of the apostle is not simply to show how sinners are now justified in the sight of God; but to show what is requisite to justification according to the tenor of the law, and that is, to do all that is written therein, and to continue so to do. And if there be any man that can bring such perfect and constant obedience of his own performing, he shall be justified by God; but inasmuch as no man, neither natural nor regenerate, can so fulfill the law, he must seek for justification in some other way.”

— Poole

The unified voice of everyone standing in opposition to the false gospel of Rome understands and declares that the doers of the law will never be justified since there are none. Leithart et al. take the road to Rome and mix faith and works in justification, not merely as a forensic declaration but also a lifelong process ending in the final justification of Rome.

For another example, Doug Wilson states that justification is by faith alone, yet he says this faith is a “living faith,” and elsewhere he defines works as the “life” of faith, which make works part of faith. So his justification by faith alone is actually justification by faith and works, according to his own definitions of those terms.

Paul Liberati: Nathan Beatty,

// You accused people of worshipping at the altar of reformed tradition and denominationalism. I'm curious who does that. I don't think I actually know anyone like this //

Just keep reading this conversation, and you'll see that you do.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson,

// Living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer makes works part of the definition of faith, rather than a product of faith //

No, it doesn’t. It simply acknowledges that the faith of believers varies in maturity. If you look at the FV statement, it says (explicitly) that there are three things that are part of the definition of faith: Assent, Knowledge, and Trust. This is standard Reformed doctrine.

They call it a “living trust” just to emphasize that faith must be "itself" and “in its own nature” a living principle of obedience. And this is precisely what our Divines have argued. Read Owen again:

// Yea, we allow no faith to be justifying, or to be of the same kind with it, WHICH IS NOT ITSELF, AND IN ITS OWN NATURE, a spiritually vital principle of obedience and good works //

As far as the Leithart quote, you are showing your desperation. There is nothing un-Protestant about saying that covenant faithfulness is “the way to salvation.” Obviously, what he has in mind is the aspect of final salvation since he mentions the final judgment. That much should be obvious.

What’s even more obvious (and now I’m doing your homework) is that saying obedience and good works are “the way of salvation” is thoroughly *Reformed. I mean, Which Reformed theologian has not taught that good works are necessary in order to obtain salvation? And not just as an incidental means, but as an active instrumental cause? Here are just a few:

“Good works are an instrumental cause of the possession of life eternal, for by these as by media, and by the legitimate path, God leads us into the possession of eternal life.”

– Jerome Zanchi, Whether Good Works are the Cause of Eternal Salvation

“Are [good works] required as the means and way for possessing salvation? This we hold. For although works may be said to contribute nothing to the acquisition of salvation, still they should be considered necessary to the obtainment of it, so that no one can be saved without them.”

— Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“Good works are understood to have a causative power for eternal life in three ways… 2. That they might have an inferior and causal instrumental power conferred upon them by the grace of God, just as running is a cause of the crown which is received, contending a cause of the victory, and diet a cause of health. Neither may one be said to distinguish accurately here between a means and a cause, or between a way and a cause: for while good works are means, they are not passive, but active: a means here is an inferior cause.

– Samuel Rutherford, Whether good works are necessary as causes of justification, and therefore also of salvation

“Suppose a person freely justified by the grace of God, through faith in the blood of Christ, without respect unto any works, obedience, or righteousness of his own; we do freely grant: (1) That God doth indispensably require personal obedience of him; which may be called his evangelical righteousness. (2) That God does approve of and accept, in Christ, this righteousness so performed. (3) That hereby that faith whereby he is justified is evidenced, proved, manifested, in the sight of God and men. (4) That this righteousness is pleadable unto an acquitment against any charge from Satan, the world, or his own conscience. (5) That upon it he shall be declared righteous at the last day, and without it none shall so be.”

—John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Vol. 5

Now, the Leithart quote you provided is much more careful and reserved than were any of the above men. With Philippians 2:12-13 in mind, he carefully qualifies our covenant faithfulness in several ways. First, he puts the term “our” in scare quotes. Second, he describes the faithfulness we exhibit as being “all done in union with Christ” and “dependent on the work of the Spirit of Christ in us.” And third, he shows that the faithfulness that he’s referring to is the result of “faith” itself when he says that we are “trusting the Spirit to will and to do according to His good pleasure.”

Clearly then, your attempt to substantiate the charge of “heresy” is an exercise in desperation and futility. It’s clear that you need to study primary source material for yourself instead of assuming that the criticisms that you’ve read online are accurate. By regurgitating what other men have said, you are displaying a sinful party spirit (Mk. 9:38-41) rather than the spirit of a Berean (Acts 17:11).

// Compare his statement on “the doers of the law” (Rom. 2:13) to that of literally any Protestant //

This is irrelevant. A man can substantiate his theological position by any combination of proof texts. The important thing is what he is affirming, not which passages he uses to support what he is affirming. That’s why not all Reformed denominations require their ministers to subscribe to the proof texts of their confessions.

// Doug Wilson states that justification is by faith alone, yet he says this faith is a “living faith,” and elsewhere he defines works as the “life” of faith, which make works part of faith //

No, it doesn't. You're only seeing what you want to see. I also find it curious that you didn't provide the quote itself. But honestly, I have to say: You should probably quit while you’re ahead. You’ve already embarrassed yourself enough on this thread by showing that you’re more interested in toeing your party line than anything else. Unfortunately, that’s caused you to commit the grievous sins of slander and false accusation against your brothers in Christ.

Colin Pearson: Paul, it defines “trust” as “living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer.” This means there are different levels of faith, that grow and mature. This maturity includes works, as shown explicitly by Leithart.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, wanna bet? Why don't you write to Leithart and ask him?

Colin Pearson: Paul, No thanks. I’m comfortable in submission to the judgment of the faithful ministers who identified FV as heresy.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, why don't you rather submit to the Church Courts that exonerated Peter Leithart from all charges of heresy? By refusing to do this, you show your hypocrisy and twisted party spirit.

Nathan Beatty, there you have it. Nothing more needs to be said in defense of my original comment.

I bid you men Farewell.

What Acts 16:34 Really Says

According to the grammar of Acts 16:34, the Jailer is the only one who believed in God, and yet his entire household was baptized. In fact, there are four verbal declarations in this verse and all of them are written in the singular form.[1]

1. ἀναγαγών is a second aorist active participle in the nominative SINGULAR masculine form. It means, "when he had brought."

2. παρέθηκεν is an aorist active indicative verb in the 3rd person SINGULAR form. It means, "he set."

3. ἠγαλλιάσατο is an aorist middle indicative verb in the 3rd person SINGULAR form. It means, "he rejoiced."

4. πεπιστευκὼς is a perfect active participle in the nominative SINGULAR masculine form. It means, "that he had believed."

It should also be noted that the prepositional phrase “with all his house” (πανοικὶ) is not attached to πεπιστευκὼς (he had believed) but to ἠγαλλιάσατο (he rejoiced). This means that the text does not say that the jailer believed with all his house, but the jailer rejoiced with all his house. And according to the text, the reason he did that was that he himself came to believe in God. The best translation of this passage is given in the ESV because it follows the Greek text almost word for word. It reads, "Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God."

From these observations, it is clear that it is the jailer alone who did the bringing, setting, rejoicing, and believing since each of these verbs is in the singular form.

OBJECTION: All the members of the Jailer's household must have been adults since the apostles spoke the word of the Lord “to all that were in his house” (v. 32).

ANSWER: It does not follow that if the Word is spoken to a person, he must be an adult, for there are numerous instances where the Word of God was spoken to children:

• Deuteronomy 31:12 says, “Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law.”

• Joshua 8:34-35 says, “And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings, and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them.”

OBJECTION: But the fact that the members of the Jailer's household "rejoiced" (v. 34) proves that there were no infants in that household since infants cannot rejoice.

ANSWER: We have already shown that his rejoicing was singular, though it was done in the presence of his family. [2] Further, we should note that infants both can and do rejoice, as the following passage indicates:

• Luke 1:44: “As soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.”

• See also Deuteronomy 16:11-14, Matthew 21:16, Psalms 22:9, and 2 Timothy 3:15 as proof that infants and small children can “rejoice”, “hope in God”, sing “perfect praises” to Jesus Christ, and “know the Holy Scriptures.”

---

Notes:

[1] The full text reads: ἀναγαγών τε αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὑτοῦ, παρέθηκεν τράπεζαν καὶ ἠγαλλιάσατο πανοικὶ πεπιστευκὼς τῷ θεῷ

[2] If Luke wanted to indicate that the family also rejoiced, he could have used the term καὶ (and/also), just as he did in verse 33 to indicate that the rest of the family was also baptized "he was baptized, and (καὶ) all his."

From Passover to the Lord's Supper

The practice of Covenant Communion is easy to establish by an argument from the continuity of the sacraments—specifically, from the Passover to the Lord's Supper. However, when I present that argument to my NAPARC friends, they usually respond in one of two ways. Either they deny that children partook of the Passover, per Calvin, or else they admit that fact and simply look for ways to avoid the inevitable conclusion—namely, that covenant children, therefore, have a right to the Lord's Supper.

In my experience, their most common reply is to say, "But there's not a one-to-one correspondence between the Passover and the Lord's Supper!"

Now, for those who appeal to Calvin, I usually point them to this article: https://www.pauliberati.com/blog/access-granted-studies-on-covenant-communion-pt-3, and then seal the deal with a lengthy quotation from Herman Witsius.[1]

But for those who try to avoid the conclusion by saying that there's not a one-to-one correspondence between the Passover and the Lord's Supper, I begin with a very simple question: Is there a one-to-one correspondence between Circumcision and Baptism?

You see, the fact is that no Reformed theologian, whether he holds to Covenant Communion or not, has ever taught or even tacitly assumed that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments. But the point here is that there doesn't have to be.

Just like there doesn't have to be a 1:1 relationship between Circumcision and Baptism for us to conclude that our covenant children should be baptized, so also there doesn't have to be a 1:1 relationship between the Passover and the Lord's Supper for us to conclude that they should also be admitted to the Lord's Table.

In other words, all that is necessary for the practice of Covenant Communion to obtain is for the sacraments of the New Testament to occupy the place and role of those of the Old. And, according to Reformed Theology, that is precisely the case.

// As Baptism has, therefore, succeeded Circumcision, so the Lord’s Supper has succeeded the Passover in the New Testament // [2]

---

End Notes:

[1] In his classic work, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, published in 1677, Herman Witsius set forth what many Reformed theologians today consider the finest treatment on Covenant Theology ever written. Whether that’s the case or not, one thing is indisputably clear, namely, that contrary to the anti-paedocommunion rhetoric so common in our day, Witsius taught that from the beginning, and down through the centuries, both women and children did in fact partakere of the Passover. Indeed, he showed that according to Scripture, they not only ate but had a right to eat of that sacramental meal. Here is what he writes in 4.9.11-14:

// As to the guests, they were in the first place all true-born Israelites, if they were not excluded by legal uncleanness. For, Exodus 12:6, 47, “all the congregation of Israel” is commanded to solemnize the Passover; and then the proselytes, who “were circumcised and became Jews,” Esther 8:17; whether they were bondmen born in the house, or bought with money, or mercenary, or inmates of the land of Canaan, subject to no bondage, or in fine, those whom they called proselytes of righteousness, who, upon being circumcised, had a right also to eat the Passover, Exodus 12:48. It is a question, whether women were likewise excluded by the same law that the uncircumcised were, especially as the law commanded the males only to travel to the three festivals, Exodus 23:17; 34:23; Deuteronomy 16:16. It would seem they were not.

// First, because women cannot be numbered among the uncircumcised, nor accounted as such, for circumcision did not belong to them, but they were reckoned along with their circumcised parents or husbands. Second, because “all the congregation of Israel” as we have just shown, is commanded to celebrate the Passover. But the women make a part of this congregation, Deuteronomy 29:11.

"Thirdly, that the women together with the men celebrated these solemn festivals, appears from the example of Elkanah, who yearly carried with him his two wives, with his sons and daughters, to Shiloh to the solemn festivals, 1 Samuel 1:3, 4. Joseph also and the holy virgin, traveled yearly to Jerusalem to the feast of the Passover, Luke 2:41. From which it appears, that the same thing may be concluded concerning all the pious women in those times.

// Fourthly, from a parity of reason; because in other eucharistical sacrifices, or שלמים, peace-offerings, women also had their portion: thus Elkanah gave to his wife Peninnah, and to all her sons and daughters, parts of the sacrifice; but to Hannah, whom he loved, a worthy, a double portion, 1 Sam. 1:4, 5. When David likewise offered eucharistical sacrifices, he dealt out a part of them to all Israel, as well to the women as men, 2 Sam. 6:18. And the daughters of the priests ate of the sacred food, Numb. 18:11, 19. And why may we not suppose that women also partook of the Passover, which was a kind of eucharistical sacrifice or peace-offering?

// Fifthly, we add the testimony of Maimonides, who says that women were not only admitted to the paschal feasts, but also at times there was a company which consisted only of women, de Pasch. c. ii. §. 5. But the command concerning women’s appearing at Jerusalem to keep the Passover is nowhere to be found in express terms. Hence it is said in Talm. Hierosol. Tract. Kidduschin, fol. 61, col. 3, “the Passover of women is a discretionary thing.” But those women who were led by a zeal for religion, were accustomed to present themselves before God, in order to partake of this sacrifice, Lightfoot, ad. Luc. 2:43.

// The guests who partook of the paschal lamb, are commanded to meet by houses or families, Exodus 12:3. But if a house had not a number sufficient to consume a lamb, the neighbours were to be called in, till a just number was made up, verse 4. The Jewish masters took care that the number of guests should not be under ten, nor above twenty. Which Jonathan’s paraphrase on Exodus 13:4, and Josephus, de Bell. Jud. lib. xvii. c. vii. observe. In those companies or societies, called φρατρίας by Josephus, by the Hebrews, חבורות, men and women sat down together, old men and young, whole and sick, masters and servants, and in fine, every Jew that could eat a morsel of flesh, not excluding even young children //

[2] Zacharias Ursinus trans. by G. W. Williard, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (Cincinnati, OH: Elm Street Printing Company, 1888), 440

From the Least to the Greatest: What Jeremiah 31:34 Doesn't Mean

Contrary to the common (Baptist) assumption, Jeremiah 31 does not teach that every single new covenant member without exception will know the Lord in a true and saving way.

In verse 34, Jeremiah uses a specific quantifying phrase that appears again and again throughout his book: "From the least to the greatest of them." That exact phrase or very similar wording appears in 6:13; 8:10; 16:6; 42:1; 44:12; etc. with close parallels in 5:4-5 and 9:3-6. Yet, in none of those instances does it mean "every single person without exception." Instead, it simply refers to that which is "pervasively but not exhaustively true."

The difference, then, between the Old and New Covenants with respect to the condition of the people was that they have gone from a pervasive ignorance to a pervasive knowledge of the LORD. However, this knowledge cannot be seen as the prerequisite condition for New Covenant membership anymore than the former ignorance was for Old Covenant membership.

In 6:13 and 8:10, Jeremiah uses the phrase in question to describe the pervasive corruption of the people, saying, "From the least to the greatest of them, every one is greedy for unjust gain." But this statement clearly does not mean that "every last member" of the covenant was greedy for unjust gain. For if we take the phrase in such an exhaustive way, it would mean anyone who was not greedy for unjust gain was not a member of the Covenant. This in turn would mean that Jeremiah himself was also excluded from the Mosaic Covenant!

So in the end, the point should be clear. In Jeremiah 31:34, the quantifying phrase "from the least to the greatest of them" is added to the term "all" to communicate the idea that in the days of the New Covenant there will be a much greater number of people who know the LORD than there was in the days of the Old. But it does not indicate that every individual member will know the Lord in a true and saving way.

Don’t Sacrifice Your Children

About 12 years ago, my wife and I decided to pull our kids from the government school system and commit to giving them a home education. When we did that, some of our friends and family members thought we were crazy: "What do you mean you're homeschooling?"

We explained to them that God's Word commands us to raise our children in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord." We explained that every successful student becomes like his teacher, just as Jesus said, "Every disciple who is fully trained will be just like his Master."

We told them them that because we didn't want a godless, anti-Christian, government-run school system to disciple our children, we were willing to sacrifice up to half our total income to protect the hearts and minds of our little ones. Some nodded of course with eyebrows lifted, eyes glazed over, and the little corners of their mouths pointed downward. But that was okay. We knew they didn't understand. We knew we would have to bear the shame of stepping out in faith and obedience to God's Word. We knew we would be characterized as religious fanatics and regarded as overzealous and extreme.

But you know what? Today more than ever we are proud of the decision we made. Our walk with the Lord has been greatly strengthened and our faith has been confirmed time and again throughout the past 12 years. Especially, as we look around at the current state and condition of our nation, we know that we did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. The degeneracy of public education is manifest.

In the picture below you can see just how far we've fallen. What "show and tell" used to be and what it is today is a clear testimony to the absolute corruption of our society.

And no, this is not one of those "I told you so" kind of rants. The facts are what the facts are and it's not about me or my family. This whole thing is about God. This is about the truth of His Word and the deceitfulness of the lies that unbelieving and hateful men both tell and believe. This is a wakeup call to those of you with any fear of God left in your souls still sitting on the fence wondering what you should do about this question of public education.

* To all the parents who still have your kids attending public school, you need to repent, come to Christ, and see to it that your kids get a good Christian education. And yes, if you need help and guidance and don't know where to start, then let me know. You can private message me and I will help you no matter who you are or where you live. This is that important!

* To all the Christian parents who still have your kids drinking from the filthy waters of public education, you also need to repent. Stop sending your children to Baal. Stop sending your children to Caesar. Go and get your kids and give them the education they deserve. Christian children have a right to a Christian education, and one day you'll have to give an account to Jesus Christ himself. You already know this and therefore have no excuse. To whom much is given, much is required.

* To all the pastors who turn a blind eye to the educational decisions of the members of your congregation, you need to repent more than anyone else. How is it that you can just stand there and watch as God's covenant children are being ravaged by the open haters of Jesus Christ? Honestly, your time is up. You have blood on your hands. This is a call for you to wake up, wash your hands, and put an end to your shameless infidelity.

And here, I'll end with this. If you're a pastor of a local church but you're not willing to use your God-given authority to put down this seditious rebellion within your own church and denomination, then you need to step down and go home. It's quite clear that you are not a true shepherd of God's people, called and ordained by Jesus Christ. You are just as the hireling in John 10, who when he sees the wolf coming, leaves the whole flock open and unprotected. If you think anyone else has something to answer for, then you have more. To whom much is given, much is required, and to whom much more is given, much more is required. You know this better than anyone else, and each man will receive according to his works.

To the fathers, pastors and Christian statesmen, it's time to man up and show your faithfulness to the Lord. It's time to deliver these little ones from the paw of the bear.

Did the Ten Commandments Exist Before Moses?

In the Reformed Faith, we hold that the Ten Commandments are but the summary of the whole Moral Law written on the heart of mankind in creation (Rom. 2:14-15). This is why we find so many instances of men operating out of an awareness of these commandments before they were given to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

* In Genesis 35, Jacob commanded the members of his household to put away their foreign gods, showing his awareness of the first and second commandments: Thou shalt have no other gods before me, and Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

* In Job 1, Job offered sacrifices for his children in case they happened to curse God in their feasting and drinking, showing his awareness of the third commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

* In Exodus 16, the LORD chided the people in the wilderness for working on the seventh day, showing their awareness of the fourth commandment: Thou shalt remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.

* In Genesis 28, Jacob obeyed his father's prohibition against taking a wife from among the Canaanites, showing his awareness of the fifth commandment: Honour thy father and thy mother.

* In Genesis 4, Cain expected to be executed for killing his brother Abel, showing an awareness of the sixth commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

* In Genesis 39, Joseph refused to sin against God by lying with Potiphar's wife, showing his awareness of the seventh commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

* In Genesis 20, Abimelech pleaded his innocence for taking another man's wife, showing his awareness of the eighth, and tenth commandments: Thou shalt not steal, and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

* In Genesis 12, Pharaoh rebuked Abraham for lying about his relationship with Sarah, showing his awareness of the ninth commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness.

No Example of Infant Baptism in the Bible?

It's no wonder that Reformed and Presbyterian theologians appeal to 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 to falsify the Baptist claim that “there is no example of infant baptism anywhere in the Bible.”[1] Normally, when dealing with this passage we utilize a simple three-step process of reasoning:

(1) First, we note that Paul says, Our fathers were baptized when they crossed the Red Sea.[2]

(2) Second, we ask the question, Which of our fathers actually crossed the Red Sea?

(3) And third, we show that Paul says, All our fathers passed through the sea and were baptized.

// Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that ALL our fathers were under the cloud, ALL passed through the sea, and ALL were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea //

The reason this line of reasoning is so effective is that once our Baptist friends acknowledge that the entire nation of Israel was baptized in the Red Sea, every pretense for claiming that the Bible contains no example of infant baptism is removed. After all, this one passage provides us with thousands of infant baptisms!

______________________

[1] In his 1680 revision to the Heidelberg Catechism, Baptist minister Hercules Collins makes this very claim. In Question 71, he asked: Are infants to be baptized? His answer was: None by no means; for we have neither precept *nor example* for that practice in all of the book of God.

[2] It should also be noted that the mode of this baptism was not immersion but sprinkling, for Psalm 77:17 tells us that when the children of Israel passed through the sea "the clouds poured out water."

The Mode of Baptism: A Presbyterian Perspective

Once in a while, someone will ask me why Presbyterians baptize by pouring and sprinkling rather than immersion. It's important to know that such a question arises from the common assumption that the term baptize, which comes from the Greek verb βαπτίζω, always means to dip, dunk, or immerse. Of course, that assumption is false, but more on that later.

One way to see things from the Presbyterian perspective is by looking at the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told His disciples that they would be "baptized" (βαπτίζω) with the Holy Spirit and would receive power when the Spirit came upon them (Acts 1:5, 8). The fulfillment of this prediction came on the day of Pentecost when God poured out His Spirit upon them (Acts 2:17-18, 33), and Peter said that this was to fulfill the prophecy of Joel that God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17-18; see also 10:45).

The critical thing to note here is that the baptism of the Spirit had a very particular mode. In every instance, the Holy Spirit was "poured out" (or sprinkled, Ezk. 36:25-27) and therefore came from above.

That's important because when Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born of both "water" and "the Spirit" (Jn. 3:5), he described both of those experiences as being "born from above" (v. 3). In other words, water baptism symbolizes Spirit baptism so that the one is a picture of the other. As John said, "I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mk. 1:8).

So then, Why do Presbyterians pour and sprinkle rather than immerse? The best reason is that water baptism is a picture of Spirit baptism and therefore the mode each should be the same. As the Spirit came down from above, so too should the water.

But what about the claim that the term "baptism" (from the Greek term βαπτίζω) always means to immerse? Well, we've already seen that the use of this term in the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an exception to the rule, but there are others well.

In Hebrews 9:10, the writer mentions the various washings of the Old Testament, and the term for "washings" is literally "baptisms" (from the Greek term βαπτίζω). What's important to see there is that none of these was by immersion, but instead the context shows that they were all baptisms by "sprinkling" (vv. 13, 15, 19, 21).

In Mark 7:4, Jesus says the Pharisees would "wash" (βαπτίζω) certain household objects like "cups, pots, brasen vessels, and tables." This refers to the custom of the day where the Pharisees would purify themselves and everything they touched upon returning from the marketplace where Gentile interaction was unavoidable. These "baptisms" were designed to cleanse all things from possible ceremonial defilement.

But here again, the term "baptism" does not mean to immerse. Although it was possible to immerse a cup or pot in a container of water, it was not possible to do so with a table. Therefore, the Pharisees would baptize their household items by the sprinkling of clean water.

Now here's another point to consider. There is a term in New Testament that does signify dipping, dunking, and immersing, but it is not βαπτίζω. Rather it is βάπτω. This word is used three times in the New Testament, and in every case dipping or dunking is clearly in view.

(1) The rich man wanted Lazarus to "dip" (from βάπτω) his finger in water and give him a drink (Luk. 16:24).

(2) Jesus "dipped" (from βάπτω) the bread in the sauce and handed it to Judas (Jn. 13:26).

(3) Jesus wears a robe "dipped" (from βάπτω) in blood when He comes in judgment (Rev. 19:13).

But here's the thing. While the Greek word βάπτω as used in the New Testament always means to dip, dunk, or immerse, it is never used once with reference to Christian baptism. Instead, every reference to Christian baptism uses the term βαπτίζω.

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 6

It’s been a while since I’ve been able to sit down and work on this series, but that’s because I had been preparing for my ordination exam since (at least) the beginning of June 2021. Now that I’ve taken (and passed!) that exam, and received the blessing of my presbytery, I can pick up and continue with this project from exactly where I left off. Well, not exactly. When I published the previous installment (found here), I thought that I should write one last post on the connection between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. However, as I come back I realize that I’ve already produced more than enough material on the Passover, so I should probably just move on from here. In this post, then, I want to present a quick and concise case for Covenant Communion using Paul’s interpretation of the Exodus in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. It is my contention that on the principle of covenant continuity the plain reading of this passage provides us with a strong biblical basis for bringing our little ones to the Lord’s Table.

// Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ //

All Were Baptized

It's no surprise that many Reformed theologians appeal to this passage in response to the Baptist claim that “there is no example of infant baptism anywhere in the Bible.”[1] Normally, to demonstrate that such a claim is false, we utilize a simple three-step process of reasoning. First, we note that Paul says, Our fathers were baptized when they crossed the Red Sea. Second, we ask the question, Which of our fathers actually crossed the sea? Third, we show that Paul says, All our fathers passed through the sea and were baptized. Obviously, this line of reasoning is extremely effective because once our Baptist friends acknowledge that the entire nation of Israel was baptized in the Red Sea, every pretense for claiming that the Bible contains no example of infant baptism is removed. After all, this one passage provides us with thousands of infant baptisms.

All Ate and Drank

At this point, it’s easy to see how one might proceed to demonstrate how Paul's argument works not only for paedobaptism but also for paedocommunion. Just as infants were included in the nation's baptism, so they were included in the nation's eating and drinking as well. And note here that Paul describes the nature of their eating in sacramental terms, referring to the elements as “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink.” Paul even tells us that the source and object of their partaking was Jesus Christ himself. “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” But there's more. For those who might be struggling with the implications of Paul's typological interpretation, it should be pointed out that there's nothing here that cannot be derived from the Old Testament narrative itself. What do I mean?

Well, first of all, we have the strongest indication that the crossing of the Red Sea was, in fact, a water baptism for the people. For though it's almost customary to describe that event as a “dry” event, Psalm 77:17 says it was no such thing. On the contrary, the text says that during their crossing of the sea, “the clouds poured out water.” But secondly, and more to the point, we have an even stronger indication that the eating of the manna in the wilderness was, in fact, a sacramental feast unto the LORD. How so? Consider the following three observations from the historical context.

First, when the LORD commanded Pharoah, “Let my people go” (Ex. 5:1a), He provided a very specific reason. He said, “that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness” (Ex. 5:1b). Here we can see that one of the stated purposes for delivering Israel was to bring them to a feast. Second, when Pharaoh asked, “Who are the ones that are going” (Ex. 10:8), Moses said, “We will go with our young and our old; with our sons and our daughters, with our flocks and our herds, for we must hold a feast to the LORD” (Exod. 10:9). Here we see that while the animals were needed for sacrifice, the children would be included in the feast. Third, after delivering His people from Egypt, the LORD finally accomplished His purpose. They asked, “Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?” (Ps. 78:19), and in answering this question, the psalmist writes, “He rained down manna on them to eat, and gave them of the bread of heaven” (Ps. 78:24).

If there's anything clear from this series of observations, it’s the fact that the wilderness eating was sacramental eating. The drinking was sacramental drinking. God set the table in the wilderness, it included bread from heaven and water from the Rock, and He did that to fulfill His purpose of bringing His people to a feast in the wilderness. But again, the main thing is that all the children were included in that feast.

But They Died in the Wilderness

At this point, the case for covenant communion has been made, but the problem is that even in the face of the exegetical data many of our Reformed theologians stumble at the conclusion. For some reason, they refuse to follow Paul’s argument through to the end. But what is their main objection?

In the Second Minority Report of the O.P.C. Committee on Paedocommunion, the authors provide us with a reason for their reluctance. They write, “The answer to this is found in a careful comparison of Jesus' teaching upon the manna in John 6 and Paul's discussion of it in 1 Corinthians 10. Paul elevates the experience, while Christ diminishes it.”[3] In other words, it may be true that when considered alone, Paul’s argument would lead us to the practice of paedocommunion, but when we consider what Jesus says, we see that bringing our children to the Lord’s Table is a bad, and even dangerous, idea. Why so? According to the Report, it’s because Jesus says that the bare, external eating of the manna did not produce life in the people of that generation. Instead, eating and drinking without faith and reverence toward God only led them to their destruction. As he said, “Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and are dead” (Jn. 6:49).

On the surface of it, this argument looks like it's off to a good start. Unfortunately, once we start to dig a little deeper, we find that it cannot sustain the burden that the Reformed theologian puts on it. Thus, it is anticlimactic. Here are three reasons why the argument doesn’t work. First, and perhaps most obvious, a consistent application of this reasoning would refute the practice of paedobaptism as well. In Mark 16:16, Jesus teaches that receiving the sacrament of baptism without faith only leads to condemnation. He says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.” 

Second, though very much related, this argument confuses two distinct categories of sacramental participation, valid and effectual. Jesus certainly taught that for many the eating of the manna was ineffectual. But nowhere does he argue that it was therefore invalid. In fact, if a sacrament is only validly received when it is also effectually received, then the baptism of any covenant child who fails to confess faith in Jesus Christ is an invalid baptism. (And all the Baptists said, Amen!) And notice that such a conclusion is truly inescapable since the Westminster Shorter Catechism says both sacraments are effectual only for those who receive them by faith.[4] Thus, for the Reformed, valid participation in the sacraments must be based on something more objective than the possession of saving faith. Selah.

But the third and most important reason why this argument fails is that the Bible tells us exactly who died in the wilderness and who did not. In Numbers 32, the Bible says that the LORD grew angry at the unbelief of the people and swore that they would not enter the land. And yet, when we look at what He actually said, we learn that not a single covenant child was included in that punishment. He said, “Surely none of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and above, shall see the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (v. 11). In other words, even though many of the people received the sacrament apart from saving faith, the only ones who fell in the wilderness were those that we would call “mature.” This means that the conclusion the anti-paedocommunionist wants to draw from the words of Jesus and Paul is the very opposite of what it should be. When Jesus said, “Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and are dead” (Jn. 6:49), the warning was not for children but only for adults. And when Paul said, “With most of them God was not well pleased for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness” (1 Cor. 10:5), the warning was not for children but only for adults.

In light of these observations, it’s no wonder that both Paul and Jesus used children as the spiritual model for adults to follow rather than the other way around. When it comes to the question of purity, Paul says “In malice be babes” (1 Cor. 14:20). And when it comes to the nature of saving faith, Jesus says, “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it” (Lk. 18:17). 

---

Endnotes:

[1] In his 1680 revision to the Heidelberg Catechism, Baptist minister Hercules Collins makes this very argument. In Question 71 (which corresponds to the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 74), he asked: Are infants to be baptized? His answer was: None by no means; for we have neither precept nor example for that practice in all of the book of God. 

[2] One example of this argument can be found in this 2006 article written by Reverend Lane Keister: 1 Corinthians 10 and Paedobaptism, though admittedly, the form of his argument is not identical to mine. 

[3] See here: https://www.opc.org/GA/paedocommunion.html#report

[4] Q. 91. How do the Sacraments become effectual means of salvation? A. The Sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that does administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit, in them that by faith receive them.

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 5

As we come to the fifth and final objection against child participation in the Passover meal, we immediately recognize its close connection with Objection # 2 (Admission to the Passover Required Catechesis). That’s because there are two distinct but related claims associated with the Lord’s attendance at the feast as recorded in Luke 2. The first is about its timing (Jesus was twelve) and the second is about its purpose (he went to take his catechetical exam).

Therefore, in view of the overlap with Exodus 12:26, I’ll need to address both of these claims in this post. In preparation for that, here is the initial passage (Lk. 2:41-42) we will consider:

// His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast //

Objections & Answers

5.  Jesus Attended Passover at the Age of Twelve

In his online publication entitled, Jesus’ First Passover (found here), Reverend Jim West presents an interesting case against child participation. In the main, his argument rests on the claim that, according to Luke 2:41-42, Jesus himself never attended Passover before the age of twelve. 

However, with as many supporting points as he presents in this work, I would argue that his overall case is inconclusive for at least three reasons: 1) The inference he makes from the text is logically invalid, 2) The interpretation he renders is not required by the grammar, and 3) The evidence he offers is extra-biblical and therefore non-authoritative. 

From Focus to Fact

Anyone who’s been involved with Christian apologetics knows that one of the favorite tactics of unbelievers is to present the Bible in a way that makes the writers look like they contradict each other. For example, since Matthew says two women came to the empty tomb and Mark says there were three, the unbeliever sees a blatant contradiction. 

However, such a conclusion is a major slip in logic. The fact that Matthew mentions only two out of the three women is not the same as denying that there were three. To be a formal contradiction, he would’ve had to say that “only” two women came to the tomb—but, of course, he didn’t say that.

By way of analogy, Reverend West commits a similar error in his argument against paedocommunion. He too makes an unjustified leap from the focus of a writer to the facts of the case, not realizing that these are not the same thing. He assumes that when Luke says Mary and Joseph went up to Passover every year, it can only mean that Jesus never went with them. Notice how he draws that inference on pages 12 and 13:

// The Lucan account says that his parents went up to Passover every year (Luke 2:41). The focus here is upon their going—not his. They (not he) went up to the Passover every year //

// They went up annually, but the silence suggests that Jesus did not //

In no uncertain terms, Reverend West deduces the absence of Jesus from the presence of his parents. But just like in the case with the women at the tomb, this is a major slip in logic and should be answered in exactly the same way: The fact that Luke only mentions Joseph and Mary is not the same as denying that Jesus was there.

From Grammar to Interpretation

But what about the grammar? Reverend West also argues that there’s an obvious grammatical contrast between the attendance of Mary and Joseph (v. 41) and the attendance of Jesus himself (v. 42). To do this, he appeals to the Greek term, ginomai, which means: was, came to be, or even, began to be. On page 13, he writes: 

// Ginomai is translated “was” when the real import of the verb is became. Thus, the implication of ginomai in Luke 2:42 is clear: Jesus’ becoming twelve was the reason they took him to Passover // 

There are several difficulties with this conclusion, two of which I’ll mention in passing: 

• First, no matter how we translate ginomai, the term itself is connected to the age of Jesus, not to his attendance. In other words, the text says “when Jesus began to be twelve” not “when Jesus began to attend the feast.”

• Second, no matter how we translate ginomai, the grammar is not as forceful as suggested. Notice that Reverend West wants the statement to be causal rather than simply temporal. He asserts that the “reason” Joseph and Mary took Jesus up to Jerusalem is that he “became” twelve, when the truth is that ginomai is preceded by hote which is known as the adverb of time. Thus, we have a classic case of confusing our interpretation of the grammar with the grammar itself.[1]

From Scripture to Tradition

Admittedly, one of the best parts of West’s publication is the section in which he makes the connection between the ages of Jesus (mentioned in the New Testament) and the requirements of God’s law. The problem, however, is that he takes a true and frequent occurrence and then presents it as an absolute rule. On page 9, he writes:

// Every time an age is predicated of him, it is in relationship to God’s law //

In this section, West provides a number of examples from the Bible, all of which are good. He reminds us that Jesus was circumcised at eight days old because that’s what God required (Lk. 2:21; Gen. 17:12). He was presented at forty days old because that’s what God required (Lk. 2:22-24; Lev. 12:1-8). He was baptized at thirty years old because, again, that’s what God required (Lk. 3:23; Num. 4:1-3).

Unfortunately, right when we’re ready to learn that Jesus first went to the Passover at the age of twelve because that’s what God required, West fails to deliver. Knowing that there is no such law or command in Scripture, he goes back and carefully restates his initial argument in completely different terms. On Page 10, he writes:

// Thus everything that Jesus did conformed to Old Testament law and custom. Whenever his age is affirmed, it is directly or indirectly linked to the Torah //

Now for the record, I have no problem with hearing and evaluating arguments grounded in church tradition. What I do have a problem with is the sleight of hand that we see here. I have a problem with arguments that start off sounding like biblical arguments, only to find that somewhere along the line the writer has led me off the path.

By the time we get to page 14, we realize that the whole publication is a string of inconclusive scriptural arguments and that these arguments can only be received as conclusive when they’re viewed through the lens of Jewish custom. In my mind, that just means the arguments themselves are ultimately inconclusive.

What About Tradition?

But what about tradition? Shouldn’t we at least consider the argument from Jewish custom? After all, Luke does say that they went up to the feast according to the “custom” of their day, right? Well, yes, but there are a few things that we should keep in mind:

• First, even if the custom of Jesus’ day was such that women and children were excluded from the Passover meal, it does not follow that such a practice must continue as a pattern for the church today.

• Second, it is disputable whether such a custom even existed in Jesus’ day, rendering the argument itself anachronistic. Something is anachronistic when it attributes a custom, event, or object to a period of time to which it does not belong. 

To appreciate this second point, one should note that the particular “custom” that is often assumed in this connection is the Jewish practice of pre-bar mitzvah. On page 15 of his publication, West writes: 

// The first Passover of Christ, in which He did not take part, anticipated his impending Bar Mitzvah one year later //

To substantiate this statement, West appeals to the Scottish Presbyterian theologian and historian, Alfred Edersheim (A.D. 1825-1889). Yet judging by the footnotes Edersheim provides (found here), we see that he was depending on other sources to substantiate his own statements; sources which include the Babylonian Talmud (A.D. 200-500) and the medieval Jewish historian, Maimonides (A.D. 1138–1204). 

This poses an obvious dilemma—Who gets to decide which historical sources are right and which are wrong?

Every Bible-believing Christian knows that, unlike the writers of Holy Scripture, the voices of history often contradict each other—which fact alone should remind us that no matter who we're talking about historiography is always a presuppositional discipline. 

To press the point, I could ask a very simple question—namely: What if we decide that, instead of Maimonides, we want to listen to Josephus, who tells us that long before the time of Christ women and children did participate in Passover? I know one thing for sure; we would come to a completely different conclusion about the question at hand.

In his, Antiquities of the Jews (11.4.8, found here), Josephus writes:

// As the feast of unleavened bread was at hand, in the first month, all the people ran together out of the villages to the city, and celebrated the festival, having purified themselves with their wives and children, and offered the sacrifice which was called the Passover, on the fourteenth day of the same month, and feasted seven days // 

Now for a better application, let’s ask another question: What if we decide that, instead of accepting the research of Jim West, we want to accept the research of James Jordan, who cites a number of other historical sources to show that Bar Mitzvah didn’t even exist in New Testament times? Again, we'd come away with a different conclusion.

In his, Children and the Religious Meals of the Old Creation,[2] Jordan writes:

// Jesus’ appearance in the Temple at age twelve is sometimes linked with the bar mitzvah rituals of later Judaism. No such ritual custom existed in Jesus' day, however, and nothing in the text hints that this was the first time Jesus had ever been to Jerusalem to a feast. Moreover, Jewish children participate in Passover long before bar mitzvah! The writings of the rabbis give strong indication that children participated in the Passover meal at the time of Christ. See Christian L. Keidel, “Is the Lord's Supper for Children?” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 3 (1975): 314ff, and Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s Table Should be Restored to Covenant Children (Grande Prairie, AB: Pactum Reformanda Pub., 2002), 56ff //

In view of such discrepancies, one begins to appreciate the Reformed emphasis on the testimony of Holy Scripture as our highest and only infallible rule for faith and practice. Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, we must ultimately look to it alone to prove all doctrinal points and resolve all disagreements of a traditional or historical nature.

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith 1:10, “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”

I do hope it’s clear by now, at least to those who’ve been following my blog, that this is the principle I’m seeking to apply in this series. Historical testimony is often very helpful to the student of Scripture and Church History; but as the Confession reminds us, it is not something that we can ever rest in.[3]

Exposing Presuppositions

In this last section, I want to address the alleged purpose of Jesus’ attendance at the Passover. According to Reverend West, Jesus was taken up to Jerusalem so that, in keeping with the custom of his day, he might take (and pass!) his catechetical examination before the elders of the church.

Apparently, when Mary and Joseph found Jesus in the Temple “hearing and asking questions” this was Luke’s way of telling us that he was engaged in the customary, pre-confirmation interview that was normative in his day.

Consider the following statements from pages 20 and 21:

// Jewish history informs us that it was common during the ‘minor festival days’ after the Paschal lamb was eaten for the doctors to theologize and for the young to participate. Jesus was not teaching the doctors of the Law. They were interviewing him. Luke’s description is parallel to the modern practice of interviewing a catechumen when he is examined by the elders of the church prior to his first communion. In short, Jesus appeared in Jerusalem not as a wonder-child, but as a catechumen //

Now, from what’s already been said above, it should be clear that such an analysis, being grounded in the testimony of extra-biblical sources, is less than sure. But even that is not the biggest problem associated with this interpretation. The real difficulty is figuring out what to do with the other salient details of the text itself. Or, to put it into question form, we could ask: If what Jesus was doing in the temple was according to custom (i.e. if it really was his confirmation interview), then why didn’t his parents know where he was?[4]

Our knee-jerk reaction is to say that such a question seems too simple and too obvious to carry any force. But oftentimes it’s the obvious things that slip right past us if we’re not careful with our steps. So the question is a good one and it needs to be considered. If Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to Jerusalem specifically for his interview with the elders, then why were they so frantic when he showed up missing right at the appointed time? And even after they found him in the temple, Why were they still so confused?

Unfortunately, Reverend West makes no attempt at answering these questions, probably because they pose a direct challenge to the presuppositional factors at play in his analysis. I realize that saying such a thing could be offensive, but I’m only saying what I perceive to be the case.

And even if I’m wrong, and West is completely unaware of any presuppositional commitments he has, that still doesn’t prove that he doesn't have them. Nor does it mean that other men, who hold the same position and utilize the same interpretation as he does, are unaware of theirs. 

For example, in his online article entitled, What Mean Ye (found here), Dr. Richard Bacon openly acknowledges that because of a pre-commitment to a certain theological “model” he comes to the text with an “expectation” to find what he needs to find.

After concluding that Jesus was “involved in what we would today call a catechism class,” Dr. Bacon makes a startling admission:

// Our model caused us to expect that in the case of children being admitted to the Passover we would see prior or contemporary catechetical instruction. That is precisely what we find in the New Testament, even in the case of our Lord // (p 13) 

Without question, this statement amounts to an admission of eisegesis. And for those who aren’t familiar with this term, eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases. It is the act of reading into the text what you want the text to say, rather than deriving and discovering from the text (all and only) what is already there. 

What’s Up Next?

So far, I’ve been focusing on the foundational question of child participation in the Passover and in doing so I first presented a positive case from Exodus 12 and then addressed the five most common objections to our interpretation. Every time, I overturned those objections by a simple demonstration of the Scripture itself. If you want to go back and review any of those posts, you can use the following list for easy navigation: 

• PART ONE: Introduction (here)

• PART TWO: Positive Case from the Passover & Objection 1, The Passover Meal Was Unsuitable for Small Children (here)

• PART THREE: Objection 2, Admission Required Catechesis and 3, The Language of the Text Disproves Child Participation (here)

• PART FOUR: Objection 4, Later Attendance to Passover was Restricted to Adult Males (here)

• PART FIVE: Objection 5, Jesus Attended Passover at the Age of Twelve (you are here)

Admittedly, there is still quite a bit more material to cover (and objections to answer) with regard to the Passover itself. But because we’ve spent so much time on this topic already, I will do my best to sum up the final points all in the next post. There, I plan to show from the word of God the Prime Connection Between Passover and the Lord’s Supper (D.V.)! 

After that, I plan to provide a positive, pro-covenant communion treatment of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. Then, finally, I can deal with the so-called “pillar text” of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and bring my studies to a close.

---

NOTES:

[1] Interestingly, Reverend West admits that his rendering of the text is an interpretive call and not a grammatical necessity, writing in a footnote at the bottom of page 14: “Admittedly, the translation “was” may parallel the force of “became,” except that “became” is more specific and causative, implying that Jesus went up because of his twelfth birthday.”

[2] The Case for Covenant Communion, ed. Greg Strawbridge (Monroe, LA, Athanasius Press Pub., 2006), ch. 4, p 50. fn 1  

[3] The reader might be interested to know that in the 1977 R.C.U.S. committee report on Infant Communion (found here) the opening section acknowledges that for many centuries paedocommunion was the universal practice of the Christian Church:

// Infant communion was practiced in the Christian Church from the third to the eighth centuries, and in some areas as late as the twelfth century… In the twelfth century the practice was dropped due to the emergence of the doctrine of “transubstantiation” within the church //

For some reason, however, this long-standing testimony of church history and tradition is disregarded as “not germane to this present discussion.” The reason the committee gives for this is that the underlying theological basis for the historical practice was “not covenantal but sacramental or sacerdotal.” Thus, the careful reader should discern at least two things from this information:

1) Contrary to the impression we often get from anti-paedocommunionists, both parties involved in this debate are selective when it comes to the historical references they use, and yet,

2) Only one party is completely unscrupulous when it comes to its historical sources. Honestly, we should find it more than a curious thing to see the testimonies of men like Cyprian and Augustine rejected for their “bad theology” while the testimonies of unbelieving and anti-Christian sources like the Babylonian Talmud and Maimonides readily received.     

[4] This wording is taken and adapted from Tim Gallant's excellent work, Feed My Lambs : Why the Lord's Table Should Be Restored to Covenant Children, pg. 52.

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 4

At this point, I’m still working through the various objections to child participation in the Passover, so if you’re not up to speed with where we are, and how we got here, you’ll want to go back and read at least the last two installments, found here and here.

In this post, I want to pick up exactly where I left off last time and provide an answer to the next objection on the list.

Objections & Answers

4.  Later Attendance to Passover Was Restricted to Adult Males

In his 1988 paper entitled, The Paedocommunion Controversy, Reverend Ron Potter argues that a significant change in Passover legislation took place subsequent to its Egyptian celebration. This means that even if it could be shown that children partook of the first Passover, the change of legislation rules out their participation in the land. 

On page 12 he writes:

// The Passover in Sinai had clearly undergone a transformation… We observe from Exodus 23:14-17 that males only were to appear before the Lord at the three instituted feasts, one of which was the Passover //

On page 15 he writes: 

// In Deuteronomy 16:16-17 the legislation of Exodus 23 is restated. Males only (v. 16) who are recipients of God’s blessing on their productivity (v. 17) are to participate //

The Regulative Principle

For those who don’t know, the position outlined by Reverend Potter is an application of the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Without getting into the finer distinction between elements and circumstances, the Heidelberg Catechism gives us a good working definition of this rule. In Question 96 it states that we are not to worship God “in any other way than He has commanded us in His word.” 

This rule is very different from the normative principle which says: it is lawful unless God forbids it. To the contrary, the RPW says: it is unlawful unless God commands it. By appealing to this principle, Reverend Potter makes clear what he wants to argue. Namely, it was unlawful for women and children to partake of the Passover because the Bible did not command them to do so. 

Now on the surface of it, the argument looks good. But in my opinion it's a bad move because it ends up causing more problems than it solves. Especially when it's applied with precision and consistency.

Problem # 1, A Precise Application Leads to Heresy

In view of the potential danger here, my first response would be to advise against using the RPW in this connection. The reason I say that is that the commands of Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy 16 are not about who “eats” at the feast. Rather, they’re about who “appears” at the feast, and that makes all the difference in the world.

According to Keil-Delitzch:

// The command to appear, i.e. to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary, was restricted to the male members of the nation, probably to those above 20 years of age // 

In other words, when we take up this argument and apply it with real precision, we end up saying that anyone who didn’t fit these criteria, and yet still went up to the feast, was doing an unlawful thing. The implications of that are serious because the Bible says that women and children regularly traveled up to the feast. Even more problematic is the fact that this included Mary who “went up to Jerusalem every year to the Feast of the Passover” and Jesus himself, who also went up as early as “twelve years old” (Lk. 2:41-42).

Perhaps this is why those who wish to use this form of argumentation feel the need to switch it at the end. They see the necessary consequence of a precise application, so they turn the wheel to avoid the crash.

Reverend Potter writes:

// It must be pointed out that this male-only-to-the-sanctuary command did not necessarily prohibit women and children from accompanying the male head of the household to the Passover. But presence is not participation and the legislation is directed to who is to participate // (p. 12)

With all due respect to Reverend Potter, this is what we call "bait and switch" because the argument begins with one thing (the pilgrimage to the feast) and ends with another (participation in the feast). And he's not the only one who does this. In a recent reprint of his 2006 publication, now entitled, Toddlers at the Table, Reverend Jim West does the same thing.

On page 28 he writes:

// Would it have been disobedient for a woman to partake of the pilgrim Passover that was celebrated later when Israel occupied the land? Yes, since they were not commanded // 

This, too, is a case of bait and switch because, again, it's not just that the women received no command to “partake.” They also received no command to “attend.” Like Potter, Reverend West has to ignore that little detail in order to avoid the necessary consequence of a precise application, i.e. Mary and Jesus sinned by going up to the feast.

Problem # 2, A Consistent Application Proves Too Much

Another problem with this argument is that a consistent application of it proves too much. Even if we agree with the previous application (saying nothing of its equivocation) we are still faced with an important question: On what basis are women now allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper? In other words, why is it that those who claim women were excluded from the Passover simply because they were not commanded to participate, do not also exclude them from the Lord’s Supper for the very same reason? It’s true that we find no command for children to partake of the Supper, but where do we find such a command for women?

In my mind, this amounts to the (informal) fallacy of “special pleading” and it leaves us with a choice between two possible options. Either we can (1) Be consistent and bar women from the Lord’s Table, or (2) Drop the argument altogether. But we cannot have it both ways; we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Anyone familiar with Reformed Theology might recognize that a similar argument is often used to challenge the anti-paedobaptist. When our Baptist friends say that infants are not to be baptized “because the Bible nowhere commands it” we typically respond by exposing their inconsistency. In his Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof writes, “This objection is based on a canon of interpretation to which the Baptists themselves are not true when they hold that women must also partake of the Lord’s Supper.” Whether Berkhof would have admitted it or not, his response applies just as much to those who say that children should not partake of the Lord’s Supper… “because the Bible nowhere commands it.” Okay, so then where does it give any such a command to women?

A Better Interpretation

So far we’ve been focusing on the improper use of the post-Exodus legislation for Passover, but it still doesn’t answer the question: What is its proper use? Is there a better interpretation of passages like Exodus 23 and Deuteronomy 16? Ones that do not lead to heretical notions or further, unnecessary division at the Lord’s Table?

The answer is, Yes, and to summarize that interpretation we can say: It is better to argue that the post-Exodus legislation was meant to supplement the previous legislation, not replace it.

Historically speaking, by the time the Israelites received the additional legislation, they had already celebrated the Passover according to the instructions of Exodus 12. Therefore, lest we commit the hermeneutical fallacy of “repetitionism” we should expect a measure of continuity. This means: Whatever was to remain the same did not need to be repeated.

This interpretation makes sense when we look at the details of Deuteronomy 16. In verses 1-8, the LORD doesn’t have to mention who was included in the Passover because He was already clear about that in Exodus 12. As we saw before, God prescribed a lamb for every “household” (v. 3) saying that the whole “congregation” (v. 47) was to keep this feast.

Thus, the primary purpose of the additional legislation was to notify the people of God about what was being changed: namely, there would be a new centralized location, and Passover would no longer be celebrated in their homes (see vv. 2b, 5-6, 7b). 

That this interpretation is better than what we saw before is also made clear when we look at the details of the other two feasts as well. While the Passover had already been celebrated in Egypt, the Feast of Weeks (vv. 9-12) and the Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 13-15) had not. Therefore, the LORD had to be clear about who was to participate in these two feasts, just as he was with Passover back in Exodus 12. When he does, He tells us that once again women and children were included.

Deuteronomy 16:10-11

// Then you shall keep the Feast of Weeks… And you shall rejoice before the LORD your God; you and your son and your daughter //

Deuteronomy 16:16-17

// You shall observe the Feast of Tabernacles… And you shall rejoice in your feast; you and your son and your daughter //

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 3

In traditional Reformed churches, the Lord’s Supper is withheld from a covenant child until he can "sustain a satisfactory examination by the elders" regarding the genuineness of his faith.

In some churches, even before that child has access to such an exam, he's required to fulfill a prerequisite condition: he must memorize and recite the 129 questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism. Of course, that usually means that the child is no longer a child by the time he makes it to the Lord’s Table. 

Now to be clear, I'm not arguing against the practice of catechetical training. In fact, I believe that one of the great tragedies of our day is that the regular, didactic use of the Reformed confessions and catechisms has been neglected by churches and families alike, and the results have been devastating to say the least. 

So the question here is not about using catechisms, the question is about exactly how a catechism should (and should not) be used. To state it clearly: Do we have the authority to exclude a covenant child from the covenant meal until he's completed the catechetical program of our church? 

Reasoning from Calvin

As far as I can tell, the origin of this practice can be traced, at least indirectly, back to John Calvin. It seems that when Calvin used Exodus 12:26 to support the claim that the Passover was eaten "only by those who were of a sufficient age to inquire into its meaning” (Institutes, 4.16.30), a certain application of this text was bound to emerge. 

And so it did. In fact, anyone familiar with the recent anti-paedocommunion literature can see that Calvin’s interpretation of this text provided just enough of the necessary basis upon which the imposition of a catechetical requirement could be justified. And here's how that works: 

First, the dialog mentioned in Exodus 12:26-27 is presented in Q&A format and that’s important because everyone knows that answering questions is a form of catechetical instruction. From there, it only needs to be emphasized that the dialog itself was commanded by the LORD. That too is important because if it was one of the prescribed features of the Passover, we're looking at a pretty strong case against the notion that young children were full participants in the feast. 

Why is that? Because this kind of exercise requires a certain level of maturity and spiritual discernment. And generally speaking, young children don't have the intellectual capacity to perform such a task. 

Thus, if we begin with a desire to align ourselves with Calvin’s interpretation, it puts us on a clear and definite trajectory. Not only can we deny that children partook of the Passover, we can also justify the imposition of a new catechetical requirement to regulate the Lord's Supper. And never mind that we’ve taken it from a one-question exercise to 129 questions and answers because that’s not the point. The point is that, in Calvin, we have a solid, historical, and theological argument for our practice. 

This brings us to the second (and third) argument(s) on my list of five common objections to child participation in the Passover (found here). 

Objections & Answers

2. Admission to the Passover Required Catechesis

Now as you’ll see, answering this objection is a lot easier than it appears. However, before we dive right into it, I should probably demonstrate that what I’ve presented here is not a strawman argument. To do this, I’ve chosen to interact with Dr. Cornelis P. Venema, author of the book, entitled, Children at the Lord’s Table? Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion. 

Throughout his book, Dr. Venema speaks to the question of child participation at the Passover meal, and when we put a few of his statements together, we can identify the basic structure of his argument. 

On page 70 he writes:

// The Passover Feast included, as one of its prescribed features, a kind of “catechetical” exercise. At a certain point in the Passover rite, the children of the household were to ask, “What mean ye by this service?” (Ex. 12:26). In reply to this question, the head of the household was to declare, “It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses” (v. 27a) //

To his credit, Dr. Venema acknowledges that the presence of this exercise does not argue “conclusively” against the participation of young children. And yet, in another place, he argues that it does “suggest” that they were excluded.

On page 57 he writes:

// Each of these elements seems to have required a measure of maturity and spiritual discernment that would have excluded full participation in the Passover meal by infants and younger children // 

From these two comments, it should be clear that the position I’ve outlined above is an accurate representation of what Reformed theologians argue on this point. As I see it, however, there are at least two interpretive errors in this argument, and though they're relatively easy to make, they completely change the meaning of the text and, therefore, cannot go unchallenged.  

Error # 1, The Question Was Prescribed by the LORD

First of all, it is an error to use imperative language when describing the question in Exodus 12:26. For some reason, Dr. Venema calls it a prescribed feature, saying that it was something the children of the household were to ask. But that's simply not true. All the text says is, when your children ask you about the meaning of the Passover, here is what you should say. In other words, the answer is prescribed but the question is simply anticipated.

// And it shall come to pass, when your children say to you, What do you mean by this service? that you shall say, It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD //

Error # 2, The Question Was Tied to the Passover Rite

Second, it is also an error to present the question in Exodus 12:26 as a ritual feature, tied to the time of the celebration itself. Interestingly, Dr. Venema claims that this was a feature of the celebration that was to take place, specifically, at a certain point in the Passover rite. But this is misleading because there's nothing in the text that necessitates such a formal restriction. The wording in this passage is flexible and open-ended, showing that the child might ask this question any time.

In his essay, Children and the Religious Meals of the Old Creation, James B. Jordan writes:

// Exactly the same kind of question and prescribed answer is found in Deuteronomy 6:20-21 with reference to the law, and in Joshua 4:6-7 about the memorial stones at the Jordan River. These are not ritual events, but examples of a child's curiosity being satisfied in a perfectly normal manner // [1]

With all due respect to Dr. Venema, it seems that his treatment of this text reveals an inner bias. Of course, it’s also possible that he made an honest mistake in his wording on this point. In either case, the evidence is plain enough: the question of Exodus 12:26 was neither a prescribed question nor was it a ritual feature tied to the Passover rite.

Objections Continued  

3. The Language of the Text Disproves Child Participation

When I began this series, I originally planned to address this third objection in a separate post. But seeing that it’s so closely related to the second—being grounded in the very same verse—I decided to deal with it here. And though Dr. Venema makes no mention of this argument in his book, plenty of other theologians have.

For example, Brian Schwertley, in an online article entitled, Paedocommunion, A Biblical Examination (found here), writes:

// Interpreters who believe that females and young boys did not eat the bitter herbs and roasted lamb often appeal to the question, "What do you mean by this service?" (Ex.12:26) as evidence that small children were observers rather than direct recipients //

One of the interpreters Schwertley has in mind here is Morton Smith, who, in his Systematic Theology, wrote:

// The question would seem to indicate that the child was not one of the partakers // [2]

Here, we begin to see the crux of the argument, and though it’s subtle and might be difficult to discern, we need to recognize what’s really being said. The claim is that, if a child were doing something together with his father, he could not ask about the meaning it had for his dad. If he did, it would somehow prove that he himself was not involved.

In other words, the child would have said, what does this meal mean “for us” rather than what does this meal meal “to you.” But already, the argument is seen to be faulty, just by a simple application of logic. More problematic, however, are the theological implications of this reasoning, when applied to other passages of Scripture.

Deuteronomy 6:20-21

// When your son asks you in time to come, saying, What is the meaning of the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments which the Lord our God has commanded you? then you shall say to your son: We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand //

In this passage, we have a situation very similar to the one in Exodus 12. The son is asking his father about the meaning of God's commandments, and the language of the text is: which the Lord our God has commanded you.

Does this mean that God’s commands applied only to the father and not also to the child? Obviously not. That’s a bad inference and such an individualistic paradigm contradicts the very nature of the Covenant of Grace.

When Moses spoke to “all Israel” in Deuteronomy 5:1, he told them that they were to observe the commandments because “The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb” (v. 2).

** The important thing to note here is that the making of this covenant (i.e. the giving of the law) had taken place a full forty years earlier, so that no one who was now under thirty-nine years old was even there. But just in case any of them were tempted to excuse themselves from the obligations of the covenant, Moses reminded them that they were bound to those obligations, even by virtue of their birth.

// The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers [only], but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive // (v. 3)

Now, what Moses says in this text is directly related to the issue at hand. A child who was born in Israel was never born into an abstraction. Rather, he was always grafted into a set of concrete circumstances which the Bible describes as being “born under the law” (Gal. 4:4). This means that covenant-law-keeping was the duty of every covenant child from the moment he was born into this world. It was not an additional responsibility to be acquired at a later time (Deut. 6:6-7; Eph. 6:1-3). 

From this, we can easily see that, when a young child asked about the laws that God gave to his father, he was asking about the laws that God had given to him as well. The mere fact that he wanted to learn more about them says nothing against his participation in them. 

I think if we’re honest, and we desire to be consistent, we’ll acknowledge that this applies equally to the question of Exodus 12:26. When a young child asked about the feast that God gave to his father, he was asking about the feast that God had given to him as well. The mere fact that he wanted to learn more about it says nothing against his participation in it. 

---

NOTES:

[1] James B. Jordan, Children and the Religious Meals of the Old Creation, ed. Greg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenant Communion (2006), p 57.

[2] Morton Smith, Systematic Theology (1994), p. 686-691, as quoted in Frances Nigel Lee, Paedocommunionism Verses Protestantism: How Trendy Theologizers Have Retreated from the Reformation (unpublished paper)

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 2

One of the best ways to overturn an undesirable conclusion is to deny one or more of the premises on which it depends. In my experience, this is what the bulk of the paedocommunion debate has been reduced to. Some deny the primacy of the sacramental connection between the Passover and the Lord's Supper, while others deny that children partook of the Passover in the first place.

In this post, I want to address the second of these denials since it’s a lot more common among the people I know. At some point down the line, I can deal with the first one, even if it's just to reinforce what should be a very obvious connection.

A Definitional Argument

A few months ago, I taught a four-week crash course on the doctrine of Infant Baptism, from a distinctly Reformed perspective. When it came time to make a positive case for the practice, I used what I called at the time, a definitional argument. 

This means, instead of trying to prove that there were children present in at least one of the households baptized in the book of Acts, I began by asking the more fundamental question: What is the definition of a household, according to the Bible? 

Interestingly, everyone in the room (Baptists and Presbyterians alike) agreed on this point, and here is what I said: Every man living on his own constitutes a household of one. If and when he takes a wife, it becomes a household of two; if and when they have a child, it is then a household of three. Therefore, the biblical definition of a household always includes the children, if and when they are present.

Now, to show that this definition is correct, consider just two passages from the word of God. In Genesis 45:18, Pharaoh commanded Joseph and his brothers to bring their “households'' back to Egypt. Then, when he repeats that command in verse 19, he defines their households as their “little ones and wives.”  Likewise, in 1 Timothy 3:4, Paul requires an Elder to rule his own “household” well. Then, when he explains what that means, he says that he must have his “children” in submission with all reverence. 

From these two passages (and there are more) it is abundantly clear that children are members of the biblical household—by definition. 

In terms of baptism, this means that, even if our Baptist friends could prove (which they cannot) that every member of the baptized households in the Book of Acts was a believing adult, those particular situations could never become the standard for households with covenant children. 

In other words, one household may have no children and another may have five. When the first household is baptized, children would not be included, but when the second household is baptized, the children would be included, and that by necessity. This is because, even though the situation may vary, the definition never changes: children are always included in the biblical household—if and when they are present.

Definitions at the Passover

As we move the discussion, now, from New Testament Baptism to the Old Testament Passover, we need to keep in mind that the same line of argumentation applies. Thus, it is nothing more than an act of unjustified presumption to think that we can rightly understand the import of the Passover instructions without first defining the terms that are being used.

For example, in Exodus 12:3, the LORD tells Moses to speak to all the “congregation” of Israel, and to instruct every man to take a lamb according to the “house of his father.” Then, He specifies even further, saying that it shall be “a lamb for a household.”

Now, unless the LORD is using completely different definitions here than He uses in the rest of His word, it is virtually impossible to exclude the covenant children from the Passover meal. Why? Because children are not just members of the biblical household; they were also members of the congregation of Israel.

When Joshua read the Book of the Law to the people on Mt. Ebal, the Bible says he read it before “all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones” (Jos. 8:35). Again, when Joel called for a national day of fasting, his command was to “gather the people and sanctify the congregation.” When he specified who was included, he said, “Assemble the elders, gather the children, and the nursing babes” (Joel 2:15-16).

So then, am I right, or am I right? If the definitional argument is good, then it's good, and we need to think more carefully before we say that children did not partake of the Passover meal.

A Road Map for What's Ahead

At this point, my primary task is to respond to the various questions and objections that arise, and as of right now, I have five of them in view:

1. The Passover diet was unsuitable for small children

2. Admission to the Passover required catechesis 

3. The language of the text disproves child-participation

4. Later attendance to Passover was restricted to adult males

5. Jesus attended Passover at the age of twelve

From what I've seen, these are some of the most common arguments employed against child participation in the Passover meal. There may be others, but these will be my focus in this particular series especially because, again, each of these has been used by those whom I personally know.

In this post, however, I can only start the process, so I'll use this opportunity to address just the first objection. The rest will have to wait for a later time.

Objections & Answers

1. The Passover Diet Was Unsuitable for Small Children 

Normally, those who raise this objection have two of the dietary items in mind; the roasted lamb and the (alcoholic) wine. The argument is that these items are, by the very nature of the case, unsuitable (if not impossible) for children to consume. Therefore small children did not partake of the Passover meal.

Roasted Lamb

In answering this objection, I want to begin with the obvious admission that small children are incapable of eating roasted lamb, depending, of course, on what we mean by small. There is little question that the Bible makes a distinction between those who can eat meat and those who are still in need of milk, with the latter consistently referred to as “babes” (1 Cor. 3:1-2 cf. Heb. 5:12-13; 1 Pet. 2:2). 

But—and here's my answer: this fact was not overlooked in the Passover meal, and you can see that by the specificity of the instructions found in Exodus 12. 

When the LORD told Moses that there was to be a lamb for a household, which, again, includes the children (v 3), He also specified that the size of the lamb should be chosen “according to the number of the persons” in each home (v 4). That all the children who were physically capable of eating that meal were included, is made clear because the instructions become even more precise: “each man, according to the mouth of his eating, shall make the count for the lamb” (v 4b). [1]  

Obviously, we always need to take into consideration, what this objection calls, “the nature of the case.” But this only means that an exception to the rule is based upon the natural limitations of God’s creation design. And really, that’s just common sense. If eating meat requires teeth, and by nature children are not born with teeth, then who can deny that they're entitled to a temporary exemption from eating the covenant meal?

Alcoholic Wine 

The second aspect of the Passover meal that causes some concern is the drinking of the wine. This objection says that, since wine is an intoxicant, it is inconceivable that this was ever intended for a child. My answer is at least twofold.

First, I agree that the intoxicating factor of wine should be taken into account. And yet, I would hasten to add that this presents a caution no less to the worshipping adult than it does to the little child. After all, there is no age in Scripture at which intoxication becomes an appropriate, or even acceptable, state of mind. When Paul says, “Do not be drunk with wine” (Eph. 5:18), he’s speaking to the entire church, not just the kids. Therefore, I would argue that, in the end, this objection proves too much.  

My second answer is that, even though the Bible prohibits drunkenness, it nevertheless commands the drinking of wine. What’s more, is that there are at least two clear sets of instructions that required children to partake of wine as members of the worshipping community.

To be specific, not only did they partake of the sacrificial meals of the peace offerings (Deut. 12:6, 7, 11), but they were also to partake of the tithe offerings, which often included wine. 

Deuteronomy 12:17, 18

// You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine… but you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses: you, and your son, and your daughter //

Deuteronomy 14:23, 26

// And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine... You shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice: you and your household //

Without stretching these passages to say more than they do, we can at least see that the intoxicating factor of wine was not a sufficient reason to bar children from any of these sacrificial meals. This being the case, the point should be clear: Why would it, then, have barred them from the meal of the Passover? Moreover: Why should it bar them now from the meal of the Lord’s Supper? 

Now, certainly, common sense has a definite role to play. There’s no question that, even in the various sacrificial meals, only small portions of wine would have been given to a little child. Likewise, today, only a sip of wine is received in the Lord’s Supper. And so, while it’s a good thing to be concerned for the little ones God has entrusted to our care, we need to remember that ultimately, they belong to Him. And, as we see from the pages of His word, He invites them—and even commands them—to partake of His covenant meal. [2]

---

NOTES:

[1] A second objection here is that the term “man” in the phrase “every man according to the mouth of his eating” refers to adult males only. However, one does not have to be a Hebrew scholar to know that such a grammatical appeal is a stretch at best. In fact, this same phrase is found in only one other context (Exod. 16) where it’s used to describe the apportioning of the manna to each household (vv 16, 18, 21). Without a doubt, the phrase in that context shows that the distribution included the children, that is, all who were physically capable of eating the manna. How do we know that? Because there was nothing else for them to eat (!) 

[2] Another significant passage is found in Lamentations 2, where Jeremiah describes his sorrow for the suffering of God’s people. In verse 11, he says, “My eyes fail with tears, my heart is troubled. . . . because of the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the infants faint in the streets of the city.” The mention of their “fainting” here is probably a reference to their hunger in a time of famine. Interestingly, as he articulates the cry of these little ones, he says in verse 12: “They say to their mothers, Where is grain, and where is wine?” Thus, this passage not only demonstrates that children can and do eat solids well before they’re weaned, but it also shows that wine itself was something they were known to consume.

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 1

In this series, I want to respond to the many questions and objections that were (and still are) being raised against me for my transition to the practice of Covenant Communion.[1]

For the record, my hope is that the material I publish here will be received in the spirit in which I write it. It is not my purpose to hurt, harm, belittle, or insult the people who disagree. Rather, my only desire is to gain a fair and charitable hearing, first, among those who know and love me, and second, among those who happen to stumble across my blog. 

My purpose is to use this series as a way to explain my reasons for adopting a practice that, in my opinion, has been superficially dismissed on the basis of Reformed tradition, i.e. for falling outside of what we might call “confessional orthodoxy.” 

An Institutional Conundrum

As many of you know, I spent seven years in a traditional Reformed church and, therefore, one that practices the Rite of Confirmation to mark the change of status that covenant children undergo when they confess their faith publicly, before the entire congregation. 

Ironically, though, long before this “confirmation” these covenant children were baptized into the body of Christ as a sign and seal (i.e. confirmation) of their inclusion in the covenant of grace. Thus, in the directory of worship we used, the theological basis for their baptism is spelled out in clear, covenantal language:

// In the New Testament no less than in the Old, the children of the faithful, born within the church, have interest in the covenant by virtue of their birth, and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the church. This is because the covenant of grace is the same in substance under both Testaments, and the grace of God for the consolation of believers is even more fully manifested in the New Testament //

At the time of their baptism, it is declared that the Triune God claims these covenant children “as His very own.” The congregation is reminded that our Savior “admitted little children into his presence, embraced and blessed them, saying, Of such is the kingdom of God.” It is also said that their baptism is the means by which they are “distinguished from the children of unbelievers and solemnly received into the visible church.”

All in all, this institution of infant baptism is beautiful and biblical at every point, and it’s not my purpose to detract from it in any way. Rather, my purpose is to show that when we take the wording of the institution seriously, it raises a number of questions that call for a more careful consideration.

For example, what does it mean that our children are included in the covenant of grace? If it simply means they have a right to the outward privileges of the church, then the question becomes: Where do the sacraments fit into that? Are we saying that Baptism is an outward privilege of the church while the Lord’s Supper is an inward privilege (whatever that means)? 

To say it differently: If the “covenant of grace” is a reference to the administration of the covenant rather than its substance, does that imply Baptism is for the visible church while the Lord’s Supper is for the invisible church? I doubt that anyone would affirm that but it’s certainly a valid question, given that we administer baptism to and withhold communion from the very same people.

So then, here’s the deal. I believe if a person is willing to wrestle with this discrepancy from a true and sincere heart, he will be forced into the following conclusion:

// If I want to take the wording of this institution seriously, I must affirm that my children were (by baptism) received into the visible church. Therefore, the only way the elders can now exclude them from the Lord’s Table, is if they either (1) Divide the Sacraments—by saying that Baptism is, but the Lord’s Supper is not, for the visible church, or (2) Divide the Visible Church—by saying that there are two levels of membership within it, and baptism only gets you to level one //

Apparently, most Reformed churches have chosen option number two (as strange as it all may sound). But this explains why the Rite of Confirmation has become a necessary tradition. It serves as the instrument by which our baptized children make it to level two. This is seen by the fact that, in the very last words of the rite itself, the minister declares to the one being confirmed: “Beloved, I now welcome you to full communion with the people of God.”

A Confessional Conundrum

I’m known as the guy who likes to repeat himself. Maybe it’s just the way my mind works, but I often feel like any point worth making is worth making again, in a slightly different way.

As a follow-up to the Institutional Conundrum we create when we bar covenant children from the covenant meal, there’s a Confessional Conundrum as well. And let me just be upfront with it: I would contend that in the interest of protecting a traditional practice, the Westminster Confession ends up creating an unnecessary tension between the principles of its sacramental theology and the application of those principles when it comes to the Lord's Supper.

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith defines the visible church as "those that profess the true religion, together with their children" (25:2). It defines the sacraments as "signs and seals of the covenant of grace” and says that they’re designed to “put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world" (27:1). It also maintains that the sacraments of the Old Testament “with regard to the spiritual things signified, were, for substance, the same with those of the New" (27:5).

Now, if you’re Reformed, then you know as well as I do that it’s upon these principles that we base the practice of paedobaptism. But the question is: On what application of these same principles can paedocommunion be invalidated?[2]

It seems clear that to avoid the undesirable conclusion that children have a right to Communion as members of the covenant community, the meaning and purpose of this sacrament has to be changed.

• Rather than the Lord’s Supper being a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (which includes our children), it must be changed into a sign and seal of the benefits that come with being “confirmed.”

• Rather than the Lord's Supper being used to put a visible difference between those that belong to the church (which includes our children) and the rest of the world, it must be used to mark the difference between the church and the true church in her midst.

• Rather than the Lord's Supper being the same in substance with regard to the spiritual things signified in the sacramental meals of the Old Testament (which always included children), it has somehow become a sacrament of such a different spiritual nature that the children must now be excluded. 

The fundamental question here is, How did this happen, and what is the biblical basis for such major theological discrepancies? In the end, it seems that we are driven to a similar conclusion as before, and again we must decide between two options, not unlike the options I mentioned above:

// If we accept the general sacramental theology of the Westminster Confession as biblical, we must either apply these principles consistently to both of the church's sacraments or provide a sound, biblical basis for suspending these principles when it comes to the Lord's Supper //

Obviously, Christians in traditional Reformed churches will opt for number two. Therefore, in the next post on this particular topic, we'll begin looking at the scriptural arguments they use in trying to prove their position and disprove mine.

---

NOTES:

[1] I like the term Covenant Communion because it distinguishes the Reformed practice from other traditions that serve children at the Lord’s Table. However, I am also perfectly okay with the term Paedocommunion as well, and often use them interchangeably with no intended difference in mind.

[2] For the record, I took this line of reasoning, and much of the wording, from Robert Rayburn’s, A Presbyterian Defense of Paedocommunion. That article was published in, The Case for Covenant Communion, edited by Greg Strawbridge.