This was posted on Jason’s blog last week. I knew I wanted to read it, so its since then, it’s been marked new in bloglines but I didn’t get to it until now.
Once again, it’s great stuff. Jason always writes the best stuff.

[Read more →]

The debate is split into seven parts, alike so…

Rayburn-Affirmative Opening
Gentry-Negative Opening
Rayburn-Affirmative Rebuttal
Gentry-Negative Rebuttal
Cross examination period
Gentry-Negative Closing
Rayburn-Positive Closing

This morning I listened to the first four. I’m trying to maintain some objectivity as I listen to it, but I think I must be failing in that. Because Rayburn’s presentation covers it all, and pretty much doesn’t leave any room for disagreement.

As far as Gentry’s argument went… his opening statement dealt exlusively with 1 Corinthians 11. Most, if not all, of his basic points are good, and I agree with them. But he applies them in a strange way that makes them anti-paedocommunion. Like when he says that the word translated ‘examine’ in verse 28, he acknowledges that it is conveying a sense of approval, and uses 9:27 and 11:19 from the same book as examples. Which, to me, says that it isn’t about some kind of introspective qualification, but, like Jeff Meyers argued in his paper ‘Prebyterian, Examine Thyself’, is proving oneself. And the context makes it clear that one proves himself worthy of partaking of the Supper by acknowledging the body, one’s brothers and sisters in Christ and refusing to create artificial boundaries to divide ourselves. In the immediate context Paul was writing, it was by waiting for one another, and eating together, rich and poor, that they proved themselves worthy. But Gentry just said we have to examine ourselves, to determine whether or not we really have saving faith, and that is how we are approved or qualified for the Supper.
He also used ‘do this as a remembrance’ as a big point. First, he said that Paul was emphasizing this remembrance, because he says it for each of the elements, whereas the gospels only say it with one. He then argued that when we are told in Scripture to remember something, it always means ‘to bring to mind with a sense of action’. He used the examples of remembering the poor and remembering God. For the poor, it doesn’t mean we think to ourselves, ‘there are poor people in the world’, and then go about our business. It mans to keep them in mind, and do something about it. To give to the poor, and provide for them. And when we are told to remember God, it doesn’t mean we simply acknowledge His existence, and then forget about it. We are to acknowledge Him, and obey Him. That’s what it means to remember God.
And so, he concluded, that a child can’t do that.
But what about the fourth commandment? The Israelites were told to Remember the Sabboth. Does that mean everyone under whatever age he deems acceptable to partake of the Supper was sinning against the Lord by breaking this commandment? Do our little ones sin against God by not remembering Him?
Well, I don’t think so. First, I would argue (as Rayburn did in his rebuttal) that the Christian faith is a continuum. We start out simple, and grow in our understanding. A two year old can remember Christ (or the poor or God or the Sabbath) in a way that is suitable for a two year old. and the same for a four year old, ten year old and fifty year old.
But, in addition to that, there’s the question of whether these requirments are even meant to be applied to young children. Paedobaptists are always quick to point out that not all commands are absolute, blanket commandments for everyone. The requirment to believe to be baptized is recognized to be intended for adults, not children born of believing parents. But this understanding of the text is blown out the window when it comes to the question of paedocommunion. Rayburn pointed out in his rebuttal that Paul was only using the same types of warnings and commands given to Israel at a time when children did partake of the Supper. And it clearly didn’t mean to them that there children were excluded.

Gentry’s rebuttal consisted largely of a very large number of very brief citations of (mainly) Old Testament texts that had something to do with children or adults at the feasts. He didn’t spend very much time on any one of them, but used the large number of them to conclude that we don’t know how old the children were that partook of the feasts, and they didn’t partake of the Passover meal even if they did have a seat at some of the others.
He made one other major point in his rebuttal, but I don’t recall what it was right now.