So I finished listening to the debate yesterday on my drive home, and then listened again this morning to parts of it.

I still remain unpersuaded by any of Gentry’s arguments. There was more of what I tried to describe yesteray… Gentry making a good, valid observation… and then making a whacky conclusion from it.

Like when Gentry made critiqued an argument from 1 Corinthians 10 that Rayburn did not present. Gentry said that paedocommunionists will use this chapter because it talks about Israel crossing the Red Sea, and says that they were all baptized, and they all ate the spiritual food. This would show that children did partake of the sacraments, and settle that question. But, Gentry went on, that isn’t Paul’s point. Paul’s point was a warning against “The Corinthian Problem”. Gentry said that christians in Corinth thought that partaking of the sacraments gave them ‘immunity’ to evil things. That they thought by partaking of the sacraments, they didn’t have to worry about anything else. And so Paul argued that the Israelites had the sacraments, and they were still left dead in the desert. That is what Paul’s point was… faith is required, not just sacraments.
Do you notice anything about that? It does nothing to the point that all the Israelites recieved the sacraments. Gentry silently accepts the point that the (hypothetical) paedocommunionist made, and then moves off in a another direction. Look! What’s that behind you?!

There were also some just plain whacky points made by Gentry.

Like when he went through 1 Corinthians, and pointed out everywhere that Paul told them to be mature, and warned against childishness. And used that as an argument against paedocommunion. I had to chuckle when I imagined myself admonishing my four year old daughter, “Geneva! Stop being so childish! Don’t be such a little girl!”. Rayburn responded appropriately to this, saying that of course it is bad for an adult to act like a child. But that says nothing about children acting like chilren. He also pointed out that Jesus Himself commands us to be like little children, and if we don’t, we won’t enter into Heaven.

Or when, during a time of audience questions, Rayburn was asked, ‘why wait until the children are weaned? Your arguments seem to be valid for even newborns.’
Rayburn then responded that when Scripture gives the principle for including covenant children, in Exodus 12, it says to prepare enough food for as many mouths as will eat. The princple seems to be, if they can eat it, then give it to them. If they can’t, then don’t give it to them. So, basically, it is because when a child is weaned, he can eat solid food.

sidenote: Rayburn also said that he would much rather prefer the Eastern Orthodox practice of intinction (where a small piece of bread is dipped in wine and put in the baby’s mouth) than the common practice in evangelical and reformed circles today.

And in response to Rayburn’s answer, Gentry said, “It says ‘as many mouths as will eat’, but the question, then, is which mouths will eat? We already know that the 8 day old infant won’t eat, so that’s one mouth excluded. Who else?”
Can you believe it? That was actually what he said. The text says for the head of household to make enough food to feed everyone in his family (or two households, if they’re small families), and Gentry then questions who in the family is going to be fed. I apologize if I stare in disbelief.
I thin it is similar to how the Israelites collected manna (Ex. 16). They were told to collect enough for each person in their tent. But, clearly, nursing 8 day old infants didn’t eat any, so they didn’t collect it for them. So who else might not have gotten any manna?

Another one of the arguments that Gentry critiqued that Rayburn didn’t present is from 1 Corinthians 10:16b-17: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. ”
The paedocommunionist will say (according to Gentry), there is one loaf, and one body, and if you are a part of that body, then you partake of that one loaf. So, since children are included in the church, which is Christ’s body, they should partake of the bread.
Gentry says that isn’t Paul’s point. Paul’s point is that all those that do partake, are members of the body. In other words, being a member is a consequence of the partaking. Paul was saying that when they ate at demonic feasts, they were being united with the demons… when they partake of the Holy Feast, they are being united to Christ, and His body.
So… I have to ask… does Gentry not want our children to be united to Christ? Is that why they should be excluded, then? Because partaking of the meal would unite them to Christ and the Church… and he doesn’t think they should partake. Why not?

Related to that, at one point Gentry quickly pointed out that in John 6, Jesus says that “eating His flesh is believing”. Now, that isn’t a direct quote of Jesus, but I won’t argue with it being a conclusion of the text. But, Gentry takes that point, and says, then, that children should not partake of the Supper. But why does he go in that direction? If partaking is believing… then why wouldn’t we want our children to partake? Why wouldn’t we want them to believe?

Rayburn, btw, took time in his closing remarks to rebut Gentry’s series of references to OT texts regarding children partaking of the feasts in that time. He showed how the text indicates children ate of the feats, including Passover, and also that it is a legitimate (if not the primary) understanding in the Reformed tradition.

I’d like to say it was a good debate. But it wasn’t really. It just showed how very little the Reformed Tradition has to stand on regarding this topic. In fact, it has nothing but itself.