Eric, I know you have a question. Here's a preliminary one, if I may. The list of names at the end, Dr. Levy, you mentioned. Presumably, I'm right in thinking, am I, that these men support you in your broad case against paedophenia, but wouldn't necessarily support you in your detailed case concerning the age of maturity. That is correct, yes. His very significant treatise on qualifications for the Lord's Supper doesn't, if I remember correctly, enter into that particular matter, does it? That is correct, yes. I'm claiming they're all antipedic. And with regard to Stoddart, he even claimed it was a converting ordinance, and therefore I was a bit surprised at your induction of his particular name. I'm not aware that I did mention his name, but I can look it up. Could you mention a gentleman whose name was Hans Sondheim Stoddart? You said that Nazism ties in with regeneration. And looking in the confession of faith, it seems to broaden that beyond just regeneration. It talks about forgiveness of sins, talks about union with Christ. If we hold to that particular viewpoint of baptism, how does that affect your thesis? I think it's in chapter 28 that it starts off of the confession. It starts off by, as I recall, connecting baptism specifically to regeneration. What is important, though I didn't say it, till now, but I will say it now, one of the questions of the larger catechism, between question 1, 69 and 79, talks of the much neglected but necessary duty of improving our baptism, in which, indeed, it draws the consequence that after regeneration, of course, there is a sense in which what is sealed in baptism must be with us lifelong. including justification, sanctification, and so forth. So, as I see it, catechism is a mechanism between the first sacrament of initiation into infancy and the sacrament of maturity, but even that way is an extension of baptism. So yes, I would agree that baptism is not confined to what we would narrowly call regeneration, or, if you like, baptism, signs and seals, regeneration in the broader sense, because remember, regeneration has two meanings. A, it means the beginning of the subject of application of the benefits of Christ to his elect. But it also has another meaning, namely, all of the fruits thereof, which you see where Jesus speaks of the regeneration of the universe, for example. can distinguish them between regeneration in the narrow sense and regeneration in the broader sense. In both of those senses, I believe, baptism is assigned and sealed. But vis-à-vis the Lord's Supper, I was using it in the address in the narrower sense. I follow up with that and ask, there's no, you don't see that, I had a person in our church for instance, this was the other week, we got talking about infant baptism and adult baptism, and they basically, in their own understanding, they were thinking that they are two different baptisms. But I've always understood it as one baptism, and it signifies the same thing. That's right. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. And so even bringing in faith, and I just read from Romans 4.11, speaking about circumcision being assigned even to faith, even if it applies to Indians, they didn't have faith. Well, now, two things on Romans 4.11, it doesn't say, as I recall, that circumcision is assigned in the seal of faith, but it says it's assigned in the seal of the righteousness of faith, which is something different. So, as I read it, Romans 4.11 is not saying that circumcision in every case signifies and seals faith, but it certainly in every case signifies and seals the righteousness of faith, which would mean that if the person being circumcised and by implication being baptized truly has faith, either then or later, that circumcision slash baptism will truly signify and seal the righteousness of that faith. namely the kind of faith that Abraham had. In point of fact though, having said that, I do personally believe that without faith it is impossible to please God. And I just cannot see how an early dying infant that is elect and dies regenerate can possibly get to heaven without personal faith. I do not personally believe that the faith of the parent is sufficient to save the early dying child of the covenant. I think that child of the covenant needs a personal faith in Jesus. But now we must distinguish between faith as such, which includes incipient faith, the seed of faith, Kuyper I think calls it, which is truly faith but not faith profoundly developed from the kind of faith you would rightly expect to find in a person of teenage, of maturity, or whatever. The degree of development of faith is obviously commensurate to the psychological ability of the person, whether they die in fetushood, in babyhood, teenagerhood, or whatever. But it does seem to me that no one gets to glory without faith. And we don't get to glory because of someone else's faith on our behalf. It seems to me a little like Mormon theology. If I get baptized from my ancestors, they collect the benefit. And I'd like to thank you for your address this morning. I'd like to emphasize that I personally have no grief whatsoever for pedo-communion. In other words, I have no difficulty with your broad, general case. I do, however, have considerable difficulty with the more specific case that you presented alongside of it, or intertwined with it, concerning the age of maturity, which is really a constant theme both in your notes and in your address and I feel that with respect you're in danger perhaps of going to the other extreme in terms of the age of maturity, the emphasis upon the teenage years, the emphasis upon puberty, the emphasis upon the age of 13. It seems to me that your argument, which was very representative, nevertheless focused very massively upon the Old Testament The virtual exclusion of the New Testament. I don't want to misrepresent you. You certainly did mention the New Testament. In terms of proportion of time, it's probably 80% to 20%. In other words, there wasn't a great deal of emphasis on the New Testament. There was considerable emphasis on the Old Testament and also on the evidence from church history. in focusing upon that emphasis on your part on the Old Testament I'm not for a moment denying the element of continuity which as Reformed people we rightly emphasize I'm no crypto-dispensationalist equally however I'm sure you would agree there's a real element of discontinuity as well as we move from one testament to the other and I think it's important in this matter especially focusing upon the issues that I'm raising to look very much to the New Testament as well. It may be that you ran out of time, I don't know, but there was a massive emphasis on the Old Testament, arguments adduced on the Old Testament, and very little adduced on the New Testament, I felt. Now, I'd like to draw the attention of the Brethren to a couple of scriptures from the New Testament. I'd like to respond to what you said thus far or later too. Maybe I should take notes so I get it out. With regards to the Acts of the Apostles, in Acts chapter 2, in verse 41, it says this, Then they that gladly received his word were baptised, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breakfast bread and in prayers. Equally, if you turn to Acts chapter 18 verse 8 the Apostle in this chapter is in Corinth we read this and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptised. Now, the reason I focus upon that is this the very close conjunction between believing, being baptised and continuing steadfast in the four things mentioned including the Lord's Supper and it seems to me that you're in danger of making a disjunction when the scriptures make a conjunction between these things not only logically but chronologically and also that you're in danger perhaps of destroying that immediacy that element of immediacy that comes in in the scriptures of the New Testament between believing being baptised and continuing steadfastly in the things which are mentioned there at the end of chapter 2 in the Acts of the Apostles let me put a hypothetical case which is nevertheless a very real case let us suppose that a child is converted either in Corinth in the days of the Apostle Paul or today in Greenville in the 20th century. Let us suppose that this child is aged 9, 8 or 9, that this child is not baptised, comes from a godless background, either in Corinth or in Greenville. This child, however, hears the Gospel, believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and is saved. It seems to me that on the basis of the New Testament you have to argue very powerfully for a very close conjunction between believing on the Lord Jesus Christ being baptised because this child is not being re-baptised or never was baptised in the first place and also continuing steadfastly in those four things which are mentioned at the end of Acts chapter 2 and it seems to me that if you maintain this age of maturity emphasis this emphasis on puberty or the teenage years then you're in grave danger of leaving that child as a believer who is baptised upon confession of faith as a credible confession of faith clearly because otherwise they would not baptise it you're in danger of leaving this particular child in a kind of limbo state for 4 years while he or she wakes until the age of 13 It seems to me that the emphasis of the scriptures is upon a credible profession of faith and that we're in danger here of making a radical disjunction between things which shouldn't be separated namely believing upon the Saviour, being baptised and partaking steadfastly, continuing steadfastly in the breaking of bread as well as in those other matters. Well, it's true I did start off in the Old Testament, and it's true, as you allege, that I ran out of time. But I've got good authority for starting out in the Old Testament. My Saviour does the same. You will recall that when the Pharisees came to Jesus with a question regarding divorce, regarding the exact meaning of the exegesis of Deuteronomy 24, our Lord, infallibly, I may add, in responding to that, said from the beginning, it is not so. and promptly went back to the beginning of the doctrine of marriage and by implication divorce as enshrined on the first page of scripture in Genesis 1 and 2. From that I deduce that proper exegesis of scripture must start with the Old Testament horse before we get to the New Testament cart. That's the first point. The second point, we must remember that the Old Testament is just as authoritative as is the New. The third point we must remember is that Christ and the Apostles used the Old Testament almost exclusively, if not totally exclusively, for the simple reason there was none of the New Testament inscripturated, as far as I can see, before Christ died and rose from the dead. We must also remember that quantitatively the Old Testament much maligned, especially in the United States as a result of dispensationalism today. is four-fifths of the infallible Word of God. I find it highly illogical to begin the study of any doctrine with the New Testament and then as an afterthought go to the Old. In fact, I will allege that anyone that does it on baptism will probably end up an anti-Peter Baptist. So I make no apology whatsoever, starting at the Old Testament, and I think it's high time that theologians started to do likewise and followed their Lord on it. Regarding the continuity-discontinuity principle, I am in agreement, and yes, I ran out of time. I had thought someone would ask the question, and maybe they still will. Well, if, as I am alleging, and to be sure not everyone that agrees with my basic thesis would agree with me, but since I am alleging that no woman ever was admitted to the Passover until 200 A.D., But if that is a correct statement, which I am prepared to defend archaeologically, then why are women then admitted, it would seem, to the Lord's Supper? If it be so, as the New Testament seems to indicate, the Lord's Supper has indeed replaced the Passover. And of course, our fortiori, when you come to the other sacrament, the sacrament of initiation, and to this I did slightly allude in my rather rapid address, it could be asked, and indeed intelligent Baptists do ask, well if, as you Presbyterians allege, Baptism really does replace circumcision, then why are you not consistent at least to baptize in only your infant males. Why do you also baptize infant females? So, to that extent it's true, there is discontinuity. But I believe from the general tenure of the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation, there's a reason for that discontinuity. And I believe the following is the reason. Adam was the head of the human race and of his marriage before he fell into sin. Sin, which has stained all of us, occurred precisely through the insubordination of woman. Though, of course, we go to hell not because Eve sinned, but because Adam sinned. Nevertheless, because she sinned, that was instrumental in causing Adam to struggle and then she fell. So, after the fall, it's significant, I think, that God who walked in the garden addressed the devil and preached the gospel to the devil. A very interesting fact. not with the intention of saving the devil, but with the intention of informing the devil that God, the pre-incarnate Christ if you like, would put enmity between the devil and the woman, between the devil's seed and her seed, and the seed of the woman, when he came, would crush the serpent's skull, I would say on the place of the skull, to bring the New Testament into it, about which you are probably concerned. although I don't think in the order in which you presented it, nor with the emphasis with which you perhaps intended it. And in return, the seat of the woman would be nicked in his heel by the devil as a result of that. And then there's a further information right after that as to how the woman would try to lord it over the man. What I'm saying is that woman was never the head of the marriage, not even before the fall. But when she was instrumental in bringing about the fall, It seems to me that God did subordinate the woman more after the fall than had been the case before the fall, until such time as Jesus Christ, the promised seed of the woman, came. When he came as the seed of the woman, one of the benefits of his work would be to exalt woman, not to become the head of man, which he never was and never may be. but again to become man's partner under his leadership, as was the case before the fall, and if you like, eschatologically, to advance the position of both male and female, even beyond that. Which is why I would agree, to that extent there is discontinuity, and it is appropriate that women be admitted to the Lord's table since Calvary, whereas it was impossible, and I would say inappropriate, that they ever share in the Passover before Calvary. The same applies to the baptisability of infant girls since Calvary and their total uncircumcisability prior to Calvary. So there is indeed that discontinuity, as you called it. But the discontinuity itself, I believe, is subject within the broader framework of the continuity of the whole of Scripture in the history of Revelation the way it unfolded. But precisely because there is a degree of discontinuity and how much discontinuity needs to be established, I again must insist that we've got to understand the Old Testament card first. If we start out with the New Testament, particularly with the Baptistic presumption that it is almost averse to the teaching or most of the teaching of the Old Testament, What we're going to do, we're going to use one fifth of the Bible, the last fifth of the Bible, as the fulcrum with which to try and understand the whole of the Bible. I believe that is hermeneutically incorrect and contrary to the way that our infallible saviour himself operated. With regard to Acts 2, the next point I wrote down, to be sure those that were baptised that day apparently professed faith, and indeed visited one another, and enjoyed meals in one another's home, and came together in the fellowship. I am not sure, neither is Calvin, that the expression there, the breaking of bread, has got anything whatsoever to do with Holy Communion. One would be on safer ground if one were to pursue that line of approach from the word koinonia, rather than to atonusai, I believe it is from memory. in the Greek. I'm reminded that the New Testament itself in 1 John chapter 3 very clearly distinguishes between fathers, young men, and yet younger men, so that the New Testament knows of that distinction. I would remind all of us that rushed as my presentation was, unfortunately, and again I apologize for arriving late, I did, I thought, go out of my way to stress the implications of Jesus, according to the Book of Luke and the New Testament, getting ready to, getting himself prepared for his first Passover at the age of 12, and I allege with a view to being admitted to it at age 13. Now whether you agree with the Talmud or not on that point, the fact is that The data given in the New Testament, in Luke chapter 2, and many expositions thereof, such as that of Shirve, such as that of Edith Eversheim, presupposes the correctness of the Talmudic Bar Mitzvah as the exegetical key in understanding what was the situation in respect of our Lord, which raises another interesting fact, and that is that our Saviour was subject to the law. on all points to be our law keeper, so that by looking at the life of Christ carefully, we can get a better understanding of the precise relationship between the Old and the New Testament. Now, what's this I've written down here? Acts chapter 18, I must be honest, I didn't quite grasp the point that you were trying to make in connection with Acts 18, but if it's important you can repeat it and I'll attempt to respond to that. answering these as I had to wait until you got to the end of your address before I could begin to respond to them. Now, the unbaptised child, oh yes, the child aged nine that you mentioned. I have faced that situation pastorally. It is a difficult situation, it's an unusual situation. Ideally all children should be baptised in infancy, for ideally all people should be Christians. and should produce Christian children who should be baptised in infancy. But I think what should happen in that case is the child that seems to be a Christian from an ungodly home in Greenville or wherever should be catechised by the church. Now here you can go two ways, with a view to baptism or with a view to baptism and the Lord's Supper. But I would say the extent of knowledge necessary is different in the two cases. If you baptise the child, I would strongly recommend, and I think I'd have to say it must be, the child must be baptismally catechised precisely because, as you said, the parents are pagans. Therefore that child is baptised on the basis of his or her own profession of faith. Now, normally one would wait for a period of four years, between nine and thirteen, before the beard begins to grow, pubic hair as the case may be, the breasts begin to grow, Song of Solomon, before proceeding to the second sacrament, the frequentative one. I would still recommend that, rather than immediately admitting the just baptize a nine-year-old child immediately to the Lord's table for two reasons. A, the properness of church polity. B, because with Calvin I believe that the process of catechization of a normal covenant child baptized in infancy should start as far as the session is concerned absolutely no later than the time the child is ten. And if we want to give an adequate and a maximal amount of information To the person concerned, by the time they make their first communion, I think ideally it should stretch over three years of catechism, as it did in my case, as was the case in the early church to the extent to which we have documentary evidence of how long it usually lasted in such a case. Finally, if we look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 30, paragraphs 1 and 4, I believe it is, which deal with the duties of elders, as distinct from the duties of political officers, we see that one of their jobs is admission to the Lord's table and to turn people away from the Lord's table. If a covenant goes astray, clearly after warning they are to be put under church discipline and refused communion until repentance, which clearly implies that there is some point prior thereto at which they were admitted to the Lord's table by necessary implication. Anyway, those are the impromptu responses I would make to the points you made, but if you'd like to repeat the Acts 18 one, I'll do my best to do that. Can I ask you just one question before he responds? I wonder whether you shouldn't let him... I just want to make it clear before he responds, are you emphasizing that understanding is the key rather than the age. Yes, I have to admit that understanding is to me more important than the reaching of an age, but I must say what I believe to be true and biblical. I think there is sufficient evidence in scripture which would indicate to me that age thirteen minimum is a good age, normally speaking. In fact, I'd like to ask anyone here to give me any evidence from scripture, not from American church practice please, but from scripture, that there's the slightest evidence that anyone was ever admitted either to the Passover or to the Lord's table before they reached teenage. Rebuttable presumption, but please rebut it. Firstly, the scripture which you asked me, it's the statement in 1 Corinthians 18 verse 8, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptised. I think it's Acts chapter 18 verse 8, it's referring to Corinth. Acts chapter 18 verse 8, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptised. Now I've used that particular scripture together with the scriptures at the end of Acts chapter 2 precisely to emphasise the point about the closest conjunction logically, theologically, chronologically between believing, being baptised, and in my view the breaking of bread. And I'm not sure that really you've answered my objection. Perhaps I could just pick up some of your responses. And then I'll be happy to respond to this point you've just made now. Yes, certainly. With regard to the Lord Jesus Christ and divorce, I mean it's certainly true, no one is denying it, certainly not myself, it's certainly true that he goes back to the beginning, but he also announces something new, and that's significant. Of course he integrates the Old Testament and the New Testament, and as Reformed theologians we should seek to do that. He goes back to the beginning, but he also significantly I mean I believe I can turn that argument on its head he announces something new with regard to divorce which wasn't so at the beginning and therefore this element of divine innovation if I may put it daringly is important there in the ministry of Christ it's in the New Testament we have the incarnation it's in the New Testament we have the ministry of Christ the crucifixion, the atonement, the resurrection, the ascension, the second advent I am not for one moment minimising the Old Testament I wouldn't be a reformed theologian if I did, but I don't feel besetted in terms of amounts and proportions. In other words, for instance, your argument that the New Testament's only one-fifth, that the Old Testament's four-fifths, I don't personally believe that that is of any significant weight. We don't deal with this mathematically, but in terms of the ultimate purpose of God, which is to send the Messiah and to complete the revelation through the Messiah, so that, for instance, your assertion The Old Testament is just as authentic as the New Testament. It's not something I need to hear because I believe it. Your assertion that the Old Testament is much maligned in America, no doubt it's true, but there's no problem with me. I'm not maligning the Old Testament. I'm seeking to emphasise, however, the significance of the New Testament in this particular matter. I do believe, with great respect, that we should begin with the New Testament, certainly go back to the Old as our Lord did. as the apostles did, integrate the two but I think that priority should be given to the New Testament precisely because the Lord's Supper is a New Testament ordinance. This element of discontinuity is shown in the very fact that we are not considering here the Passover but the Lord's Supper. And therefore the element of discontinuity as well as the element of continuity is very significant in this. With regard to the breaking of bread, no doubt Calvin did take that view. There are many good men that don't take that view and do regard it as a reference to the Lord's Supper. And I just feel that, I greatly enjoy listening to your case, and I just feel that with regard to the age aspect, this emphasis upon maturity, upon puberty, upon the teenage years and the age of 13, I feel it's a somewhat arbitrary case that you're making which cannot be substantiated from the Word of God. That was quite a mouthful. Let me say in response that I think I now grasp the point you were attempting to make in respect of Acts chapter 18 and verse 8, namely that there is a clear nexus, as of course there is, between belief and baptism, from which you then moved on to the Lord's Supper, which does not necessarily follow, nor is it in any way stated or implied in the text which he reduced. However, I would grant that, as I've said previously, there is a sense in which baptism not only signifies regeneration at the beginning of the Christian life, in the narrowest sense of the word regeneration, but also stretches out, as the larger catechism teaches, over the whole of the Christian life. That is to say, regeneration, conversion, sanctification, right up to glorification, and that in that sense Reformed theology has seen the whole of that process in the wider sense, including admission to the Lord's table at whatever appropriate time, as being, if you like, something that follows upon baptism. So I'm with you there. Certainly nobody should be baptised, ever, whom it is not to be expected of that sometime after baptism, one second, Greek Orthodox Church four or five years, maybe your position I don't know, I'll try and nail you down on that at the moment, or thirteen years thereafter as in my case. But clearly we shouldn't baptize anyone, unless we expect them sooner or later after baptism to come to the Lord's table, which is why I would rather die than baptize a person that seemed to be dying, whether an infant or an adult. Because you baptize them with a view to life and not death, full rich life and the development of life. the progressive unfolding of their sanctification, of which, of course, the use of the Lord's Table, nine years thereafter, or when the beard begins to grow. I believe you owe us an answer to this, a clear answer, not dodging the issue. If you are allergic to teenage, then please tell me what you think is the appropriate age. There's no appropriate age per se. The Institute is a credible profession of faith. So then if the child that has been baptized in infancy, say in my case I'm 30 days old, when a year and a half old says daddy, mammy, and then says Jesus, and you believe that the child saying Jesus, my daughter was two years old when she first said daddy, and you believe that that's an appropriate revelation of faith, And if you can convince the elders, I hope you would want to do that, that what you think you see in your child shows an appropriate degree of faith in the Lord Jesus and of salvation already accomplished and subjectively applied, you would then, regardless of age and regardless of lack of catechetical information which wouldn't be there, immediately wish to proceed to get your child admitted to the Lord's table on the basis of the points you made under Acts 18.8, the nexus between faith, baptism and communion? No, the key word in the phrase credible profession of faith, there are two key words, in fact three key words. One key word is faith, another key word is profession and a very, very important word is the first one, a credible profession of faith. Of course I wouldn't admit a little toddler, age one and a half, who in a very beautiful way and possibly in a real way whispers the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why of course not? I've seen it done. Well, I said earlier I have no grief of paedo-communian per se. Why not? I'm looking at an accredited profession of faith, okay? And of course age enters in, but my debate with yourself, with great respect, is that you are arbitrarily setting an age rather than leaving it to discretion, rather than leaving it to the sovereignty of God as to when that faith actually evidences itself, it might evidence itself at 8, at 9, at 10, at 11, at 12 and I think that you're in danger of great respect of arbitrarily fixing and arguing for at the age 13 when really the scriptures don't actually give any grounds for that. Well let me make two responses. One of the highly personal nature. I believe that my children were raised in the covenant. I believe they've never known a day of their life when they haven't believed Jesus was their saviour. I've seen nothing but evidence for that while we're growing up. It has never ever dawned on me, when there were five, six, seven, and Christ-professing Christians, by the way, ever to try and urge them to come to the Lord's table, even though the degree of knowledge that they may have manifested I'm quite sure would have been sufficient to have satisfied you if I understand what you've just said correctly. because of the way I read scripture and the way in which the rabbis understood the Old Testament and the degree of continuity between the Old and New Testament, it did seem to me to be the wiser thing not to admit them to the Lord's table, though it was sometimes in Presbyterian churches in the United States where kids younger than them grabbed the bread and woofed it down, and I couldn't help but wonder with what degree of understanding, until they reached the years of discretion, which are not defined in the Catechism and so we've now got to figure out as best we can what the Westminster Fathers meant by the years of discretion. So I make no apology for believing that on this particular point the teachings of the Talmud represent a more intelligent understanding of the best possible age of admission than what I think I perceive in you at this point in time. With great respect, I still think you're in grave danger of over-emphasising the 4 fifths of the Old Testament and the Talmud to the relative neglect of the New Testament on this issue and the very, very close conjunction that the New Testament Scriptures give us time and time again between believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, being baptised and being admitted to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. Well, I was about to go on to say, and I thought I had said it in my address, but it seems to me significant, that our Saviour, whom I'm sure is far more intelligent than any child that you or I could produce and have produced, seemed to have waited at least until he was twelve before himself, it would seem, participating of the Passover, which just so happens to be in agreement with the Talmudic understanding of the age of the Passover. However, you said over and over and over again, I'm in great danger, I'm in great danger, I'm in great danger. That may or may not be so. But I would suggest if I am in great danger that there's an opposite danger and a great danger that you might be in danger of. And that is of perhaps trying to urge children that you properly deem to have a saving faith in Christ. to go to the Lord's table at too early an age, I see a great danger in that too. So perhaps, with respect, we'll have to agree to disagree with one another and to leave one another in the great dangers that perhaps we perceive one another to be. I think it's got one more go, if I may. There is something I just need to correct there. I personally would not urge any child aged 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 to go to the Lord's supper. However, if they themselves as a covenant child, perhaps, who is showing evidence of faith, or as somebody who comes up with godless backgrounds, who comes to faith in Christ. If they themselves have this search, it's quite a different matter. That's a sign of life. And I would not hold them back from going to the Lord's Supper at those ages, if they show the credible profession of faith, which I think the Scriptures emphasise, which John Edwards so cogently argues in his Qualifications of Communion. Well, what I would do with that situation, in fact what I have done faced with that situation, is to take that unusual situation to the session. Because it's not me holding back or me admitting, it's the session. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 30, Paragraph 1 and 4. And the minister is not the session. And woe the minister that tries to do the job of the elders. So I would take the matter to the session. I'd point out the unusualness of this situation. I'd point out that I was satisfied. The person certainly seems to manifest faith in Christ. I would share with the elders the evidence that I see in scripture as to how to solve a situation, I would ask for contribution from the elders of things that I may have overlooked, and then obviously the session then makes the decision. And whether the session agrees with me or disagrees with me, the will of the session governs what is done in that respect. I don't see any other way of handling it Presbyterianly. But may I again just emphasize that if you read Exodus 12, Carefully, you see that the elders are exactly involved in the whole matter of the Passover. And I think that's a very important point. I would do the same, Stephanie, with regard to your child, as I know you should. Take the session. One of the things I wanted to mention about the critical profession of faith that concerns me as a father of three, I have a 13-year-old who made a critical profession of faith probably five years ago now, and was admitted to the Lord's table by a session. I subsequently witnessed behavior and attitudes concerning the Lord's Supper that led me to believe that my children, being raised in a Christian home in which they were catechized all along, were able to parrot answers to catechetical type of questions. Not mindlessly, but able to parrot those answers nonetheless. And I'm not convinced that my children, although, like you said, I think any one of my children that's hit before a session, give an incredible professional face. answer catechetical questions and be admitted to the Lord's table. I'm not convinced that any one of them has a proper attitude towards the Lord's supper, even to this day. And I, too, was raised in a Catholic church and went to Mass so many times that I'm probably very similar to you. I've probably admitted less since I've become a Reformed Christian than I did all my life prior. I know that one of the things that started leading me out of the Catholic Church was an awareness at 14 or 15 that what I was approaching in the Lord's Supper, in communion, was something far more important to faith than anything that I had done previously as a child. And I don't think it was until that time And I began to question what I was doing and why I was doing it, and had that own innate sense that this was something that I was responsible for and needed to be careful of. And I'm just not sure. My question is, what is a credible profession of faith? The ability to answer certain questions, or Now, I would agree with Mr. Carrick that if somebody was pressing to be admitted, some child was pressing to be admitted because of his devotion and love to the Lord, that's quite another thing. My youngest boy, who's 10, wants desperately to be admitted because he can't stand the thought that there's another child in church that gets the tape that ran in the line. And yet, I know that if he sat before a session He can answer questions. He believes he's a Christian. He can answer catechetical questions. But his motivation for the taking of the Lord's Supper is purely a child's sense of unfairness. It has nothing to do with his sense of love and devotion to the elements or to the Lord, so to speak. So what is a credible profession? I think the short answer to that must be such a profession of faith given by the candidate at whatever age as would satisfy the elders that the person professing their faith really is ready to partake of the second sacrament, the sacrament of maturity, for the first time. It's up to the session to determine whether or not the profession given is adequate for that purpose of being admitted to the Lord's table. from which, should they later lapse, they are later still to be excluded. Now, ideally, this obviously presupposes a knowledgeable session that will take the gravity of the Lord's Table very, very seriously. Unfortunately, in my experience, we're not living in that kind of an age. The Lord's Table, it seems to me, has become too much of a smorgasbord for whomsoever will, rather than the minister of the word and sacraments and the ruling elders, to guard the Lord's table, lest the person, inadequately prepared at whatever age, might end up eating and drinking a condemnation to himself. That's a serious thing. If we love our children, I don't think we're going to be in a great hurry to try and propel them unnaturally towards the Lord's table. perhaps eating and drinking condemnation to themselves. Secondly, why the hurry to go to the Lord's table? It's not a saving ordinance. They hear the word of God being preached. So thirdly I would say the content of the minimal catechism which I think should be given to link on with the first point that was made by the first questioner namely an understanding in the candidate of the relationship between baptism and the Lord's Table, you read the early catechesis of Cyril and Jerusalem, it's all there, should be such that the emphasis on the catechising, in my case included a lot of info about church history, which may or may not have been necessary to prepare me for the Lord's Table, but it would seem to me the very minimum that should be communicated to the candidate and which the candidate should be asked credibly to profess before the session, to the session's satisfaction, is a real understanding of what this sacrament is all about. Yes, it's nexus with baptism, the improvement of the baptism since baptism, to the admission to the table, but surely also how to discern the Lord's body now. There are some who say discerning the Lord's body means to understand that the people going to communion are the body of Christ. It doesn't seem to me that that's the natural sense when I read 1 Corinthians 11, nor Calvin on it. It seems to me that we understand that the bread and the wine are not the flesh and the blood of Jesus. Romanistically, nor are they merely signs but not seals, Zwinglianistically, nor are they consubstantiationistic in what the Lutherans allege them to be, confusing the relationship of the two natures of our Lord since his ascension, but in fact are exactly an intelligent grasping of Calvin's view of the sacrament, namely a sign and a seal which strengthens faith already present and in this case already professed. Now that is quite a sophisticated degree of knowledge, I think, which we should want the candidate to have. So while I do concede that a particularly precocious nine-year-old may perhaps have that, it would seem to me, looking at the physiology and the psychological development of human beings, that these questions and this deep interest in this sort of thing really do begin to develop in most people not before teenage. So, that would be my response. It's for the session to say. I'd like to hear more about your evidence for the position that a minion was required at the Passover. You mentioned the Talmud, the site, the location of the Talmud, but any other evidence that you're aware of that makes that argument? Sorry, that what? That a minion was required at the Passover? I didn't catch that. A minion had to go. You mentioned ten adult men in it? I must be going a little deaf, I haven't grasped the question. Sorry, could you say it slowly and loudly? Min Young. Min Young, Min Young, yes. Well, the evidence that I got to reduce, I believe, I tied to Exodus chapter 10. That the church government set up then involved an appointment of elders over ten, which I alleged was ten households. Elders over fifties, elders over a hundred, etc. There is a passage, I believe it's in Ruth chapter four, at the top of my head, which seems to reinforce that. There are also one or two other passages, but only about four in the whole Bible, to my knowledge, and all in the Old Testament, which I hope would not entail one to discount it, and certainly were there to be in the New Testament, R40 or I, that would be more important, which reinforce this idea of the minyan. Again I would have to say that the Talmudic gloss on the Old Testament, for what the Talmud is worth, and it's worth something, reinforces that view of needing to have ten... I don't know that I've got that information in front of me now, but it will be somewhere in the documents I've given to Dr. Smith, which however are just a summary of the findings of one of my doctoral dissertations on this particular subject. So I'm satisfied that the evidence is there in the Talmud, though I cannot right now put my finger on it, I don't believe. But as you probably know, to this very day, The Jewish synagogue service is improperly constituted unless at least ten adult males are present. It probably would be true to say that in post-Christian Judaism there's been a shift away from the liturgical Passover to make it more of a home-based thing. But if I could just say this, the ten adult males required for a worship service, which certainly I believe every communion service should be, presupposes the completion of the catechization of those ten adult males. I know the requirements for a battle being of the congregation for worship, however, which also is rooted, by the way, in the Talmud and not in directly the New Testament, but What historical evidence is there for that practice being applied to the Passover meal? The practice requiring the tangent to tell males. Is there any historical evidence of it? Well, I would say the fact that an elder by definition, as I've said from Exodus 18, is someone in charge of ten families. And the further fact, Exodus 18, the further fact, Exodus 12, that the elders were to, that is the elders over ten, were to superintend the administration of the Passover back to Exodus 12 verses 3 and 4, so that if there were not sufficient qualified persons in one family, they were to get together with sufficient augmenting members of the other family. so as to constitute a worship service, in this case, where the Passover was administered. How do you balance, or how would you respond to someone, as far as the Lord suffers them, to be warned against eating and drinking unworthily? And that question is a large catechism where it says if one doubts his relationship or his faith and whether he should come to the Lord's Supper, then the answer is given that he should come to strengthen his commitment and so on. You see what I'm saying? Yeah. That's a difficult matter. I think, again, in the last analysis, the decision has to be made by the session concerned. But in general, I think two things need to be done at the Lord's table. First of all, an invitation needs to be issued that all baptized members, baptized communicant, better yet, baptized, catechized, communicant members of Protestant churches be warmly invited to the table. but that all people who do not meet that qualification, as well as all who do but who are not in peace with God and their neighbour, be warned to stay away from this holy table, lest they eat and drink a condemnation over themselves. And the Heidelberg Catechism adds to that, that the condemnation then comes not just over the person who improperly, after that warning, consumes the elements, but The wrath of God be unleashed against the entire congregation, says the Heidelberg Catechism. And there, as I recall, I seem to remember it refers to 1 Corinthians 10 verse 20 something. Are we stronger than he? Do we want to kindle his wrath against all of us in the corporate body? So I would say one needs to say that in the invitation. And then frankly you've really just got to leave it between the people in the church and the Lord. But if there's some notorious person there who's under church discipline, then I think you do what Calvin did. And Calvin in Geneva, you remember, said, I would sooner die than to throw God's holy pearls to swine. By the way, that very text, I think it's Matthew 6 verse 7, is used precisely in the footnote of Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 29, paragraph 8, which says it is a grievous sin to give the Lord's Supper to people that you know don't have the requisite knowledge. Occasionally you get Roman Catholics that visit Presbyterian churches. As an ex-Romanist, I am offended, I am offended to hear a Presbyterian minister invite everyone who is present, who thinks they love the Lord, to come forward. I believe there's no place for a Roman Catholic transubstantiationist at a Presbyterian table. And conversely, were I still to be a Catholic, I wouldn't want any Protestant heretic besoiling the Holy Mass. And I think the reason why we've become so lax on this is because we're no longer truly Reformed, and we do not guard the Lord's table the way that we need to. But in the last analysis, having said all of that, I mean, really, you've got to leave it. Well, I could talk a lot about Catholics at the Protestant table. I've seen it happen. It's grieved me deeply. I've taken it up. I've rebuked uppity Presbyterian ministers for this practice. I've gotten the support of Roman Catholic archbishops to come down like a ton of bricks on their own parishioner who has shown their utter callous disregard for the Mass by going to a Protestant heretic table. And I am logical. I believe either we're right and they're wrong, or they're right and we're wrong. And by the way, while we're on this subject, The classic difference between a Romanist and a Protestant is what we think of the Lord's Supper. Let's face it, if the Romanists are right on the Lord's Supper, they're a bunch of cannibals. Now they're not cannibals because Protestants are right. But were they to be right, they would be cannibals. This is the touchstone and the watershed between Protestants and Romanists. And I do not believe that a general assertion that we're Christians, such as a seven or a six-year-old Presbyterian may give, is really adequate for this purpose. I think we need something more than that. If I may again add a word, having raised two children to maturity, and having often made the same things that you're going to talk about, we found that, in your case, when our children were ten years old, they wanted to become disabled and ride a car. And it's not necessarily in that order. It was just simply, sorry, it had nothing to do with prudent security whatsoever. It may have, but there's no guarantee that it did. And I was thankful for a section at that time who was willing to stand with me, both as a parent and as a minister, to care for it. helped my children to understand what it was they were doing. Because Paul's concern was that there were people eating in Corinth that were dropping dead. Those same people, Acts 18.8, lay alone and were dropping dead at the supper. or very soon after eating something. And so he wrote some very, I wouldn't call them harsh, but stern words to correct that practice. And those stern words included that we must have the ability to examine ourselves. And if we don't have that ability to lay our life down next to God's law, and determine where we have fallen short, then how do we repent? We can't repent that we were ignorant of God. And this is a totality of that. So we must be able to lay our lives down in God's law in order to be able to examine ourselves. But, how do we typically learn God's law? Is it not by catechizing? Is it not by going through the short catechism? Did not most of us learn our understanding of the application of God's law, whether required in each commandment, what's forbidden in each commandment, what are the promises that are annexed to some commandments by going through the catechism? That's the importance of catechism, not that we necessarily have to use the short catechism, although I think it certainly is. It might be. But that we do something that allows children the ability, or helps them with the ability, to examine themselves, so that the other day, as they come to this table, it's more than just going down and taking the bribery and having them back. At least, at least after there's an exam involved. In some instances, we require more of them to die than we would with the coming Lord's table. In the Old Testament, before a person came to the Passover, before he was allowed to keep the Passover, he had to be clean, he had to be ceremonially clean. He or a priest had to know what it was that was contaminated, what was polluted, so that he could go through whatever ritual or ceremony was necessary in order to get rid of that uncleanness. Well, we don't have the ritual, but we still require retention, don't we? To maintain a clean fellowship with the Lord. And now we, unlike Dr. Levy, we do celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly because we think that it's, not because we think that it's unspecial, but because we think it is an ordinary part of the worship of God. The table address that we give and we have is to that very point, that we are required, as we come from the Holy Sepulchre, to remember. And we don't do that, and we don't set up an example for our children of doing that, and shame on us. And we don't require that of our children. than shame on us, because there really is no grace available. And this is Calvin. I can't quote you a book and chapter on this, but Calvin maintains that there is no grace available for us in the Lord's supper that's not also available to us in the Word. And therefore, for us to treat the sacraments as though they were something, there was some super grace in them. It's really for us to misunderstand the sacraments. I'd like to just comment on a number of the contributions that have been made. You see, this matter over the age which child or any person partakes of the Lord's Supper surely is not to be settled by the adoption of horror stories. We can, each one of us, produce horror stories, probably in any sphere, illustrating the point that we have in mind that we wish to prove our abuses. I am aware, as well as anyone I think, of the danger of abuse of the Lord's Supper. whether the person is 8 or 18 or 28 or 38 48, 58, 60 there's a sense in which age is irrelevant in one sense here because the point that I'm arguing for is this that we simply acknowledge the sovereignty of God in this matter the sovereignty of God in conversion and the age of conversion in the circumstances of conversion that we don't arbitrarily and perhaps even unscripturally attempt to fix an age of 13 for teenage years or the age of maturity or of puberty when really the Word of God does not do that that we bear in mind of course the dangers that we're very very careful in this whole matter that we don't willingly for one moment bring any person whether 8, 18 or 78 to the Lord's supper unless they have a kind of impression of faith I'm simply arguing that we should recognise that God is sovereign and this sovereignty of God itself has a certain arbitrariness about it if I may put it daringly in the sense that God can and does bring children to himself at a tender age children who truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and children who therefore if they perhaps come from a non-Christian home and they weren't baptised therefore have a right to baptism and I believe have a right to the Lord's Supper of course we examine them, of course we're very very careful about it but I'm just arguing that we don't arbitrarily fix it at 13? Well, without going over ground again, I would agree it does depend on the sovereignty of God, but we've got to live in the light of revelation and not just in the light of the sovereignty of God. The sovereign God has given us a revelation which addresses all things if properly understood, and there's the problem because we are epistemologically short-sighted. But surely if the Bible does give guidelines, either for mandatory minimum age or for advisory minimum age, as the case may be. I'm saying if there are such guidelines in the Bible properly interpreted. However few they may be, if they are in the Bible, and I believe they are, Then, surely if we are committed to plenary verbal inspiration, it is incumbent upon us, through careful and painstaking study of God's holy word, properly interpreted in the flow of history, within which the word of God itself progressively unfolds, to attempt to determine to the best of our ability, in collaboration with other competent theologians who love the word as much as we do, what that minimum mandatory or advisory age might be. I say, if there is some evidence in the Bible that this is revealed, for us not to do that, simply because God is sovereign, which he obviously is, to regenerate at whatever age, and even prior to birth for that matter, I often delight in reminding Baptists that some people are born again before they're born. I believe with all of my heart that that's true. But I would never say what some Peter Communionists have said, And that is that if a pregnant woman goes to the Lord's table, there is a sense in which her unborn baby receives Holy Communion. Any more than I would say, as some said in the early church, that if the same pregnant woman got baptised, there's a sense in which her baby got baptised with her and should never be re-baptised. That matter was settled, as you may be aware, and it's a difficult, abstruse thing. You may think a Talmudic point. But nevertheless it was debated in the early church and I believe the right solution was reached and that is that the baptism of the pregnant mother is not adequate to baptize at that same time the baby. So all I can say is there are indeed some questions revealed in scripture at great length, other questions revealed at not such great length. Some things in the word of God are clearer for us poor fallen mortals to understand than others, but in the last analysis, as we love God and His Word, we must be faithful to our current understanding of the teaching of God's Word while listening to others and recognizing that our own current views must obviously be capable of further amelioration in the light of a more perfect understanding of Scripture. I don't think I can say any more than that other than to say that it is my frame of mind And I do believe there's sufficient revelation in the word properly interpreted to suggest that puberty is the recommended age. But I'm heartily in agreement that some post-pubers are not ready for commuting. And I would certainly agree that puberty to the extent to which I think it is one qualification is the least important of the qualifications we've been talking about. But anyway, for what it's worth, let us share with you. For free newsletters and a complimentary copy of our large discount mail-order Christian book catalog specializing in Reformed resources, contact Stillwaters Revival Books. On the Internet, we are at www.swrb.com. By email, swrb at swrb.com. Our mailing address is 4710-37A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6L 3T5. By phone we are at 403-450-3730 or after February 99 we will be at 780-450-3730. And keep in mind that the causes of fasting, June 13, 1921, as listed in the outline of the recent proceedings of the Reformed Presbytery on pages 7 and 8, state One of the sad and evil signs of this day of darkness is the lack of family worship. Those that know God will call upon him. Where family worship is not observed, such families are living in a state of heathenism.