The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Paedocommunion

The main emphasis of the allegory of the "Vine and Branches" is the distinction between two groups: 1) Those who bear fruit and who are actually abiding in Christ and 2) Those who do not bear fruit and who appeared to have been abiding in Christ. When one considers the historical occasion on which Jesus taught this allegory it becomes clear that at least in great part, Judas was to be an example to the disciples as one who fit in category #2 and the disciples were in category #1. This is even more clear when one considers chapter 13 and especially vvs. 10 and 11:

John 13:10-11 (ASV) Jesus saith to him, He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew him that should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

So, in regard to the two groups we have: 1) branches that bear fruit and are clean and 2) branches that bear no fruit and are not clean. Being "clean" is a definite reference to one who has been washed in the redeeming blood of Christ and therefore in reality and spiritually has been "in Christ". Those in the second group were only in close proximity to Christ outwardly, i.e., by appearances they were close to Christ. Their being "in the vine" does not necessarily mean that they were joined to Christ spiritually but in fact it was nothing more than an external relationship. Not all who are in the covenant are in the covenant. Not all those who were baptized into Moses were saved (1Cor 10:1-5). Another salient example can be found in John 8:30ff where many believed on Him but these same "believers" are those who claimed to have no need of Christ because they claimed to be "Abraham's seed", etc. What we see there are covenant members who outwardly even believed on Christ yet were rejected by Christ for their unbelief.

There are a number of other illustrations one would refer to in order to establish the fact that there are those who appear to be "in the vine (in Christ)" but who are not so, e.g., the parable of the Sower (Matt 13:3ff; Mk 4:3ff), those who were confessing members of various congregations (1Jh 2:19), et al.

I am aware of covenant children being saved, but that isn't the issue since we both agree that covenant children are in fact saved. The issue is whether or not one can presume that ALL infants of professing believers are saved, aka: presumptive regeneration either by virtue of their being born to believing parents and/or in baptism. There are only a few examples given of individuals who were apparently regenerate in the womb; David, Jeremiah? and John the Baptist. However, it is fallacious to assume these individuals to be paradigmatic and thus base a doctrine of universal fetal regeneration upon them. The overwhelming majority of covenant children within Israel perished in unbelief and therefore serve far better for one to presume the spiritual state of any and all infants including covenant children. If that were not enough, again there are the two texts which I have previously referred to and to which you have failed to make comment: Romans 3:9-18, 23 and Eph 2:1-5 to which can be added a plethora of texts which teach the inherent corruption of nature and alienation with God of the entire human race. So again, upon this massive repository of biblical evidence which consigns the entire human race to be under the just condemnation of God due to Original Sin; i.e., 1) imputed guilt and 2) inherited corruption of nature, one can only presume that infants/children are outside of Christ, enemies of God and are in dire need of regeneration and justification in Christ.

Being "in covenant" is NOT de facto salvation. Being "in the covenant" is NOT to be equated with being reconciled with God. Being a "member of the covenant" is not to be understood as a place where a person works out their salvation via alleged "good works" and if this is done consistently to the end they are then justified.

One may only hope that such perceived behaviour is genuine. But given that children will parrot adults and can be taught to emulate just about anything by those whom they respect, particularly their parents, such behaviour is hardly one to base a doctrine of paedo-communion. Secondly, even if such children of 3+ years of age were regenerate and possessed a saving faith in Christ this would still not meet the qualifications that one "examine themselves" and be able to "discern the body of Christ" before partaking of the Lord's Table. Being a believer is only part of the requirements to partake of the Table of the Lord. These other two requirements cannot be circumvented and to this date I have not read any reasonable arguments why they should be.

In His grace,