Passing-Thought

That was a great book...

Is there significance to you being 'black' and she 'white'? Not racially, but good vs evil.

White moves first in chess. But extending the color metaphor, yes, I'll play the bad guy. :)

My response is that- though Ishamel was not a "believer" of sorts (though we are not sure that that is where the Islamic faith came from or not, we do know that it did not matter). God told Isaac to circumcise him anyway, and also gave Ishmael a covenant promise as well. He was part of the covenant family though possibly not apart of the elect. Covenant here would have nothing to do with actual faith. Thus the families were all baptized: all the kids, all the slaves, all the aliens that would continue to commune in the house- and thus there would be a sort of blessing for them as was with Ishmael. We know that not all the slaves or children would have loved God in their heart and been drawn by the Spirit- thus there are those who are of the household of fatih who are the "tares", but God did not give excuse. On the Sabbath (all) had to be treated the same. All had to come to worship- all slaves, all of the household-whether true believers or not. There was a covenant family that may have had plenty of non-believers in it, thus circumcision was not a sign of faith on the part of the whole body , but a sign of being in the body of believers- thus the slaves included as well as the children.

Scripture is clear that the communion is not to be taken by a non-believer. It's also clear that many in the NT church even died or fell sick for doing so. It is one of the covenant promises that is a change in the NT, just as was the food, ceremonial ordinances. When scripture changes a covenant and it is from God through Christ or an apostle we must acknowledge this otherwise we would to say that scripture is not infallible, and it is infallible and inerrant.

I agree that circumcision was a sign of being in the body of believers. That is why "all had to be treated the same". Those who bear the sign, bear the obligations of the covenant of which it is a sign. If a person bears the sign in vain, they are to be cut off from the body. Obedience to the responsibilities of the sign, includes faith in the promises. Disobedience is a sign of rejecting those promises, faithlessness. Circumcision was not a sign of personal faith so much as a sign of covenant to which one is obliged to faith, and counted as "faithful" until one becomes unfaithful.

Yes, the Isrealite community that partook of the manna from heaven, fell in the wilderness. But upon what did God feed/raise their children 40 years as their parents were 40 years dying? "all ate the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink..."

The NT community of believers, have a "children" identity, disciplined to have childlike faith, but warned not to behave childishly. Apostolic warnings are parental warnings (from the Father through the Son in the Spirit). I see no apostolic/scriptural warrant to divide the body into two levels of membership (communicant and non-communicant). If we thus divide the body into two levels of membership, "those who are old enough to express 'credible' faith" and children who are not, we not only divide the body from the benefits/worship that belong to the whole body (by baptism), but risk despising our own 'childlike' faith identity. (If it is any comfort to you, I would not permit my children to take communion childishly.)

It is no comfort as I would not marry anyone who would allow children without clear profession to partake. Nevertheless, the argument with your use of the verse regarding "all" partaking of the same spiritual drink must be examined with biblical exegesis of the text. Not all "all"s in scripture are many "everysingle person" but often can mean "all" of one group, "all" believers, etc. It is wise to consider the text and context.

Yeah, context is important for understanding the meaning of 'pas'; something they teach you in seminary as well as linguistics. :) Of course, familiarity with the Scriptures is also helpful (Exodus 16:35, Num 14:33, Deut 8:3f). It's clear that the Lord raised up the next generation upon manna consisting mostly of children. The discipline upon their parents was used as a warning for the children. Paul sees this Scripture as covenantally instructive "an example" for our redemptive historical situation "upon whom the ends of the ages have come". We, in a sense, are that next generation, preparing to enter the promised land through the leadership of the new Moses and new Joshua.

I'm still not sure where covenant parents/church authorities have the right to treat their children as if they are unbelievers, apart from the body of Christ. We are "all one body for we all partake of the one bread" (1 cor 10:17). Children who recognize they are part of the body of Christ, are discerning the body. They should be so considered until ecclesiastically dismembered severed from Christ (Gal 5:4). Will you prohibit your children from reciting the Lord's prayer in public worship until you are 100% sure that God is actually their Father??

Perhaps you will be comforted by the fact that our church does not permit unconfessing children to partake, though I'm sure that's not enough for you to marry such a person as myself Church rules change. You have a heart to marry someone whom you will submit to in such matters, that's good. Our current session does allow (and will encourage) examination at young ages (e.g. 4). Our previous session would not even consider such examination until they were twelve! tisk tisk. Shall we hinder the little ones from coming to Him whom he warned us not to hinder, for "such is the kingdom of God".

Scripture is clear to not take of the bread or wine in an unworthy manner and to not offer this to the unbeliever,.. it is also clear to not heap upon our children curses - their innocence should not be toyed with,... they or anyone will reap the curse of this oversight and sanctity of the cup. This is something of deep importance and it is not to be taken lightly. It is clear that children are of the covenant famkily, but not all of the covenant are 'the covenant'. This clear shown in children who left the covenant or who like Esau/Saul/Ishmael were born of it , but not of it by faith. Faith being the clear teaching from Romans as the precursor to not being in the family , but being of the faith..... the Holy Spirit is the only one who draws and initiates relationship- it is by faith alone-apart from works including the work of birthing. We ought not to assume upon our children a curse for our ignorance of the scriptures. This is not unclear from study of the scriptures in the epistles or the study of the the covanental changes in the NT tot eh covenant. Covenant theology is all and only about this subject. Reformed theology, in times past, has always believed this way and Calvin differs in no part.The insitutes are clear- and this is what makes those of us reformed- to follow the teaching of the the reformers. When Jesus/or his apostles find a change to a covenant- it only changes those parts. One must study the NT as well to see those particular changes ,... and for those principles that have not changed- they are in place for good. Christ has all authority to change as he pleases and so does all of the scriptures,... the choice to ignore scripture on the curses of the cup are usually rebellion to study/adherence of the word,.. and usually for desire sin,.. not for lack of availability of scripture. This is a very important topic to study and I would ask you to refute my claims from the NT first otherswise your rebuttals form no contest and give no foundation or build upon the topic.