Whence paedo-communion?
- Thread starter Casey
- Start date
- Status
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Biting my tongue..
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
The exegetical arguments from Tim Gallant's book, Feed My Lambs, are superb. That one book, more than anything else, is what helped shape my biblical view on the subject.
You can buy the book from cumberlandbooks.com, which is the Book distributor for Highland Study Center (Ministry of R.C. Sproul Jr.)
[Edited on 12-5-2005 by biblelighthouse]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
The hesitation is because 5 years ago you wouldn't have heard anything about PC; it is only because of the internet and the FV phenomenom.
I suggest strongly staying away from T. Gallants garbage. He is a neighboring Fed Vis proponent.
http://www.paulperspective.com/page2a.html
[Edited on 12-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
gto
Update your signature according to board requirements.
"Sweet".
I will warn you, poison can be delectable going down and sweet to the tongue..........
Lord willing Tim Gallant's book will have a review, a reply from Gallant, and a response from the reviewer in the 2006 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian. www.cpjournal.com
While I'm not any happier than Scott on the impact of Paedocommunion in our circles, I would say Paedocommunion has been an issue around conservative Presbyterians since before 1985 when it came up in both the OPC and PCA. Both Richard Bacon's and Leonard Coppes' works against Paedocommunion are both at least 15 years old by now I think. Dr. Bacon's work has been our church's website since 1996. http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm
While I'm not any happier than Scott on the impact of Paedocommunion in our circles, I would say Paedocommunion has been an issue around conservative Presbyterians since before 1985 when it came up in both the OPC and PCA. Both Richard Bacon's and Leonard Coppes' works against Paedocommunion are both at least 15 years old by now I think. Dr. Bacon's work has been our church's website since 1996. http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/meanye1.htm
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
gto
Update your signature according to board requirements.
"Sweet".
I will warn you, poison can be delectable going down and sweet to the tongue..........
Brother,
I guess what I meant by "Sweet!" was what a blessing it is to have a place where brothers can openly disagree, be charitable and gentle with one another, and demonstrate a quiet spirit of humility. Some on this board do a really good job of being obedient in this particular area. These things are especially important since I think we would all be in support (at least in name!) of the notion of "semperreformanda." But I agree with you, poison's bad. So is bitterness. Be sure to stay away from both those things yourself as well, brother. Thanks for the reminder.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by gto
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
gto
Update your signature according to board requirements.
"Sweet".
I will warn you, poison can be delectable going down and sweet to the tongue..........
Brother,
I guess what I meant by "Sweet!" was what a blessing it is to have a place where brothers can openly disagree, be charitable and gentle with one another, and demonstrate a quiet spirit of humility. Some on this board do a really good job of being obedient in this particular area. These things are especially important since I think we would all be in support (at least in name!) of the notion of "semperreformanda." But I agree with you, poison's bad. So is bitterness. Be sure to stay away from both those things yourself as well, brother. Thanks for the reminder.
Tom,
The board has limits; the blessing rests in orthodoxy. If a topic is unorthodox, we will assuredly call the kettle black. The term Semper Reformanda is not (in my opinion) progressive from a historic position. Locally, I would agree. Churches need to reform. Historically, the documents we hold dear, i.e. Gods word and our creeds, are (for lack of a better word) cannonized. FV, NPP and ilk of this nature are garbage and will be treated as such. Bitter? Absolutely!
Psalm 69:9 9 for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.
Again, please click on the link at the bottom of my post for signature requirements or go here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5636
[Edited on 12-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Chris,
Thanks for the clarification. However, what I was referring to was the level of interest. 5 years ago, it was not like it is now........
Scott,
No problem. I would agree that the level of interest has increased; but that train has been chugging along for at least 20 or 25 years as I wrote; the Internet has simply made it move faster.
No problem. I would agree that the level of interest has increased; but that train has been chugging along for at least 20 or 25 years as I wrote; the Internet has simply made it move faster.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
You don't believe FV has anything to do with the interest?
Very probably; but PC certainly predates FV, even in the PC guys now advocating FV, wouldn't you say? It may be PC has helped lead to FV but FV may now be the influence toward PC. Such questions are the stuff of "papers" for letters after one's name.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
In my case, NO!
I am strictly interested in PC according to its own exegetical merits from Scripture.
In fact, the PC guys I most respect are NOT FV guys. I highly respect Vern Poythress, for example, who is a Westminster Seminary professor. I much enjoyed an interview with him I heard, in which he defended paedocommunion explicitly for several minutes.
You also need to be very careful about calling Gallant's book "heretical" like you did. That book is sold by cumberlandbooks.com, which is the book distributor for R.C. Sproul Jr.'s ministry.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
In that case, prescribe Poythress; he did not redefine justification like FV does.
Cumberland sells FV material, i.e. Jordan, Leithart, Wilson. Just because they sell Sproul's material there does not make your case.
FV is heresy and I, as my church and pastor have stated openly, will not allow the perpetuating of the discipline or any of the materials linked with it. Since Gallant is FV, his treatise on PC is rooted in his theology; hence, no one on this board should be endorsing it (at least openly). What you do offline, thats your business.
Let me give you an excellent example: Horace Bushnell, an early puritan, in my opinion wrote an excellent treatise on rearing the child (Christian Nurture). I used to openly endorse it! However, he had some abberant views on Christ which clearly were heretical, i.e. The Vicarious Sacrifice (1866), in which he contended for what has come to be known as the moral view of the atonement and a few issues w/ the trinity. I no longer suggest Bushnell. There are materials out there addressing child rearing from men who did not teach heresy. Is Bushenell w/ the Lord? Only God knows.
Cumberland sells FV material, i.e. Jordan, Leithart, Wilson. Just because they sell Sproul's material there does not make your case.
FV is heresy and I, as my church and pastor have stated openly, will not allow the perpetuating of the discipline or any of the materials linked with it. Since Gallant is FV, his treatise on PC is rooted in his theology; hence, no one on this board should be endorsing it (at least openly). What you do offline, thats your business.
Let me give you an excellent example: Horace Bushnell, an early puritan, in my opinion wrote an excellent treatise on rearing the child (Christian Nurture). I used to openly endorse it! However, he had some abberant views on Christ which clearly were heretical, i.e. The Vicarious Sacrifice (1866), in which he contended for what has come to be known as the moral view of the atonement and a few issues w/ the trinity. I no longer suggest Bushnell. There are materials out there addressing child rearing from men who did not teach heresy. Is Bushenell w/ the Lord? Only God knows.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Tom (or is it Todd?),
You have a u2u
You have a u2u
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
First of all, the book is about paedocommunion, not justification. So your unfounded assertion that Gallant is FV is moot.
Second, Poythress hasn't written a book on paedocommunion. If he did, then I would probably prescribe it.
Third, I would recommend a book by Sproul Jr., if he would write it. In fact, in the most recent magazine from Draught Horse Press (a.k.a. Cumberland Books) basically said that R. C. Sproul Jr. would have written a PC book if Gallant hadn't already beaten him to the punch.
--- In other words, a lot of guys like Poythress, Sproul, etc. are not writing PC books because there is already a good one out there. So why should they bother to duplicate Gallant's efforts?
Finally, who says Gallant is FV? And who gets to decide who is "FV"? Does Gallant consider himself a FV advocate? If so, I am not aware of it.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Birds of a feather flock togather............
The point is not moot. The theology behind the PC premise is based upon Gallants theology. From the FV viewpoint, as I mentioned earlier, one that holds to FV will by default hold to PC. PC advocates, outside of FV, do not necessarily have to hold to FV, yet that is where the path will eventually end up.
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=Gallant&sp-a=000a1069-sp00000001
http://www.rabbisaul.com/doersoflaw.htm
He is listed here with all the rest:
http://www.paulperspective.com/page2.html
He has various pages devoted to the discipline:
http://www.covenantrenewal.com/
Links to Ralph Smith:
http://www.berith.org/
Here's his blog with links.............
http://rabbisaul.com/blog/index.php?cat=25
Gallant responds to a paper by 'Alastair' on blog: Adversaria. The title of the paper gallant responds to is:
"Approaches to Justification within the Federal Vision"
Alastair begins with:
"The goal of this extremely long post is that of giving as accurate a description of the various approaches to the doctrine of justification that exist within FV circles as I can. I was recently asked to give my thoughts on this subject on a web forum that I was a participant in. I thought that I would share my rough thoughts with my blog readers. I am not sure that I feel qualified to adequately trace the various lines of argumentation in this complex debate. If anyone wants to dispute an aspect of my account, please do so. I am quite open to constructive critique of my representation of the FV."
And here:
"Works are absolutely necessary for future justification. The righteous and the wicked will ultimately be separated on the basis of their works. God does not save men on the grounds of what they do, but neither does He save men irrespective of what they do. Repentance is absolutely necessary for future justification. "
Gallant responds at the conclussion:
"Thanks, Alastair. There are a couple places that I would think need rewording, but overall this is very good work.
Most serious typo:
FV proponents tend to understand justification in more relational categories. For a number of FV proponents, to be "˜righteous´ is not to be sinfully perfect according to some absolute standard.
I believe you meant sinlessly, not sinfully.
By Tim G on 10.04.05 7:10 pm"
I could be wrong as he has not said to me that he is a FV supporter. However, the company he keeps are and outwardly so.
[Edited on 12-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]
- Status
