# Paedocommunion vote at PCAGA... what does it mean?



## Matthew Tringali (Jun 8, 2011)

This is my first post, sorry if I put it in the wrong spot.

Can anyone provide any insight on what the vote regarding paedocommunion today at GA means? What was "the substitute"? What did PNW Presbytery do that they called to task for it? What implications does this hold immediately or for next years GA? How does it all relate to the minority report written by Rayburn back in '88 and kept being brought up today?

Thank you!!!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jun 8, 2011)

*Moderation*

Moved to Church Order Forum.

Also, please click on the link in my signature and follow the directions for creating one of your own.

Blessings,


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 8, 2011)

Having watched this on web cam, a General Assembly Committee reviewing presbytery records found a certain Presbytery's notes to indicate a possible exception "of substance" by allowing a teaching elder candidate to "freely" hold a paedocommunion view.

It was not clear if the presbytery was allowing teaching of or even practicing of the view in addition to stating a belief so it cited the presbytery notes for follow-up explanation to the committee (and to General Assembly).

The minority report of the committee would have NOT made this an "exception of substance," but would have downgraded its reviewed.

The majority committee report (sighting the Presbytery for response) was approved by a large majority.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 8, 2011)

Keep in mind that an "exception of substance" as opposed to an "exception of form" means there appears to be a significant doctrine/polity error.

It is not an adjudication of guilt.

It is, initially, a call for the presbytery to explain itself and give more information which will then be evaluated by the Committee in line with the constitution (Book of Church Order and Westminster Standards) and reported to General Assembly at its next annual meeting.

It could get referred to the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the denomination for further discipline.

This is part of what church discipline is all about- in reformed theology the unity of the church, and its peace and purity is its doctrine, received as faithful summary of what Scripture teaches, requires.


----------



## Matthew Tringali (Jun 8, 2011)

So, just to make sure I am clear... The majority and approved vote basically just said we need the PNW presbytery to clarify their intentions of allowing the exception. 

And the minority report basically held the position that this is no big deal since the approved position back in '88 allowed for TE's to hold this exception, so long as it was not practiced nor taught. 

Am I understanding all of these details and positions correctly?

Thanks.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 8, 2011)

Matthew Tringali said:


> So, just to make sure I am clear... The majority and approved vote basically just said we need the PNW presbytery to clarify their intentions of allowing the exception.
> 
> And the minority report basically held the position that this is no big deal since the approved position back in '88 allowed for TE's to hold this exception, so long as it was not practiced nor taught.
> 
> ...


 
Pretty close.

The majority view (adopted) said there appeared to be a substantial error in doctrine or practice and the presbytery needs to explain what it did (in line with its constitution and vows).

The underlying assumption being that paedocommunion is out of accordance with the constitution (Westminster Standards) at least and, at most, "strikes at the vitals of religion," and cannot be accepted under any circumstances. 

My understanding is, in the PCA, in the Westminster Standards, paedocommunion as a belief repudiates the system of doctrine, even more so if one were allowed to teach it, let alone practice it- notwithstanding the fact there have been a few within the reformed community historically who held that view.

The minority report was it was not a substantial error, but rather merely a difference with the Standards that does not repudiate the system of doctrine as a whole.

Either way, it is acknowledged to be a "difference" with the Westminster Standards.

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------

ByFaith June 8 reports, accurately it appears the substance of this matter [*emphasis added*]:



> Wednesday afternoon the 39th General Assembly agreed with the majority of the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records that, based on Pacific Northwest Presbytery’s minutes of January 14-15, 2010, a candidate was granted an exception that is out of accord and “hostile to the system or striking at the vitals of religion.”
> 
> The unnamed candidate declared his disagreement with the statement that the Lord’s Supper is to be administered "only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.” The candidate went on to say that according to his understanding, the Scripture nowhere prohibits young children from coming to the Lord’s table.
> 
> Pacific Northwest found the candidate’s exceptions to be more than semantic, but “not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine.” *The presbytery went on to recommend that he be given “full liberty to preach and teach his views*.”


----------



## Matthew Tringali (Jun 8, 2011)

Ah! That is very helpful! And, admittedly, very surprising. I assume it has always been acceptable to hold the belief, personally. But to be permitted to teach and preach on it is an entirely different matter.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 8, 2011)

> Westminster Larger Catechism [emphasis added]
> 
> Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ?
> 
> ...



It's clearly a difference with the Standards. And a big one given the doctrine behind it.

The PCA requires each presbytery to evaluate whether the difference is:

1) merely semantic
2) a difference but does not violate the system of doctrine
3) a difference that does violate the system of doctrine

(paraphrases)



---------- Post added at 11:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 PM ----------




> Presbyterian Church in America
> Rules of Assembly Operations
> 
> 14-6. Guidelines for Examining Presbytery Records:
> ...


.


----------



## Matthew Tringali (Jun 8, 2011)

Okay, now I feel a little confused again... Was the Presbytery in violations because of their actions? Or merely because of how they "kept their minutes"?


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 8, 2011)

Matthew Tringali said:


> Okay, now I feel a little confused again... Was the Presbytery in violations because of their actions? Or merely because of how they "kept their minutes"?


 
The minutes they kept give a basis for an exception of substance, and they need further explanation.

Remember there are "exceptions of form" citations when it only appears to be format related (not substance, as in this case).


----------



## Matthew Tringali (Jun 8, 2011)

So, what is next? The PNW Presbyterian offers an explanation? Or a committee is formed to look into the exception of the PNW Presbyterian? Can we expect to see this as a big issue at next year's GA?

Interesting how this issue comes up only day's after Leithart's trial.


----------



## brianeschen (Jun 9, 2011)

Matthew Tringali said:


> So, what is next? The PNW Presbyterian offers an explanation? Or a committee is formed to look into the exception of the PNW Presbyterian? Can we expect to see this as a big issue at next year's GA?
> 
> Interesting how this issue comes up only day's after Leithart's trial.


The PNW Presbytery is required to respond to next year's GA (either agreeing or disagreeing with the judgment). That response will be dealt with in the RPR Committee and presented to the GA next year. Some times this goes on for several years.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 9, 2011)

Citations for "exceptions" based on presbytery minutes are an ordinary part of the process in the PCA, they are routine, and a necessary part of ordinary church discipline.

Many times there are simply misunderstandings, and the review helps all give better account.


----------

