# paedocommunion- continuing reformation



## rembrandt (Apr 16, 2004)

What are the chances that paedocommunion will become a widely accepted doctrine in the Reformed community (say a hundred years from now)?... It seems like more people are embracing it. And since the Reformers only started the Reformation who knows what could happen on this...

I just did a search and there are TONS of articles in favor of it. Oh, and I just read Frame who is for it. It also seems the Sproul is for it (from what I've heard).

What are current denominations that practice it?

Please don't turn this thread into a debate about it. Although for me, I'm for it.

Rembrandt


----------



## pastorway (Apr 16, 2004)

Sproul, Sr is against it. Sproul, Jr is for it.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 16, 2004)

Actually, Phillip, Sproul Sr. is &quot;coming arouind to it.&quot; He thinks it is inconsistent to not do it.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 16, 2004)




----------



## wsw201 (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:b41f25f2d2]
What are the chances that paedocommunion will become a widely accepted doctrine in the Reformed community (say a hundred years from now)?... It seems like more people are embracing it. And since the Reformers only started the Reformation who knows what could happen on this... 
[/quote:b41f25f2d2]

When the error of peadocommunion is ever widely accepted in Reformed churches, that will be the day I will be taken up in the &quot;Secret Rapture of the Church&quot;.  Leaving only the &quot;Left Behind&quot; and of course the 144,000 to adulterate the Gospel.

Rembrandt,

I wouldn't pay much attention to all those articles, error spreads faster than truth.


----------



## Saiph (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:c5ee9f155f]
Actually, Phillip, Sproul Sr. is &quot;coming arouind to it.&quot; He thinks it is inconsistent to not do it. 
[/quote:c5ee9f155f]

Where did he say this Webmaster.


----------



## BrianLanier (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:990cc4542b][i:990cc4542b]Originally posted by joshua[/i:990cc4542b]
[quote:990cc4542b][i:990cc4542b]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:990cc4542b]
Actually, Phillip, Sproul Sr. is &quot;coming arouind to it.&quot; He thinks it is inconsistent to not do it. [/quote:990cc4542b]

In your opinion, Matt, to his folly? [/quote:990cc4542b]


yes.....


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

It is far more likely that when a split occurs in reformed circles over the Federal Vision and New Perspective, that will resolve the problem.

It is no coincidence that NT Wright and the Auburn 4 are paedocommunionists.

The way I read the current PCA BCO (which I must confess is as a lawyer to whom words matter, not as a PPLNer) is that a Presbytery cannot ordain a paedocommunionist any longer.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:21cdf688f4][i:21cdf688f4]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:21cdf688f4]
It is far more likely that when a split occurs in reformed circles over the Federal Vision and New Perspective, that will resolve the problem.

It is no coincidence that NT Wright and the Auburn 4 are paedocommunionists.

The way I read the current PCA BCO (which I must confess is as a lawyer to whom words matter, not as a PPLNer) is that a Presbytery cannot ordain a paedocommunionist any longer. [/quote:21cdf688f4]

If I remember right (not Wright!) Schissel was not a peadocommunionist. Has he changed his views?

I would be very interested in how a Presbytery could not ordain a peedocommunionist based on the current BCO especially considering the language of 21-4?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

Wayne,

I'm not sure about Schlissel, but he is not a paedocommunionist, he is the only one.

As for 21-4, the relevant language is:
[quote:2e9485578e]
The court may grant an exception to any difference of doctrine [b:2e9485578e]only if[/b:2e9485578e] in the court's judgment the candidate's declared difference is not out of accord with any [b:2e9485578e]fundamental[/b:2e9485578e] of our system of doctrine because the difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion[/quote:2e9485578e]

I'd really like to hear any PPLNer argue that the doctrine of the Lord's Supper is not fundamental, especially given that it is probably the only doctrine (other than the Trinity) that all of professing Christendom (and even Rome) espouses. One of the many problems with the new language of 21-4 is that it does not address differences in fundamental areas, and whether such differences can be overcome by forbidding the teaching of such differences. But then again, the PPLN was not worried about making good language or paedocommunion, just the fact that presbyteries were keeping some of their buds out of office.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 16, 2004)

Paedocommunion is a devition from Reformed Orthodoxy and a path taken by those who miss critical junctures along the road of Covenant Theology.

Mark - 

Sproul said this in class to me in 1994. He has never said anything to us &quot;officially&quot; to the contrary.


----------



## rembrandt (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:ec7198139a][i:ec7198139a]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:ec7198139a]
Sproul said this in class to me in 1994. He has never said anything to us &quot;officially&quot; to the contrary. [/quote:ec7198139a]

From what I've heard he is basically arguing from silence. He says that if we want to be consistent paedos... 

[quote:ec7198139a]Paedocommunion is a devition from Reformed Orthodoxy and a path taken by those who miss critical junctures along the road of Covenant Theology.[/quote:ec7198139a]

What junctures are you talking about here? I read the other thread, but just curious as to what you mean by that. Please do not turn this into a debate though. 


Rembrandt


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:6903a6decc]
Sproul said this in class to me in 1994. He has never said anything to us &quot;officially&quot; to the contrary. 
[/quote:6903a6decc]

I have been getting Ligoniers Tape of the Month for the past four years. When the issue of communion has come up Sproul Sr. has noted categorically that he does not agree with the peadocommunion position even though his son does. He has waffled on the creation issue though.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:0f2ad81c10][i:0f2ad81c10]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:0f2ad81c10]
[quote:0f2ad81c10]
It seems like more people are embracing it.
[/quote:0f2ad81c10]

no, I just think they are getting louder. [/quote:0f2ad81c10]

96.5% baby!

:goodpost:


----------



## pastorway (Apr 16, 2004)

What is really fightening about this is what Fred has pointed out....every branch of Christendom &quot;officially&quot; has agreed that paedocommunion is not acceptable...up until recently when a few offshoots have begun embracing it. And even then, those groups that have officially endorsed it have other more serious problems in their belief system. 

This is a NEW doctrine for sure!! One that simply cannot stand up under scrutiny from the Word of God or the confessions.

It is really a wonder that there is not serious disagreement about the Supper. This is like the Trinity - every one agrees but the cultists!

We need to be reminded that if we allow change in this area then we are saying that the church for 2000 years has been wrong. And if we get the Supper wrong, people DIE! (1 Cor 11:30)

Phillip


----------



## rembrandt (Apr 16, 2004)

I said that I am for it, but that is only until I come to find it wrong, which I probably will. But the arguements Iv'e heard against it have not yet convinced me. 

Supposedly these are the denominations that practice it.
Eastern Orthodox
Reformed Episcopalian (Discretion of local church.)
Federation of Reformed Churches (U.S.A.)
Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (Some churches only.)
Providence National Presbytery
Numerous Anglican and some Lutheran bodies

It also seems to be a large pratice in the medieval age. And during Augustine's time it was practiced as he made several references to it:
[quote:d5a17520b7]They are infants, but they receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in order to have life in themselves.

Works, Vol. 5, Sermon 174:7

Why is the , which of the likeness of sinful flesh was shed for the remission of sins, ministered that the little one may drink, that he may have life, unless he hath come to by a beginning of sin on the part of some one?

And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord's Supper life, than that which is written: &quot;I am the living bread which came down from heaven;&quot; and &quot;The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;&quot; and &quot;Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His , ye shall have no life in you?&quot; If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord's body and , it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin. . .

On the Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants,
Bk. I, ch. 33[/quote:d5a17520b7]

But if I was asked right now, I would deny it since it is not the current position of the church.

Rembrandt

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by rembrandt]


----------

