# Is paedocommunion the "logical end" of paedobaptism?



## BenjaminBurton

As one still struggling through some of this paedo-doctrine, it does in some ways seem like PC would be a logical end. I don't want to derail here, just wondering what the explanation against it is?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BenjaminBurton said:


> As one still struggling through some of this paedo-doctrine, it does in some ways seem like PC would be a logical end. I don't want to derail here, just wondering what the explanation against it is?


 
I was just mentioning the other day to someone that Baptists consistently say that PC seems most logical but to be logical one would have to completely ignore the Reformed teaching on both Sacraments. 

On the one hand we believe baptism is to be administed to the children of believers and that a cognitive understanding of the sacrament is unnecessary for the infant baptized. 

On the other hand, we believe that the Lord's Supper requires understanding, ability to discern the Lord's Body, and the ability to self-examine.

Thus, we see _different requirements_ for participation in each sacrament. The only way PC is "logical" is if one interprets the Scriptures to teach that self-examination and a discerning of the Lord's Body is unnecessary for participation in the Lord's Supper. Neither Baptists nor the Reformed believe this so I'm left wondering how anyone who understands a Reformed confession could possible deduce that PC is a "logical end". It is most illogical.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> On the one hand we believe baptism is to be administed to the children of believers and that a cognitive understanding of the sacrament is unnecessary for the infant baptized.



That is new to me. It seemed more logical that the paedoes would following the example of covenant family from Moses. That is only if you take in very small children who could partake of the paschal lamb. From a Baptist view one must be a member of the confessing body of Christ. 

Cornelius P. Venema did a Covenant Radio program on Paedocommunion that was a pretty good discussion from a Paedo view. 

It is unbiblical and dangerous because of the warnings placed upon the partaking of it and the need for self examination. Pastor Greco and I had a discussion on this topic a very long time ago if someone can find it on the PB. I can't seem to find it. But here was a half decent thread on it. http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/exceptions-required-taken-paedo-communion-49648/#post636855


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the one hand we believe baptism is to be administed to the children of believers and that a cognitive understanding of the sacrament is unnecessary for the infant baptized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is new to me.
Click to expand...

 
Huh? It's "new to you" that we baptize infants and that we don't require the infants baptized to understand the sacrament at the time of their baptism?


----------



## Scott1

Not to interject, but to clarify-

The link, and the point of the link is that there are so many "exceptions" one would consequently have to take to the Westminster Standards to justify that view, it would be hard to hold the Standards at all.

This shows how embedded and interrelated is this systematic doctrine in reformed theology.

It's not at all a matter that infant baptism goes with paedo communion- not at all.

Baptism is for more than one purpose (e.g. adult profession of faith, and faith of a believer in covenant promises to their children).

The Lord's Supper requires a credible profession of faith, and self examination in light of that.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the one hand we believe baptism is to be administed to the children of believers and that a cognitive understanding of the sacrament is unnecessary for the infant baptized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is new to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? It's "new to you" that we baptize infants and that we don't require the infants baptized to understand the sacrament at the time of their baptism?
Click to expand...

 


Semper Fidelis said:


> I was just mentioning the other day to someone that Baptists consistently say that PC seems most logical but to be logical one would have to completely ignore the Reformed teaching on both Sacraments.



I misread your quote in conjunction with this first line. I read it like you were saying that Baptists thought it was logical and assumed by your comment that they practiced it. Sorry Rich.


----------



## au5t1n

I'll just point out the obvious: communion is a meal -- a meal that involves an alcoholic beverage, what's more. It may be a very small meal (I don't know how much was eaten in the early church). However, it is obvious to anyone with a brain that it wasn't intended for babies, but for someone *at least* old enough to consume a meal of bread and wine. That pragmatic point in and of itself shows that there is a separation between the intention of who would partake of communion and baptism (from a paedobaptist standpoint).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks. I was noting that many Baptists do claim that PC is the "logical end" of paedobaptism but then went on to point out that this is based on a misapprehension of our understanding of the nature of the Sacraments.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

austinww said:


> I'll just point out the obvious: communion is a meal -- a meal that involves an alcoholic beverage, what's more. It may be a very small meal (I don't know how much was eaten in the early church). However, it is obvious to anyone with a brain that it wasn't intended for babies, but for someone *at least* old enough to consume a meal of bread and wine. That pragmatic point in and of itself shows that there is a separation between the intention of who would partake of communion and baptism (from a paedobaptist standpoint).


 
It is a valid point but one might get around it by suggesting an infant could be forced to choke it down just as an infant, not yet on solids, could be forced to eat the bread.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I guess that is where intinction came in? Speaking of which, was there any dipping of the bread in the wine going on at PCA GA this year? 


Semper Fidelis said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just point out the obvious: communion is a meal -- a meal that involves an alcoholic beverage, what's more. It may be a very small meal (I don't know how much was eaten in the early church). However, it is obvious to anyone with a brain that it wasn't intended for babies, but for someone *at least* old enough to consume a meal of bread and wine. That pragmatic point in and of itself shows that there is a separation between the intention of who would partake of communion and baptism (from a paedobaptist standpoint).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a valid point but one might get around it by suggesting an infant could be forced to choke it down just as an infant, not yet on solids, could be forced to eat the bread.
Click to expand...


----------



## BenjaminBurton

I wasn't saying it is the logical end. Just as I said in my preface to the question, I'm working through the paedo stuff bit by bit. Maybe I'm still too Baptist for my own good but the initial response to my question didn't clarify much.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BenjaminBurton said:


> I wasn't saying it is the logical end. Just as I said in my preface to the question, I'm working through the paedo stuff bit by bit. Maybe I'm still too Baptist for my own good but the initial response to my question didn't clarify much.


 


BenjaminBurton said:


> As one still struggling through some of this paedo-doctrine, *it does in some ways seem like PC would be a logical end.*



You said that PC seems like the logical end did you not? I clarified that:
1. Baptism of infants does not require that the infants understand their baptism at the time of administration.
2. The Lord's Supper (a distinct Sacrament) requires understanding and discernment.
Conclusion: Paedocommunion is not "logical" given 1 and 2.

Was there something you wanted an answer to other than your stated issue that you were struggling with an apparent contradiction in practice?


----------



## BenjaminBurton

Nope, that's fine. Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

NaphtaliPress said:


> I guess that is where intinction came in? Speaking of which, was there any dipping of the bread in the wine going on at PCA GA this year?


No. I wasn't aware they celebrated it that way for any of the GA's. When did that happen?

I was actually among the Elders who helped administer the Sacrament on Tuesday evening.


----------



## Pilgrim

BenjaminBurton said:


> As one still struggling through some of this paedo-doctrine, it does in some ways seem like PC would be a logical end. I don't want to derail here, just wondering what the explanation against it is?



Answer: Yes. 

This was one of the primary (although not the only) considerations in my switch from Reformed paedobaptist views to Baptist views 3 years ago. While I don't agree with everything in the book, If I recall correctly Jeffrey Johnson's The Fatal Flaw makes this argument as well. Fred Malone makes the connection in "A String of Pearls Unstrung" and elsewhere. (That article is available on the Founders site.) I haven't read Gary Crampton's book that came out this year but I understand he makes the connection as well. I wonder if he was reading my postings from 2008? 

As I noted in my "Why I am Now a Baptist" thread and post here in 2008, I don't think it's any accident that a good many of the FV men, especially those in the CREC like Wilson, Booth and Strawbridge, are former Baptists (or were at least formerly baptistic) who seem to have accepted paedocommunion shortly after becoming paedobaptists, if not simultaneously. I think some of them if not all may have been connected to theonomy at some point. They don't seem to have been as interested in strict confessionalism as our friends here are and seem to have followed things to their logical conclusion. When I was first investigating paedobaptism, some of the FV men like Strawbridge and Horne were more persuasive to me than others because they seemed to deal with the biblical data in more detail compared to some other paedobaptists. But as I delved into it deeper I backed away from going that route after seeing the implications of paedocommunion and seeing 1 Cor. 11 as being insurmountable. in my opinion it doesn't matter whether "the body" spoken of is interpreted to be the body of the Lord in the ordinance or the body of Christ. Someone who is not a professing believer is incapable of discerning it either way.

Being somewhat strapped for time, I'll leave it to our paedobaptist brethren to give detailed explanations why they accept paedobaptism but reject paedocommunion. Beyond "The confessions say so and that's what the Reformed have always believed," part of it is 1 Cor 11 along with some other considerations. Another consideration for some is the question of whether or not the children partook of the Passover. If I recall correctly, you actually have men on both sides of the baptism issue who have differing views on whether they did or did not partake. 

We Baptists are thankful that our confessional Reformed paedobaptist brethren do not practice paedocommunion however inconsistent we may think that is. 

Paedocommunion seems to have been the universal practice in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches up until the High Middle Ages. The Romanists then abandoned that practice for various reasons. The teaching that infant communion is necessary was anathematized at the Council of Trent. The EO's continue to practice it to this day. That's probably one reason why a good many former Reformed church members who adopted FV views and thus were strongly committed to paedocommunion have gone the EO route instead of crossing the Tiber.


----------



## au5t1n

Chris, part of the reason FV proponents often used to be Baptists is because Baptists and FVers both define either the visible or invisible church in terms of the other, as opposed to the strong distinction between the two in Presbyterian ecclesiology. Baptists define the visible church in terms of the invisible -- the invisible is the focus and it becomes the basis for the visible. Sometimes a credobaptist decides he has neglected the visible church and, as a result, he becomes a paedobaptist (as I did). But if he keeps his Baptist tendency to confuse the distinction, he may end up swinging to the opposite (and more dangerous) error and define the invisible church in terms of the visible (Federal Vision). This is why a lot of FVers were Baptists before they were Presbyterians.

Visually, it looks like this:

Baptist (invisible determines the visible) ------------- Presbyterian (sharp visible/invisible distinction) -------------- Federal Vision (visible determines the invisible)


----------



## au5t1n

Semper Fidelis said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just point out the obvious: communion is a meal -- a meal that involves an alcoholic beverage, what's more. It may be a very small meal (I don't know how much was eaten in the early church). However, it is obvious to anyone with a brain that it wasn't intended for babies, but for someone *at least* old enough to consume a meal of bread and wine. That pragmatic point in and of itself shows that there is a separation between the intention of who would partake of communion and baptism (from a paedobaptist standpoint).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a valid point but one might get around it by suggesting an infant could be forced to choke it down just as an infant, not yet on solids, could be forced to eat the bread.
Click to expand...

 
True, but I think only the most desperate PC advocate could claim that shoving bread and wine down a newborn's throat is what Jesus intended. Most will concede that it is actually toddler communion, in which case they have given up the argument that PC is a necessary consequence of paedobaptism (because they have introduced a time delay that doesn't exist for paedobaptism) -- unless they want to argue that it is theologically necessary but pragmatically impossible or ridiculous.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> LBCF 26.3.	The purest churches under heaven are liable to be troubled by mixture and error, and some have so far degenerated as no longer to be churches of Christ at all, but 'synagogues of Satan'. Nevertheless, Christ always has had a kingdom in this world of such as believe in Him and profess His name, and He ever will have such a kingdom to the world's end.



Austin, 
The Particular Baptist recognized that the visible Church is liable to be troubled by mixture of elect and non-elect. 

Chris (Pilgrim) was a Baptist and became a very strong proponent for paedo-baptism for many years. He was also a moderator on this Forum. He is very well acquainted with arguments on both sides.

Chris,
I don't remember Crampton making this kind of argument in his book. It was more of discussion concerning the WCF in relation to baptism. It has been awhile since I read it and I gave mine away so I can't go look at it. I guess I will have to buy myself another copy.


----------



## au5t1n

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Austin,
> The Particular Baptist recognized that the visible Church is liable to be troubled by mixture of elect and non-elect.
> 
> Chris (Pilgrim) was a Baptist and became a very strong proponent for paedo-baptism for many years. He was also a moderator on this Forum. He is very well acquainted with arguments on both sides.



Thanks. I wasn't actually addressing arguments surrounding baptism, but pointing out why there is a pattern of Presbyterians who used to be Baptists becoming FV. Baptist ecclesiology and FV are polar opposites (notice they are opposite on my spectrum). It is hard to maintain the "middle ground" of Presbyterianism if one is used to regenerate church membership. That's all I was saying. I think I can speak on this because I am a Baptist-turned-Presbyterian, so I understand why FV (if one is not careful) can appeal to people with my transformation. I don't think a paedobaptist-turned-credobaptist (like Chris) is in any danger of becoming FV.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

austinww said:


> I don't think a paedobaptist-turned-credobaptist (like Chris) is in any danger of becoming FV.



Believe it or not there are FV Baptists. The Baptist who migrate toward it are more focused on the FV view of soteriology though and not the FV view of the sacraments. Federal Vision is a strange non-monolithic breed of mixed theology. It's views concerning Covenant and Sacramentalogy vary depending on what group and whom you are following.


----------



## fredtgreco

Paedocommunion is no more the "logical" end of paedobaptism than Arminianism is the "logical" end of the necessity of faith.


----------



## Matthew Tringali

Well, admittedly it is neither fair nor charitable to have this discussion when people with PC views are not allowed to be members of this board.


----------



## fredtgreco

Matthew Tringali said:


> Well, admittedly it is neither fair nor charitable to have this discussion when people with PC views are not allowed to be members of this board.


 
Is it fair or charitable to have a discussion about Arminianism? About sacerdotalism? About any other error?

Paedocommunion is a serious and dangerous error.


----------



## baron

I'm sorry but I am confused here. Do not all Presbyterian's have paedocommunion. The reason I ask is in the 1990 I started to attend a Reformed Presbyterian Church that was EP and they practiced paedocommunion. My wife did not like the idea and we talked to the pastor about it. In fact he even questioned us before they allowed us to partake of communion. My wife thought the little children were getting tipsy off the wine. But the explained to us that children could partake as long as they were baptized and being taught. Also the children in Israel were able to partake of the paschal lamb. So we stoped going there, due to paedocommunion. Then I was talking to other Presbyterian that practiced the same thing from other churches. So I assumed all Presbyterian churches practice this. Am I wrong?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Matthew Tringali said:


> Well, admittedly it is neither fair nor charitable to have this discussion when people with PC views are not allowed to be members of this board.



First off I am not sure you understand the nature of this Forum. We do allow people who do not fully subscribe to the Confessions to join. They need to list their reasons and make them known. We do not allow advocating unbiblical nor unconfessional positions. We do allow discussion to be had on this forum which discusses opposing views. So if you desire to ask questions concering what you consider to be a positive understanding of the PC position then go ahead and ask away.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Semper Fidelis said:


> No. I wasn't aware they celebrated it that way for any of the GA's. When did that happen?


Folks blogged about it and I thought it came up here; happened in the 2009 GA but I had thought it was mentioned as something that had been happening. Not sure now.
Blogging at the PCA General Assembly « Gairney Bridge


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

baron said:


> Am I wrong?



Yes, as a matter of fact, you are wrong.


----------



## Matthew Tringali

fredtgreco said:


> Matthew Tringali said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, admittedly it is neither fair nor charitable to have this discussion when people with PC views are not allowed to be members of this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair or charitable to have a discussion about Arminianism? About sacerdotalism? About any other error?
> 
> Paedocommunion is a serious and dangerous error.
Click to expand...

 
Fair question, my point is not to silence a discussion on any topic but merely to point out our own bias and thus, no, we are not going to have "fair nor charitable" discussions on any of those topics which these board members are required to hold a certain position.




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Matthew Tringali said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, admittedly it is neither fair nor charitable to have this discussion when people with PC views are not allowed to be members of this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off I am not sure you understand the nature of this Forum. We do allow people who do not fully subscribe to the Confessions to join. They need to list their reasons and make them known. We do not allow advocating unbiblical nor unconfessional positions. We do allow discussion to be had on this forum which discusses opposing views. So if you desire to ask questions concering what you consider to be a positive understanding of the PC position then go ahead and ask away.
Click to expand...

 
Interesting, thank you for the clarification, I have to admit that I did not think PC was a permitted exception here.


----------



## elnwood

Just an FYI into the discussion, the OPC formed a five-member committee to study paedobaptism back in 1987. The surprising result was that, despite the confessional nature of the OPC, three of the five members of the committee favored paedocommunion in their report. I don't think anything came of that though.

Report of the Committee on Paedocommunion


----------



## Matthew Tringali

elnwood said:


> Just an FYI into the discussion, the OPC formed a five-member committee to study paedobaptism back in 1987. The surprising result was that, despite the confessional nature of the OPC, three of the five members of the committee favored paedocommunion in their report. I don't think anything came of that though.
> 
> Report of the Committee on Paedocommunion


 
Of which, G.I. Williamson was one of the majority report authors. It is indeed an interesting piece of history for the OPC.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Matthew Tringali said:


> Of which, G.I. Williamson was one of the majority report authors. It is indeed an interesting piece of history for the OPC.


Someone has indicated G.I.'s views have changed. Can't remember where I saw that. Anyone confirm?


----------



## py3ak

Matthew Tringali said:


> Well, admittedly it is neither fair nor charitable to have this discussion when people with PC views are not allowed to be members of this board.



Admitted by whom? Charity is directed towards persons, not towards erroneous ideas.


----------



## Particular Baptist

austinww said:


> Chris, part of the reason FV proponents often used to be Baptists is because Baptists and FVers both define either the visible or invisible church in terms of the other, as opposed to the strong distinction between the two in Presbyterian ecclesiology. Baptists define the visible church in terms of the invisible -- the invisible is the focus and it becomes the basis for the visible. Sometimes a credobaptist decides he has neglected the visible church and, as a result, he becomes a paedobaptist (as I did). But if he keeps his Baptist tendency to confuse the distinction, he may end up swinging to the opposite (and more dangerous) error and define the invisible church in terms of the visible (Federal Vision). This is why a lot of FVers were Baptists before they were Presbyterians.
> 
> Visually, it looks like this:
> 
> Baptist (invisible determines the visible) ------------- Presbyterian (sharp visible/invisible distinction) -------------- Federal Vision (visible determines the invisible)



Credobaptist's do not neglect the visible church, in fact, we have a high view of the visible church. When we look at scripture, we see a vibrant, living, confessing, believing community made up of visible saints. We believe the visible church should be made up of visible saints who confess, believe, and act accordingly. This is where the difference between credobaptists and traditional Reformed folk disagree, visible sainthood. Without an emphasis on visible sainthood, and a church which is made up of those who do actually profess the faith in word and deed, we are left with a 'paper church', a church which on paper confesses and believes true doctrine but in reality does not pursue the ideal of a visible church of visible saints. Lloyd-Jones ardently fought against any understanding of the church as a 'paper church', because this is not what we find in scripture.

Also, I think this is a point which Doug Wilson and the other FVer's have the edge in the debate amongst paedobaptist's on the issue of paedocommunion and the federal vision in general. Doug Wilson is adamant that the only people who are to be baptized are those who are Christians. Therefore, infants must be considered Christians if they are to receive baptism, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Matthew Tringali

py3ak said:


> Matthew Tringali said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, admittedly it is neither fair nor charitable to have this discussion when people with PC views are not allowed to be members of this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admitted by whom? Charity is directed towards persons, not towards erroneous ideas.
Click to expand...

 
Sorry, did not mean to speak for anyone else... it is admitted by me. I do disagree with your premise though, just as you do with mine... But, all I mean to communicate is that we will inevitably not fairly represent the opposing viewpoint adequately, in my estimation. And as mentioned previously, this is true for a whole host of topics in this forum which is unashamedly biased to a large number of items. Thus, not a reason to silence the discussion, but we must be fair in admitting our bias and that (in my opinion) we will therefore not be fairly representing the opposing view.


----------



## Esther W.

elnwood said:


> Just an FYI into the discussion, the OPC formed a five-member committee to study paedobaptism back in 1987. The surprising result was that, despite the confessional nature of the OPC, three of the five members of the committee favored paedocommunion in their report. I don't think anything came of that though.
> 
> Report of the Committee on Paedocommunion



The committee formed at the 53rd GA found the following:

The report of the initial three member Committee was heard by the Fifty-third General Assembly. *The report itself contained a majority viewpoint in opposition* to paedocommunion and a minority perspective that advocated paedocommunion. The Assembly, however, was not prepared to endorse either viewpoint at that time. Instead, it called for further study by an augmented Committee that was instructed to address five basic topics. The present Committee's work, then, has centered on the five areas specified by the General Assembly.

At the 55th GA it was decided since no consensus could be found to adopt the following:



That the Assembly advise Kidane-Hiwot and the sessions of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church that the requirement of the Scriptures and our subordinate standards for meaningful participation in the Lord's Supper is not age, but a faith that confesses, discerns, remembers, and proclaims the body of Christ while partaking.
That the Assembly encourage the sessions to be more faithful in oversight of the flock of Jesus Christ, particularly the covenant children who are in truth members of the church.
That the Assembly request the presbyteries to study the implications of the doctrine of the covenant for the observance of the Lord's Supper, public profession of faith, and the assumption of full covenant responsibilities by young members, and to report to the 57th General Assembly with specific proposals, including grounds, if they conclude that changes in the subordinate standards are required.


----------



## Pilgrim

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I don't remember Crampton making this kind of argument in his book. It was more of discussion concerning the WCF in relation to baptism. It has been awhile since I read it and I gave mine away so I can't go look at it. I guess I will have to buy myself another copy.



If I'm not mistaken I saw that on a blog post that either mentioned the book briefly or reviewed it. But I can't recall which blog at the moment. Of course, bloggers have been known to be wrong from time to time. 

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------




elnwood said:


> Just an FYI into the discussion, the OPC formed a five-member committee to study paedobaptism back in 1987. The surprising result was that, despite the confessional nature of the OPC, three of the five members of the committee favored paedocommunion in their report. I don't think anything came of that though.
> 
> Report of the Committee on Paedocommunion



That was what the majority on that Study Cmte came up with. But study committees do not speak for the church. When there is a split on a committee like that, there will often be a majority report and a minority report submitted to the GA. The majority report on paedocommunion was not adopted by the GA. 

G.I. Williamson did favor paedocommunion. I saw an interview with him in the mid 2000's in which he was asked about it and he said he wouldn't discuss it out of respect for the stance of the OPC, etc. I haven't closely followed Presbyterian and especially OPC happenings in a number of years so I don't know whether or not he has changed his views on this issue.


----------



## Esther W.

Pilgrim said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember Crampton making this kind of argument in his book. It was more of discussion concerning the WCF in relation to baptism. It has been awhile since I read it and I gave mine away so I can't go look at it. I guess I will have to buy myself another copy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken I saw that on a blog post that either mentioned the book briefly or reviewed it. But I can't recall which blog at the moment. Of course, bloggers have been known to be wrong from time to time.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an FYI into the discussion, the OPC formed a five-member committee to study paedobaptism back in 1987. The surprising result was that, despite the confessional nature of the OPC, three of the five members of the committee favored paedocommunion in their report. I don't think anything came of that though.
> 
> Report of the Committee on Paedocommunion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was what the majority on that Study Cmte came up with. But study committees do not speak for the church. When there is a split on a committee like that, there will often be a majority report and a minority report submitted to the GA. The majority report on paedocommunion was not adopted by the GA.
> 
> G.I. Williamson did favor paedocommunion. I saw an interview with him in the mid 2000's in which he was asked about it and he said he wouldn't discuss it out of respect for the stance of the OPC, etc. I haven't closely followed Presbyterian and especially OPC happenings in a number of years so I don't know whether or not he has changed his views on this issue.
Click to expand...


The original study committee came out with the majority against padeo communion- then two subsequent minority reports were done with added members from the original 5, to argue from scripture, at an attempt to reach consensus- which no consensus was found.

Fore further reading:

*The 1988 Majority Report to the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Matthew Tringali said:


> we will therefore not be fairly representing the opposing view.



So do you honestly believe that an opposing view can't be honestly and fairly represented here? If that were true it would be worthless to listen to anyone concerning Jesus and deity if an an Arian wasn't in the room presenting his position. Is that what you are saying? Can someone honestly present a fair representation of another persons position in a critique and be honest, truthful, and fair and still be biased (or clinging solely to the truth)? 

I am a credo baptist but I honestly believe I can present the case for the paedo baptist position and be fair, honest, and truthful even though I am biased. And I would hope to do so and I believe I have done so quite a few times on this forum. My honesty, truthfulness, and fairness weren't influenced because I was interacting with paedo-baptists. My bias didn't make me misrepresent their position. 

Please do not infer this. Please think better of us here.


----------



## Matthew Tringali

I truly did not intend to derail an otherwise interesting thread with my own extended thoughts on bias. And my thoughts are not meant to in anyway be derogatory of anyone's good intentions to fairly represent an opposing viewpoint. And neither is it to say it is impossible. But rather simply trying to draw attention to the bias that will very clearly exist in this thread. I will just note that this thread is already on post #39 and no one yet has attempted to make the argument for BenjaminBurton as to why PC is the logical end of paedo-doctrine. Not to say that this argument is right or should be made. But pointing out that it has not been made is just one more example of the bias to which I was wishing to draw attention. So, that is not to say that any one of us are utterly incapable of approximating a fair assessment (although, that case could be made as well), but clearly none of us are even trying.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Matthew Tringali said:


> no one yet has attempted to make the argument for Benjamin Burton as to why PC is the logical end of paedo-doctrine.



Well, I think I said you could do this. We do that sort of thing around here often actually. Someone did link to the Fifty-fourth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church concerning this topic. It contained both the Majority and Minority Reports. You can also go back into many other searches and find discussions on this topic where it is argued for clarification in light of misunderstandings. 

In fact if you desire. I did link to this thread above which had a discussion on this topic. Exceptions Required to be Taken for Paedo-Communion The link above in my first post is blue. There are many more I am sure.


----------



## py3ak

Matthew Tringali said:


> Sorry, did not mean to speak for anyone else... it is admitted by me. I do disagree with your premise though, just as you do with mine... But, all I mean to communicate is that we will *inevitably* not fairly represent the opposing viewpoint adequately, in my estimation. And as mentioned previously, this is true for a whole host of topics in this forum which is unashamedly biased to a large number of items. Thus, not a reason to silence the discussion, but we must be fair in admitting our bias and that (in my opinion) *we will therefore not be fairly representing the opposing view.*



Why is this inevitable? It seems to presuppose that it is impossible to understand, or at least to speak accurately about, a position unless we agree with it; but that would be to put sympathy in the place of comprehension. But the views of opponents are often represented in holy writ, from the fool to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and circumcision party within the early church. Is it a misrepresentation that the fool says in his heart that there is no God? Is it a misrepresentation that the circumcision party insisted that without circumcision men could not be saved? Please reconsider your view that disagreement precludes correct understanding or accurate statement.


----------



## elnwood

Esther W. said:


> Fore further reading:
> 
> The 1988 Majority Report to the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church



This link is dead.


----------



## Esther W.

Matthew Tringali said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an FYI into the discussion, the OPC formed a five-member committee to study paedobaptism back in 1987. The surprising result was that, despite the confessional nature of the OPC, three of the five members of the committee favored paedocommunion in their report. I don't think anything came of that though.
> 
> Report of the Committee on Paedocommunion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of which, G.I. Williamson was one of the majority report authors. It is indeed an interesting piece of history for the OPC.
Click to expand...


I know this is like the 3rd time I posted this-but the original committee of 5 did not support paedo communion with a majority- the majority were against padeo communion. It is the nature of these committees not to be stacked with men for or against- but with men willing; dedicated; and determined; to argue for and against the matter before them from scripture. I have seen no evidence that G.I. Williamson personally subscribed to PC. The end of the matter was that no scriprural consensus could be reached for padeo communion or strictly speaking against it with regards to an "age" test. 

The position adopted at the 55th GA was:



That the Assembly advise Kidane-Hiwot and the sessions of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church that the requirement of the Scriptures and our subordinate standards for meaningful participation in the Lord's Supper is not age, but a faith that confesses, discerns, remembers, and proclaims the body of Christ while partaking.
That the Assembly encourage the sessions to be more faithful in oversight of the flock of Jesus Christ, particularly the covenant children who are in truth members of the church.
That the Assembly request the presbyteries to study the implications of the doctrine of the covenant for the observance of the Lord's Supper, public profession of faith, and the assumption of full covenant responsibilities by young members, and to report to the 57th General Assembly with specific proposals, including grounds, if they conclude that changes in the subordinate standards are required.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Matthew Tringali said:


> I will just note that this thread is already on post #39 and no one yet has attempted to make the argument for BenjaminBurton as to why PC is the logical end of paedo-doctrine.





BenjaminBurton said:


> I don't want to derail here, just wondering what the explanation against it is?



Another thing Matthew, Benjamin didn't ask for what you are implying.


----------



## Matthew Tringali

Martin and Ruben,

Thank you both for your thoughts. I will not plan on derailing this thread any further. Perhaps another time another thread will be started on the idea of "bias" and we can discuss it further. In the meantime, I appreciate your thoughts and will take them under advisement.

Esther, I am no OPC historian and am more than open to being corrected... but my understanding is that the original committee was three persons, not five... the majority was against PC, as you said. However, the GA was not prepared to recommend either and thus it went to another committee, this time five instead of three. The majority report from that committee did include G.I. Williamson and the text of that report can be found in full on Mark Hornes website. It would seem difficult to me to conclude that Williamson did not agree with the very report he signed which was very much in favor of PC. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that Williamson may have since changed his mind, I would be curious to know if that is true.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Joshua said:


> What this thread needs is some Kumbaya love.


 
I'll bring the guitar, you start the campfire.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I been scouring around a bit. This was thought provoking from this thread of about 4 years ago. http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/paedocommunion-pca-25117/



wsw201 said:


> One thing that I find disturbing about having very young children becoming communing members is that parents as well as Session seem to forget that the child will also be entering into a Covenant with Christ's Church. The child will be required to make vows with God Almighty as the child's witness. Can a 6-7-8 year old really "pay his vows"? All parents and Sessions should read and re-read the chapter on Oaths and Vows in the WCF before considering putting their child in that position.



Great thought and question Wayne.


----------



## Pilgrim

PuritanCovenanter said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a paedobaptist-turned-credobaptist (like Chris) is in any danger of becoming FV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not there are FV Baptists. The Baptist who migrate toward it are more focused on the FV view of soteriology though and not the FV view of the sacraments. Federal Vision is a strange non-monolithic breed of mixed theology. It's views concerning Covenant and Sacramentalogy vary depending on what group and whom you are following.
Click to expand...


This is kind of a bunny trail from the OP. We may need to start a new thread on "FV Baptists" if what you're thinking of is different than what I'm thinking of. (If not, this has been dealt with here several times before, some aspects of it relatively recently.) Some of the hard-core home school only and hard core Family Integrated people could be said to have FV tendencies in that if and when they go paedobaptist they sometimes tend to identify with the FV or something similar. To avoid misunderstanding, when I say hard core homeschool and FIC, what I have in mind is people who assert that you are sinning if you don't homeschool and if you allow for any kind of age segregation in any context. (I think HSing may be the best option in many situations and lean heavily toward what some may call FIC but wouldn't say someone is sinning if they do otherwise.) From what I understand, in these circles, it's not uncommon to have the heads of household administering the ordinances to their family instead of the elders. I know of a church that was in my area that met that description but I don't know how widespread it is. 

I can think of at least one former member of this board who went from being- baptistic-->FV (with maybe a brief more confessional interlude preceding)-->Charismatic Anglican-->Eastern Orthodox. I don't know which came first, but he was very dogmatic on the homeschooling and perhaps FIC issues. But I don't know that he had what you call FV views on soteriology when he was baptistic. 

I wouldn't consider them FV Baptists since to me the FV necessarily seems to entail paedobaptism, etc. I know of some Baptist academics who have a view of perseverance and assurance that seems to be barely distinguishable from Norman Shepherd's. That's related to some issues with the FV but isn't necessarily the same. I'm guessing that this may be the kind of thing that you refer to with regard to soteriology. But delving into that in any detail would involve a lot more time than I have to invest right now. Maybe it could be dealt with later.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> BenjaminBurton said:
> 
> 
> 
> As one still struggling through some of this paedo-doctrine, it does in some ways seem like PC would be a logical end. I don't want to derail here, just wondering what the explanation against it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: Yes.
> 
> This was one of the primary (although not the only) considerations in my switch from Reformed paedobaptist views to Baptist views 3 years ago. While I don't agree with everything in the book, If I recall correctly Jeffrey Johnson's The Fatal Flaw makes this argument as well. Fred Malone makes the connection in "A String of Pearls Unstrung" and elsewhere. (That article is available on the Founders site.) I haven't read Gary Crampton's book that came out this year but I understand he makes the connection as well. I wonder if he was reading my postings from 2008?
> 
> As I noted in my "Why I am Now a Baptist" thread and post here in 2008, I don't think it's any accident that a good many of the FV men, especially those in the CREC like Wilson, Booth and Strawbridge, are former Baptists (or were at least formerly baptistic) who seem to have accepted paedocommunion shortly after becoming paedobaptists, if not simultaneously. I think some of them if not all may have been connected to theonomy at some point. They don't seem to have been as interested in strict confessionalism as our friends here are and seem to have followed things to their logical conclusion. When I was first investigating paedobaptism, some of the FV men like Strawbridge and Horne were more persuasive to me than others because they seemed to deal with the biblical data in more detail compared to some other paedobaptists. But as I delved into it deeper I backed away from going that route after seeing the implications of paedocommunion and seeing 1 Cor. 11 as being insurmountable. in my opinion it doesn't matter whether "the body" spoken of is interpreted to be the body of the Lord in the ordinance or the body of Christ. Someone who is not a professing believer is incapable of discerning it either way.
> 
> Being somewhat strapped for time, I'll leave it to our paedobaptist brethren to give detailed explanations why they accept paedobaptism but reject paedocommunion. Beyond "The confessions say so and that's what the Reformed have always believed," part of it is 1 Cor 11 along with some other considerations. Another consideration for some is the question of whether or not the children partook of the Passover. If I recall correctly, you actually have men on both sides of the baptism issue who have differing views on whether they did or did not partake.
> 
> We Baptists are thankful that our confessional Reformed paedobaptist brethren do not practice paedocommunion however inconsistent we may think that is.
> 
> Paedocommunion seems to have been the universal practice in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches up until the High Middle Ages. The Romanists then abandoned that practice for various reasons. The teaching that infant communion is necessary was anathematized at the Council of Trent. The EO's continue to practice it to this day. That's probably one reason why a good many former Reformed church members who adopted FV views and thus were strongly committed to paedocommunion have gone the EO route instead of crossing the Tiber.
Click to expand...

 
I noticed you gave no Biblical arguments for the administration of the Lord's Supper for those who can neither discern the Lord's Body nor self-examine. Would you like to offer some as you simply _assert_ that there are arguments but make none. As a committed Baptist, how can you claim that there is a logical bridge to PC if you, yourself, are unconvinced of any Scriptural warrant for the practice of the Lord's Supper by any who have no understanding of it? The fact that former Baptists turned paedobaptists turned FV proves only that there are unstable men in the world and nothing about what the Scriptures teach. 

Furthermore, I did not present a "Confession says so" to the practice and neither does the Confession itself. It quotes 1 Corinthians (and other passages) for the institution and administration of the Sacrament. It is facile and disingenuous to assert that the Reformed hold the position simply because they can't argue beyond their Confessional standards to the Scriptures that undergird them. In fact, I would argue, your _agreement_ with a Presbyterian on the proper subjects for the Lord's Supper _proves_ the point that you believe there is more to this argument. You can argue all day long about whether you disagree who the proper subjects of _Baptism_ are but it seems quite silly to argue that a Presbyterian has no basis for insisting that admission to the Table requires no discernment.

As far as the historical claim, your assertion is inaccurate. I refer you to Rev. Winzer's True History of Paedocommunion in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Particular Baptist said:


> Also, I think this is a point which Doug Wilson and the other FVer's have the edge in the debate amongst paedobaptist's on the issue of paedocommunion and the federal vision in general. Doug Wilson is adamant that the only people who are to be baptized are those who are Christians. Therefore, infants must be considered Christians if they are to receive baptism, at least in my opinion.


 
I'm sorry but you are using some sort of logical argument here that I'm apparently incapable of following. Can you please spell out the compelling argument that is made for PC by Wilson that gives him an "edge"?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Matthew Tringali said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Tringali said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, admittedly it is neither fair nor charitable to have this discussion when people with PC views are not allowed to be members of this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admitted by whom? Charity is directed towards persons, not towards erroneous ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, did not mean to speak for anyone else... it is admitted by me. I do disagree with your premise though, just as you do with mine... But, all I mean to communicate is that we will inevitably not fairly represent the opposing viewpoint adequately, in my estimation. And as mentioned previously, this is true for a whole host of topics in this forum which is unashamedly biased to a large number of items. Thus, not a reason to silence the discussion, but we must be fair in admitting our bias and that (in my opinion) we will therefore not be fairly representing the opposing view.
Click to expand...

 
Does your post expose your bias or others? The question is whether PC is the logical end of paedobaptists. Our Confessional understanding is not driven by a postmodern approach to documents. In order to be a paedocommunionist, one has to take at least 20 exceptions to the WCF. I'm well aware and can speak to the arguments for PC. That's not the question. The question is whether PC is the logical end of PB. It is not.

In order for the PC case to be compelling, one has to accept their arguments from _Scripture_ (not history and, BTW, as noted this is weak). The Scriptural warrant appealing to the practice of the Passover is, itself, weak. I've dealt with that argument before on the PB but not every argument needs to be re-presented.

The bottom line is that _I DON'T HAVE TO REPRESENT EVERY VIEW IN ORDER TO ANSWER A QUESTION_. The question was whether PC is the logical end of PB. I don't have to represent every PB view in order to make a Scriptural case for the Confessional PB view. I merely have to demonstrate the reason why the Confessions do not admit small children to the Lord's Table to show that, in the administration of the Sacrament, there is a difference in participants and the requirements of the participants.


----------



## Mushroom

baron said:


> So I assumed all Presbyterian churches practice this. Am I wrong?



John, a very small minority of Presbnyterians practice PC. As indicated by the intensity of this thread, it is a very controversial subject.

I struggled with PC some years ago, maybe because I had been edified by some of Wilson's books prior to his leap in that direction, but his further descent into FV gave me pause, and thankfully the Lord restrained any further travel along that path. I'm no theologian, and in fact the one most convincing argument against it came from a brother, who is also not so theologically astute and makes no claim to be, when he made the point that the pertinent distinction between the two sacraments is that baptism in all biblical cases is an act is *done to* individuals, while communion is something that individuals *do*, with warnings attached. That distinction helped me to back away from the precipice, and further study and prayer cemented my abandonment of thoughts that direction. The second requires a volitional element that infants are incapable of carrying out.


----------



## Peairtach

If we're looking at the continuation of covenantal administrative principles from the Old Testament period, paedocommunion would only follow if there was the paedo-Passover in the Old Testamen i.e. that children were made to eat the Passover as soon as they could masticate.

But according to the Passover rules only adult males were required to go to Jerusalem, and there were various things e.g. ritual uncleanness that would have kept them from partaking of the Passover.

The Passover acted as the inner door respecting covenant administration, which could be closed or opened to covenant members depending on various conditions, whereas circumcision was the outer door. 

The same is true of baptism and the Lord's Supper today. Even in Baptist churches you aren't automatically entitiled to take the Lord's Supper merely because you are baptised. You have to examine yourself, and you may decide that you shouldn't take it because of some unconfessed sin or some problem between you and a brother. 

The session has a duty to prevent you taking it if they hear you've been up to certain things.

Baptism is to be administered on a credible profession of faith, whereas the Lord's Supper is to be administered on an accredited profession of faith.


----------



## Scott1

Brad said:


> the pertinent distinction between the two sacraments is that baptism in all biblical cases is an act is done to individuals, while communion is something that individuals do, with warnings attached





Richard Tallach said:


> If we're looking at the continuation of covenantal administrative principles from the Old Testament period, paedocommunion would only follow if there was the paedo-Passover in the Old Testamen i.e. that children were made to eat the Passover as soon as they could masticate.
> 
> But according to the Passover rules only adult males were required to go to Jerusalem, and there were various things e.g. ritual uncleanness that would have kept them from partaking of the Passover.



As the "thanks" button is on hiatus today, let this serve as a workaround for these helpful posts.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> I noticed you gave no Biblical arguments for the administration of the Lord's Supper for those who can neither discern the Lord's Body nor self-examine. Would you like to offer some as you simply _assert_ that there are arguments but make none. As a committed Baptist, how can you claim that there is a logical bridge to PC if you, yourself, are unconvinced of any Scriptural warrant for the practice of the Lord's Supper by any who have no understanding of it? The fact that former Baptists turned paedobaptists turned FV proves only that there are unstable men in the world and nothing about what the Scriptures teach.



Where do you read me as asserting that there are Biblical arguments for paedocommunion? (Or is there perhaps a typo somewhere in your post?) The arguments I was referring to from Strawbridge et al were their arguments for paedobaptism, not paedocommunion. Before the FV blew up, their articles were linked on the Monergism site, which was one of my main resources for finding info on the web when initially researching paedobaptism. (The links to such FV teachers were still on there for a considerable time afterwards if some of them are not still there.) 

I clearly state that I can't find any valid scriptural arguments for paedocommunion and that the arguments advanced by the paedocommunion advocates in my opinion do not adequately address 1 Cor. 11 and the need to self-examine and discern the Lord's body. I was primarily responding to the logic issue and agreeing with the OP that in my opinion he is not necessarily off base in that regard. (But he should investigate things thoroughly and seek to learn from Reformed paedobaptists themselves the reasoning behind confessional paedobaptist beliefs and practice, which is what he appears to be doing.) 

The paedocommunion advocates are taking the idea of "covenant children" or infant church membership (all Reformed paedobaptists hold to infant church membership/covenant children, albeit in a noncommunicant sense) and in their minds are following it to its logical conclusion, albeit in my opinion twisting 1 Cor. 11 along the way. As I've stated numerous times previously, I along with all other Baptists see no scriptural warrant for different standards of admission to baptism and the Lord's Supper and my comments should be read in that light. The paedocommunion folks agree, although their consistency in that regard is in my opinion a far graver error than the paedobaptism of the confessional Reformed. 

After just now having read the OP again, in retrospect it might have been better for me not to have posted in this thread at all since it appears that he was looking for paedobaptist responses in particular. Although this is related to the FV (even though not all who favor paedocommunion are FV) it might have been better for him to have posted it in the paedobaptism answers forum to avoid getting sidetracked. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> Furthermore, I did not present a "Confession says so" to the practice and neither does the Confession itself. It quotes 1 Corinthians (and other passages) for the institution and administration of the Sacrament. It is facile and disingenuous to assert that the Reformed hold the position simply because they can't argue beyond their Confessional standards to the Scriptures that undergird them. In fact, I would argue, your _agreement_ with a Presbyterian on the proper subjects for the Lord's Supper _proves_ the point that you believe there is more to this argument. You can argue all day long about whether you disagree who the proper subjects of _Baptism_ are but it seems quite silly to argue that a Presbyterian has no basis for insisting that admission to the Table requires no discernment.



I didn't state that you did argue that "the confession says so." I was responding to the OP specifically. I made no reference in my initial post to any of the responses in this thread and I was not responding to anything contained therein. Since so many posts had already been made, I suppose it isn't entirely unreasonable to assume that a poster who comes in at post #15 or #20 has read them all. That being said, the way I tend to read threads is that if my post isn't quoted or if I'm not called out by name or if the gist of my argument isn't responded to in a later response, then I don't assume that my post is being responded to. But perhaps others approach it differently. 

I have known ordained officers who basically have argued that it (whether in regard to this or some other issue) is not practiced because the confession says so and because we've never done it that way. (It goes without saying that "We've never done it that way" happens in churches of all stripes.) Obviously that's not acceptable no matter which side of the fence you're on with regard to baptism. And I don't expect that any of the paedobaptists here would give that kind of answer, especially none that have been here for any length of time, particularly officers. In that light, that comment of mine wasn't particularly helpful within the specific context of the PB. That being said, I think when read as a whole the post was clear enough. The reader will judge whether "facile and disingenuous" is an accurate representation of what I posted. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> As far as the historical claim, your assertion is inaccurate. I refer you to Rev. Winzer's True History of Paedocommunion in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal.



Thanks for the reminder about that article. Wasn't it previously available online? If so, it doesn't appear to be now. 

Either way, I stated that the practice "seems to have been" which indicates that the practice _may_ not have been universal and that I was basing it on what I've read at various points in the past. There seems to have been more diversity within Romanism the further back you go, and there were other groups like the Celts who were not under direct authority for a considerable length of time. 

"Seems to have been" also indicates that my knowledge of the issue is not exhaustive and that I am open to correction. I am basing it largely off of secondary sources that I've read, both paedo and credo. Basing one's understanding off of secondary sources can be dangerous because they sometimes just repeat what someone older standard account has said whether true or false. All histories have their limitations with regard to the knowledge available and the interpretation thereof but we should strive to be accurate with the information. "Revisionist history" in that regard isn't always necessarily a bad thing. As I stated in a recent post, best to get it straight from the horse's mouth on this issue and others of varying degrees of orthodoxy or heresy like the baptism debate, dispensationalism, Romanism, some cult, etc.


----------



## MW

BenjaminBurton said:


> As one still struggling through some of this paedo-doctrine, it does in some ways seem like PC would be a logical end. I don't want to derail here, just wondering what the explanation against it is?


 
From an antipaedobaptist perspective, which regards both sacraments as functioning in much the same way, the logical end of paedobaptism is paedocommunion. This reveals something about the logic of paedocommunion. Ironically, it is nothing more than logical consistency to antipaeodbaptist thought which drives the practice. I say it is irony because the paedocommunionist often charges non paedocommunionists with Anabaptist inconsistency.

The flaw in the logical process is seen in the fact that "two sacraments" is a systematic rather than exegetical category of thought. There is nothing in Scripture itself which binds the two practices together as if they must be treated as functioning in the same way. In the great commission, for example, baptism clearly serves as an introduction to discipleship, whereas the Lord's supper would be included in the "all things" whatsoever Jesus has commanded, which are a part of the ongoing process of discipleship. The two are obviously serving two distinct functions so far as the nature of discipleship is concerned.

The dogmatic teaching of "sacraments" serves the purpose of showing us that there are two -- and only two -- specific rites which serve a symbolic function in the life of every Christian. That is where the connection begins and ends. These two rites serve quite distinct purposes and ought not to be conflated as if the regulations governing the one must be imposed upon the other.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> Where do you read me as asserting that there are Biblical arguments for paedocommunion? (Or is there perhaps a typo somewhere in your post?) The arguments I was referring to from Strawbridge et al were their arguments for paedobaptism, not paedocommunion.





Pilgrim said:


> BenjaminBurton said:
> 
> 
> 
> As one still struggling through some of this paedo-doctrine, it does in some ways seem like PC would be a logical end. I don't want to derail here, just wondering what the explanation against it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: Yes.
> 
> This was one of the primary (although not the only) considerations in my switch from Reformed paedobaptist views to Baptist views 3 years ago.
Click to expand...


The OP asked whether PC is the logical end of PB and you answered as above. You then provided no logical connecting points to this assertion. I asked the question about giving a Scriptural warrant _for_ the administration of the Lord's Supper to small children as you had (apparently?) asserted that PC was the logical end of PB. I wanted to know, therefore, how you arrived at a Scriptural argument for the practice on the basis of a Reformed hermeneutic. Perhaps you misunderstood the OP and the discussion but I found the comment snarky to assert that PC is the logical end of PB and then provide no more than an assertion toward that end.


----------



## proregno

The paedocommunion.com website says that RC Sproul also favors PC. Did not know that, can someone confirm this ? Thanks.

---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 PM ----------

OK, I see now it is RC Sproul 'JR', not RC Sproul 'SR'.


----------



## Scott1

RC Sproul does NOT advocate paedocommunion.

His son, RC Jr, who is in the CREC does.

The website lists GI Williamson as "co-authoring" a denominational majority report favoring it. This was true (a long, long time ago). What the excerpt does not tell you is that that report was overwhelmingly rejected.

It would be a misrepresentation to say he advocates that view now- he does not, nor does he teach it.

There are other problems with the list-

Mr. Wilkins and his church have not been PCA since the day before his discipline trial, in 2009.


----------



## Matthew Tringali

Scott1 said:


> GI Williamson...
> 
> It would be a misrepresentation to say he advocates that view now- he does not, nor does he teach it.



What is the deal with Williamson... are you saying he no longer believes in the view (or that he simply does not promote or teach it)? What information do we have about Williamson as to his thoughts on this since he co-authored that report?

Thanks!


----------



## Esther W.

Matthew Tringali said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> GI Williamson...
> 
> It would be a misrepresentation to say he advocates that view now- he does not, nor does he teach it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the deal with Williamson... are you saying he no longer believes in the view (or that he simply does not promote or teach it)? What information do we have about Williamson as to his thoughts on this since he co-authored that report?
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...



He was a committee member, that is not equal to being a paedocommunion advocate- it may have been assigned to him to argue for paedocommunion- as it was assigned another to be anti paedocommunion in formulating their arguments. It is the role of men appointed to committee's to argue for and against, from scripture-period. The result of these particular reports, was that no consensus could be found <from scripture>, though the majority found <from scripture> that paedocommunion was not supported- Because a consensus could not be reached on all that the scriptures spoke, they settle on what consensus could be agreed on <basically no age test>


----------



## Contra_Mundum

from G.I. Williamson, Editorial, _Ordained Servant,_ 12:4 (Oct.2003), p.i. http://opc.org/OS/pdf/OSV12N4.pdf


> Some years ago I was asked to serve on a committee appointed by our General Assembly to study the subject of paedocommunion. This I did with the conviction that it was my duty to come back to the Assembly with an honest statement of the results of my study. In this instance I came to the tentative conclusion that the arguments for paedocommunion were cogent, and that the arguments against paedocommunion were weak. I therefore helped to write a majority report that recommended that our standards be changed to allow for this practice. The General Assembly did not act favorably on our recommendations. And by that very fact it, in effect, asserted the continuing authority of our present standards. *It is for this reason that I have steadfastly declined to requests that I have received to write, or even speak, publicly (I mean outside the official assemblies of the church) on this issue.* Some have not understood this. But my reason is quite simple: though I still think we need better arguments for the status quo than any I have seen, I am bound by my own subscription vows to honor the official standards of the church. And that is the way I want it. *I do not want other ministers of the church to preach or teach things publicly that are contrary to our official doctrinal standards.* If they are right, and the church’s standards are wrong, I want them to prove it by due process in the assemblies of the church, so that our subordinate standards are changed. I want them to come to their fellow ministers and elders (who are jointly responsible to maintain the church as the pillar and ground of the truth) with such cogent arguments for their position that we are finally constrained to make the changes they want. *And since I want others to do that for the sake of the church’s unity and integrity I believe it is my duty to do it as well.*



I don't know if any more recent publications have had any effect on GIW's views. But he did not, and does not teach P-C, by his own statements, though he may hold them as private conviction.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Matthew Tringali

Thank you Rev. Buchanan, that is very helpful and immensely admirable on the part of Williamson.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott1

What we have is dubious credibility of the cited web site in appropriating support of its cause.

And, the longstanding integrity and faithfulness of great men of God, the esteemed author of _the Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes_ (which holds faithfully the Confession's examined participation view) being chief among them.


----------



## Peairtach

Scott1 said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> the pertinent distinction between the two sacraments is that baptism in all biblical cases is an act is done to individuals, while communion is something that individuals do, with warnings attached
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we're looking at the continuation of covenantal administrative principles from the Old Testament period, paedocommunion would only follow if there was the paedo-Passover in the Old Testamen i.e. that children were made to eat the Passover as soon as they could masticate.
> 
> But according to the Passover rules only adult males were required to go to Jerusalem, and there were various things e.g. ritual uncleanness that would have kept them from partaking of the Passover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the "thanks" button is on hiatus today, let this serve as a workaround for these helpful posts.
Click to expand...


There was no "automatic right" to partake of the Passover just because you had been circumcised, although if you were a male you were supposed to be circumcised before 
you took your first Passover.

There is no "automatic right" to partake of the Lord's Supper just because you have been baptised, although you are supposed to be baptised before your first Lord's Supper.


----------



## Scott1

In deference to those who know more about OPC polity and process, I want to be careful in saying my understanding comes from reading the report and its history on the OPC website, some of the posted information, and some anecdotal evidence, also some comparison with the PCA.

Study committees have some use, especially in relatively unknown areas or applications to new situations. They can provide valuable reference material for those particularly. But they do not settle (and are not the mechanism for) strongly divided opinion- not in a confessional denomination.

I don't think they are a suitable or peaceable way to merely allow different views "to be heard." Truth is based on more than that kind of competition.

In this case, the OPC never (through General Assembly) adopted a report. 

So there was not even an "en thesis" opinion of the Assembly at that point in time.

Second, the report was substantially divided, lessening whatever import it might have. E.g. When the PCA adopted its "federal vision" report, the committee was unanimous and the General Assembly receipt was (charitably) recorded as "about ninety percent" in favor.

Third, the adopted position by a subsequent General Assembly clearly affirmed the traditional view, the practiced view of the denomination since its founding, and repudiated paedocommunion.

Fourth, one committee member who had a contrary view at that time, has been able to in good conscience admit it as not being that of the confession, not teach or advocate the contrary view. Rather to teach the confession view (for a long time).

The fact that one or two members of a study committee at a certain point in time had a different view is of very little significance to supporting the belief itself.

It says more about the limitations of "study committees" than anything else.


----------

