# CRC Weighs In on Paedocommunion



## Pilgrim (Jun 16, 2006)

http://www.crcna.org/pages/synodnews_08.cfm

Invite Children to Lord´s Supper, Synod Says
June 16, 2006, Grand Rapids, Mich. "“ Baptized children are part of God´s family and should be invited to take part in the Lord´s Supper, Synod 2006 declared. 

Synod instructed the Board of Trustees to appoint a task force to study the best way to include children in this sacrament. Because this would require changes to the Church Order, it will take at least two years, and the concurrence of two more synods, to implement.

Opening communion to all baptized members is not a denial of the need for a profession of faith, synod said, but is "œa healthier understanding that such faith is expressed in many ways and at many levels "¦ and not only through a verbal affirmation of beliefs."

It said this is consistent with the Christian Reformed Church´s covenant theology.

Synod also encouraged its agencies and institutions to work together to implement the objectives of the CRC´s denominational ministry plan.

Synod 2006 adjourned at noon.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 16, 2006)

I wonder which homosexual ministers voted for this?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 16, 2006)




----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 16, 2006)

Further evidence of the continued slide of the CRC into liberalism.

(Yes, paedocommunion is a form of liberalism)


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Further evidence of the continued slide of the CRC into liberalism.
> 
> (Yes, paedocommunion is a form of liberalism)



I would think it tends to lead to the kind of nominalism that I grew up with in a liberal church. 

If the primary ground of our assurance is to be our participation in the sacraments and means of grace (as the FV seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong), then that's no better than the revivalistic OSAS types who trust in their decision and the prayer that followed, or their walk down the aisle.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I wonder which homosexual ministers voted for this?



My guess is all of them!


----------



## beej6 (Jun 16, 2006)

Do the CRC practice weekly communion?


----------



## SmokingFlax (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:

"I wonder which homosexual ministers voted for this? "

That's pretty funny.
What does CRC stand for?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SmokingFlax_
> Quote:
> 
> "I wonder which homosexual ministers voted for this? "
> ...



Christian Reformed Church, once home to such worthies as Louis Berkhof, R.B. Kuiper, etc.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 17, 2006)

Has the CRC fallen so far so rapidly as to now allow homosexual ministers? I know they allowed women about 20 years ago. One one seems to follow the other, but I had not heard much controversy over homosexual ministers in the CRC, but I haven't been paying very close attention either.


----------



## CharlesG (Sep 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Further evidence of the continued slide of the CRC into liberalism.
> 
> (Yes, paedocommunion is a form of liberalism)



R.C. Sproule holds to this view, but I don't consider him to be liberal. 

The two main objections are the need for 'rememberance' or 'worthiness'. 

Examination refers to later knowledge. Knowledge we obtain as a Christian is progressive and is a by-product of sovereign grace over time. We do not ever gain full knowledge of anything (seeing a glass darkly, etc.). The Bible states that, '...I believe that I may know'. We are also told to 'grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord..'. We act and then we learn later. If these two coincide, then great! Examination refers to the context which involves drunkedness and causing schism or division in the church. I haven't met many babies or small children that form 'clicks' and cause divisions; nor any that came drunk to the table.

Another 'biggie' is the term, 'rememberance'. This simply ties to other Covenant feasts, as the entire meal is offered to the Lord as a memorial. The act itself is the memorial or 'rememberance' of His death acted out in a dramatic format. It states in Paul's letter that, 'we do show forth the Lord's death...'. This summarizes the fact that this entire service is primarily one unto the Lord, not primarily personal (The one and many problem of philosophy). There is no subjective introspection here, as how can we remember His death if we weren't there? Do we conjure up a movie scene or some imaginary characters at a crucifixion? What does Christ look like? I think the view of internal evaluation is the result of rationalism and individualism that has infiltrated the modern churches. 

www.paedocommunion.com

Regards,

Charles

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by CharlesG]


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Sep 2, 2006)

Sproul Jr.....Not Sr.

Let's make sure we get this correct...


----------



## CharlesG (Sep 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I wonder which homosexual ministers voted for this?



One has to watch guilt by association an non-sequitor arguments. One does not necessarily follow the other. Paedocommunion has a large church history and many present Reformed scholars hold to this position. 

Regards,

Charles Gillihan


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Further evidence of the continued slide of the CRC into liberalism.
> 
> (Yes, paedocommunion is a form of liberalism)





We attended a CRC between 1986 and 1988. Having grown up in what is now PC (USA), having read Ned Stonehouse's biography of Machen, and observing what was going on the CRC when we were there, the impression I got was that the CRC was basically on a fast-track to catch up to PC (USA).


----------



## Ambrose (Sep 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I wonder which homosexual ministers voted for this?



Uncalled for.


----------



## Peter (Sep 2, 2006)

uninspired hymnody ---> female ministers ---> paedocommunion


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Uninspired hymnody? That's your interpretative issue.

Female ministers? Aren't we all ministers?

Paedo-communion? Though it would take much work for me to believe in this, it isn't a result of the other two things. Were their female ministers in the Early RC Church (which practiced paedo-communion)?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Chad Degenhart_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I disagree.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Chad Degenhart_
> ...



In the spirit of those who like to challenge me to defend my beliefs, can you back that up?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Can I back my disagreement up? Yes. It is my opinion, therefore, I disagree with opinions that contradict it.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Well, since you have no interest in discussion but only wish to be a smart-aleck, I will have to exist this discussion. I'm not as "smart" as you.:bigsmile:


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Well, since you have no interest in discussion but only wish to be a smart-aleck, I will have to exist this discussion. I'm not as "smart" as you.:bigsmile:



I don't see how any discussion of my opinion is needed, but I will graciously ignore your insults and extend the hand of fellowship to you further. Peace be with you, brother.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

You don't have to ignore any insults. You were being sarcastic towards me. I only returned the favour. My wrong.

However, if you don't have to back up your opinions then people can get off my case about backing up my opinions. That's my opinion. Peace.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Uninspired hymnody? That's your interpretative issue.



Most likely he means "noncanonical hymnody" - as opposed to "canonical hymnody", the canon being Scripture. We know that the Psalms constitute canonical hymnody. Assuming that to be the case, I agree with Peter. What the Psalmists wrote was God-breathed. Isaac Watts, the Wesleys, and Fanny Crosby, for example, wrote noncanonical hymns. 



> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Female ministers? Aren't we all ministers?



Well, no. I base this reply on the assumption that Peter is talking "ministers of the gospel" and that you are using the term "minister" the same way he is. Peter´s right.

"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" (Ephesians 4:8-12; please compare Psalm 68:17-20). Also compare Titus 1:7-11 and I Timothy 3:1-7 and consider OT and NT practice as far as officers in the church. 



> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> Paedo-communion? Though it would take much work for me to believe in this, it isn't a result of the other two things. Were their female ministers in the Early RC Church (which practiced paedo-communion)?



True, paedo-communion is nonsense. Peter is not suggesting a logical path so much as an observation similar to what many of us have seen or even experienced. A once-faithful church leaves its Scriptural moorings by introducing error. The downslide of the church becomes increasingly evident as error continues to be added after error.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> You don't have to ignore any insults. You were being sarcastic towards me. I only returned the favour. My wrong.
> 
> However, if you don't have to back up your opinions then people can get off my case about backing up my opinions. That's my opinion. Peace.



I have honestly read some of your posts and realized that these guys keep you here to make Baptists look rediculous. I am being honest. You ought to read more books on the stuff you want to comment on before you post anything. I am not trying to be mean. You'ld do well to ask more questions than give comments. 

As for Gabe. He is only stating the logical conclusion with Hyperbole. Have you ever heard of hyperbole? These people are forsaking their moorings. The PCUSA has done the same thing.

[Edited on 9-4-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



Oh by the way, I've posted from sources on here. I've used the LBCF. You'd do well to read it and understand it before you comment on anything..mr.covenanter sir.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Jay, when I asked if we were all ministers I knew perfectly well what you were going to say. I was being facetious...let's hope mr.covenanter sir knows what THAT means. Yes, mr.covenanter sir, I am being mean this time.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

by the way mr.covenanter sir, do not attempt to insult me unless you want to spell correctly when you are doing so. You'd carry a bit more credibility in my book. You wouldn't appear so "ridiculous". Spell it right or don't say anything at all.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2006)

Brian,
Think about what I said. You can call me PC if you want. I admit I wasn't very gracious. Maybe even tired. I apologize. But still consider what I am saying. I want you to look good and be correct. And I want you to Love the Lord with all of your heart. 

Be Encouraged.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Thank you Martin. I am sorry. 

I never felt more unwanted on a site though. If that is the reason I am allowed here then I will leave. Someone can disagree with me, that is fine. But they don't have to insult me or call me ridiculous. 

I don't understand what you were upset about though. I only asked the guy to back up his opinion like the rest of us are asked to do.



[Edited on 9-4-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> uninspired hymnody ---> female ministers ---> paedocommunion



Nope. That's a facile explanation. The RPCNA has deaconnesses and voted to ordain female elders in the 1930's, although thankfully it was not ratified by enough sessions. Not to mention its enthusiastic support for the Anti-Saloon league and prohibition.


----------



## tewilder (Sep 5, 2006)

"I would think it tends to lead to the kind of nominalism that I grew up with in a liberal church."

"If the primary ground of our assurance is to be our participation in the sacraments and means of grace (as the FV seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong), then that's no better than the revivalistic OSAS types who trust in their decision and the prayer that followed, or their walk down the aisle."

I would like to reply to this post by Chis Poe because I think that to give this a larger context is helpful for a variety of debates. 

Now, I am speaking as someone who did not grow up in the CRC, but was in it, and left when my particular congregation went liberal. 

The CRC has long had a tradition, stronger in some regions then others, of tollerating a good deal of nominal adherence on the part of the youth. Partly this goes back to Kuyper. Kuyper believed that in the normal case, the children of believers (covenant children) are born regenerate, but he also held that this regeneration might not be manifested for a long time. They might not, in fact, be converted until they were adults. This, he believed, had been his own experience. He was not converted until after he was already a minister of the gospel! 

In some places, especially parts of Canada, it was seen as normal for the youth to go through a wild oats period and then settle down and get serious. I recall the pastor of the church where I was saying that he was not disturbed by the young people leaving the church, because he knew that eventually they would settle down and get married and then they would want the church experience for their own children and would come back. 

This sort of thing generated its own reaction, by those who opposed this whole tendency of thought as a perril to the church. So there have been debates, herecies and excesses due to this going back to the early twentieth century, and further. Because of this reaction you can find people, already 80 years ago, saying some of the things the Federal Vision says today. 

In the Netherlands there was a reaction as well, mostly in the churches that had never really been Kuyperian, and who followed Schilder. Where Kuyper said that normally the covenant children are born regenerate, and therefore in a given case we assume he is and baptize (apply the sign and seal of the covenant of grace) on that assumption, Schilder wanted to say that the covenant was something objective. That when we baptise we are introducing the childen into that objective covenant (but then without the garantee of final salvation). In these churches are is a lot of peculiar ways of speaking, where the children of the church are called Children of God, but without that being taken to mean that they are regenerate necessarily. 

The great temptation for pastors when faced with nominalism and hell-raising youth is to respond with legalism, or to make faith out to be covenant keeping, and to preach that. Add to this the fact that the CRC is an ethnic church where people go around openly saying "If you're not Dutch, you're not much." Such people think that covenant salvation is their birthright. They are like the Jews who said that they had Abraham for their father.

All this is before any introduction of paedocommunion. The paedocommunion is added onto an already confused situation, but is it seen by at least some people as a way to oppose the nominalism by teaching the youth that they are to be christians now, rather then start in their twenties if they feel like it. But I would add it to the list of bad things that have come by way of reaction to the CRC proplem.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 9, 2006)

I grew up in the CRC and always loved it. Even when my church was going through a split over women in office, we as teenagers would sit and argue the Scriptural aspects of it before Catechism class, even getting into the Greek of it (as 17-year-olds!) Around that time, we got the new grey psalter hymnals (no more "Thee" and "Thou", only "You.") The slide began.

Then I went to the US for school and on to China, thus I've been out of the "bubble" for about 15 years. But we still get the Banner magazine and what I've seen has disturbed me. Pastors attending poker tournaments under the guise of God's 'sovereignty'. Ethnic relations committees. Every time synod meets, a greater push for women in the pulpit. Worst of all: a seach for "relevance" for the youth of today. People saying that the evening service, based on the Heidelberg Catechism, is too theological and "over peoples' heads".

What this shows is nothing more than the fact that we are too much in the world. If the sermons are too much over our heads, who moved? Did God move further from us or did we move further from Him? If our youth are having difficulty finding relevance with the church, should the church follow the youth into the cesspool of the world? No. The church should remain grounded in Christ and in Scripture, and the youth should return to the Word. The reformation was all about returning to scripture, and while we count ourselves 'reformed' we are now looking to the world for leadership, it seems. May God save us from our progressive ways. 

Thankfully, we have a strict consistory in my home church and we're rural. It is doubtful that we will have many of these issues there. BUT the fact that synod is drifting into liberalism will cause another split sooner or later.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 9, 2006)

Sorry, didn't realise this was such and old thread. Don't want to


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 9, 2006)

tewilder said:


> "I would think it tends to lead to the kind of nominalism that I grew up with in a liberal church."
> 
> "If the primary ground of our assurance is to be our participation in the sacraments and means of grace (as the FV seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong), then that's no better than the revivalistic OSAS types who trust in their decision and the prayer that followed, or their walk down the aisle."
> 
> ...



Being from way down south, I don't know much about the CRC other than its slide into "liberalism" over the past few decades. But I think you may be on to something with the reference to "hell raising" youth. I've seen FVers paint a picture of erstwhile Reformed churches sitting idly by waiting for their children to have a crisis conversion experience and they offer their vision as the solution.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 9, 2006)

Begging you all's pardon but as I currently attend a CRC church I'd like to let you know that they do not ordain Homosexuals and still are very much against Homosexuality.

As well there are a great number of Paedocommunionists that are solidly conservative and not liberal.

To just cast accusations w/o having all of the facts is uncharitable and unloving.

Not trying to start a fight or anything.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 9, 2006)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Begging you all's pardon but as I currently attend a CRC church I'd like to let you know that they do not ordain Homosexuals and still are very much against Homosexuality.
> 
> As well there are a great number of Paedocommunionists that are solidly conservative and not liberal.
> 
> ...



Not trying to cast accusations here either, but "conservative" is a term almost devoid of meaning, and typically means people who have much more interest in being politically "conservative" than they have in the gospel. That's how you get a situation that I am personally acquainted with in which "conservative" evangelicals and even ostensibly Reformed people (of the BR, not TR type) have a Roman Catholic politician come into their churches to give his "testimony" of conversion in high school, never mentioning the fact, of course, that he later converted to Roman Catholicism and became active with Catholic Answers. BTW the politician is one of the best we have, I just don't want him coming in the church giving a deceptive testimony when what he's really after is votes. I doubt the RC's would take kindly to the reverse happening. Biblical and Confessional are what is necessary. The Pharisees were conservative.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 9, 2006)

I know that most CRC churches are quite conservative and that they don't ordain homosexuals, but the fact does remain that things have become much more liberal in the past 20 years (and if the next 20 years saw as much change as the last 20, they very well may be ordaining gay ministers!) The other thing is that because of a lack of established hierarchy, there are very strict CRC churches and there are quite charismatic CRC churches (hand-raising and what not) - I think it is that lack of consistency that also bothers some people. 

To me, it is largely the _why_ of the change. I have seen a lot on staying "relevant" and that is most ominous.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 10, 2006)

Pilgrim said:


> Not trying to cast accusations here either, but "conservative" is a term almost devoid of meaning, and typically means people who have much more interest in being politically "conservative" than they have in the gospel. That's how you get a situation that I am personally acquainted with in which "conservative" evangelicals and even ostensibly Reformed people (of the BR, not TR type) have a Roman Catholic politician come into their churches to give his "testimony" of conversion in high school, never mentioning the fact, of course, that he later converted to Roman Catholicism and became active with Catholic Answers. BTW the politician is one of the best we have, I just don't want him coming in the church giving a deceptive testimony when what he's really after is votes. I doubt the RC's would take kindly to the reverse happening. Biblical and Confessional are what is necessary. The Pharisees were conservative.



I don't think MrMerlin777 means conservative in terms of politics. I think he means conservative in terms of biblical interpretation, i.e. inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture. A denomination that ordains homosexuals is considered liberal in this sense because they openly deny inerrancy. Conservative and liberal in this sense is a legitimate use.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 10, 2006)

kvanlaan said:


> I know that most CRC churches are quite conservative and that they don't ordain homosexuals, but the fact does remain that things have become much more liberal in the past 20 years (and if the next 20 years saw as much change as the last 20, they very well may be ordaining gay ministers!) The other thing is that because of a lack of established hierarchy, there are very strict CRC churches and there are quite charismatic CRC churches (hand-raising and what not) - I think it is that lack of consistency that also bothers some people.
> 
> To me, it is largely the _why_ of the change. I have seen a lot on staying "relevant" and that is most ominous.



Hand-clapping is charismatic? Wow. David must have been a charismatic because there are clapping hands in the Psalms.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 10, 2006)

Not hand clapping, hand raising (the trees-in-the-wind look). 

We're talking Dutch Calvinists here. A slight nod when the dominee makes a good point is charismatic in some of these settings.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 10, 2006)

elnwood said:


> I don't think MrMerlin777 means conservative in terms of politics. I think he means conservative in terms of biblical interpretation, i.e. inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture. A denomination that ordains homosexuals is considered liberal in this sense because they openly deny inerrancy. Conservative and liberal in this sense is a legitimate use.



I know what is meant by conservative here, but I continue to say it's a term that is generally unhelpful overall. And I have indeed often found that those who go by the label conservative are more interested in hot button social issues than they are with the gospel. A recent example that comes to mind is Greg Boyd's church in MN. About 1,000 members left recently after Mr. Boyd began attacking the Religious Right, but evidently his long advocacy of Open Theism for years prior to that was no cause to leave the church. The same goes for those conservatives in mainline churches who are making noises about leaving over issues related to sexuality when for decades those churches have had ministers who could not affirm the Virgin Birth or deity of Christ, for example. 

The prevailing response to modernism and liberalism has I think, been found wanting after all these years. "Conservatives" as well as "liberals" (BTW isn't apostate a better, more Biblically accurate term?) effectively abandoned confessionalism. It led to a kind of reductionism, with first, the Five Fundamentals, and then within several decades eventually being reduced down to basically only one issue, inerrancy. 

Many "conservatives" in mainline denominations wake up one day and wonder how in the world their church is preaching acceptance of homosexuality and other things that they would have thought to be unthinkable. The reason is that many years before their church ceased to truly believe in the authority of the scriptures. Ordaining homosexuals is basically the last step of a slide into apostasy, not the first. 

My point basically is this: A church that is against ordaining homosexuals (or whatever the issue of the day is) and claims to believe in the authority and sufficiency of scripture can preach pure heresy from the pulpit. But because it is "conservative" and established mores aren't being contradicted, many are then lulled into thinking everything is ok. Conservative means different things to different people. To some, it means preaching against alcohol and tobacco. For others it means no make up and no pants for women. It is a term that is devoid of any theological meaning and in my opinion more definition is needed. 

More often than not, in religion as well as politics, today's "conservatism" is nothing more than yesterday's liberalism.


----------

