# The Passover and Paedo-communion



## QueenEsther (Jan 24, 2007)

Is communion viewed as a replacement for the Passover? 

If this is so.. do people who hold to the view of Paedo-communion realize that Jesus, the one who made up the whole Passover thing, didn't participate in the Passover until he was 12?

Do they know this and just over look it because it doesn't fit in with their view of the sacraments Or do they explain this away somehow?

I'm just curious because if ever there was going to be a baby or child who could participate it would have been him, but he didn't...


----------



## Apologia (Jan 24, 2007)

QueenEsther said:


> Is communion viewed as a replacement for the Passover?
> 
> If this is so.. do people who hold to the view of Paedo-communion realize that Jesus, the one who made up the whole Passover thing, didn't participate in the Passover until he was 12?
> 
> ...



Where does it say that Jesus did not participate till age 12?


----------



## QueenEsther (Jan 24, 2007)

Luke 2:41-42 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom.


----------



## Apologia (Jan 24, 2007)

QueenEsther said:


> Luke 2:41-42 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom.



And where does that say that he did not go up the eleven years previously? It says when he was twelve he went up and was found debating the teachers. Nothing happened the first eleven years worth mentioning maybe?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

Apologia said:


> And where does that say that he did not go up the eleven years previously? It says when he was twelve he went up and was found debating the teachers. Nothing happened the first eleven years worth mentioning maybe?



What is the point of mentioning his age in the passage?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

Luke 2:41-42 41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.


----------



## Apologia (Jan 24, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> What is the point of mentioning his age in the passage?



To show how young he was to be debating the teachers? Because age 13 was the time Jewish children were considered to pass from being considered children to that of men, thus showing he was under the age of maturity according to the Jewish customs, especially to be causing such wonderment among the teachers of that time? 

I don't know, anything could be said, but it would all be just guessing, since we are not told.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

Apologia said:


> To show how young he was to be debating the teachers? Because age 13 was the time Jewish children were considered to pass from being considered children to that of men, thus showing he was under the age of maturity according to the Jewish customs, especially to be causing such wonderment among the teachers of that time?
> 
> I don't know, anything could be said, but it would all be just guessing, since we are not told.



I agree. It could have been years earlier when he partook of the passover.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

Apologia said:


> To show how young he was to be debating the teachers? Because age 13 was the time Jewish children were considered to pass from being considered children to that of men, thus showing he was under the age of maturity according to the Jewish customs, especially to be causing such wonderment among the teachers of that time?
> 
> I don't know, anything could be said, but it would all be just guessing, since we are not told.



This is a sidebar to the main thread but it's not accurate to say that, if he was 13, he'd be considered a man and it would have been acceptable for him to be sitting among elders expounding upon the Law. You really weren't expected to open your mouth and teach other's stuff until you were at least 30 in that culture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

What Edersheim has to say:


> *The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah*
> Alfred Edersheim
> 1883
> 
> ...


----------



## Apologia (Jan 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> This is a sidebar to the main thread but it's not accurate to say that, if he was 13, he'd be considered a man and it would have been acceptable for him to be sitting among elders expounding upon the Law. You really weren't expected to open your mouth and teach other's stuff until you were at least 30 in that culture.



Well either way, I was just guessing why it would say 12...knowing that Jews held age 13 as significant, it was just an educated assumption.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

Edersheim answers that question.


----------



## re4med (Jan 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> This is a sidebar to the main thread but it's not accurate to say that, if he was 13, he'd be considered a man and it would have been acceptable for him to be sitting among elders expounding upon the Law. You really weren't expected to open your mouth and teach other's stuff until you were at least 30 in that culture.



Actually, it is not uncommon for a Jewish male to read and expound on the Torah at the age of 13. At the bar mitzvah this is a common practice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

An interesting commentary on Jesus' interaction with the teachers:


> In some part of this Temple, 'sitting in the midst of the Doctors,58 both hearing them and asking them questions,' we must look for the Child Jesus on the third and the two following days of the Feast on which He first visited the Sanctuary. Only on the two first days of the Feast of Passover was personal attendance in the Temple necessary. With the third day commenced the so-called half-holydays, when it was lawful to return to one's home59 - a provision of which, no doubt, many availed themselves. Indeed, there was really nothing of special interest to detain the pilgrims. For, the Passover had been eaten, the festive sacrifice (or Chagigah) offered, and the first ripe barely reaped and brought to the Temple, and waved as the Omer of first flour before the Lord. Hence, in view of the well-known Rabbinic provision, the expression in the Gospel-narrative concerning the 'Parents' of Jesus, 'when they had fulfilled the days,'60 cannot necessarily imply that Joseph and the Mother of Jesus had remained in Jerusalem during the whole Paschal week.61 On the other hand, the circumstances connected with the presence of Jesus could not have been found among the Doctors after the close of the Feast. The first question here is as to the locality in the Temple, where the scene has to be laid. It has, indeed, been commonly supposed that there was a Synagogue in the Temple; but of this there is, to say the least, no historical evidence.62 But even if such had existed, the worship and addresses of the Synagogue would not have offered any opportunity for the questioning on the part of Jesus which the narrative implies. Still more groundless is the idea that there was in the Temple something like a Beth ha-Midrash, or theological Academy, not to speak of the circumstance that a child of twelve would not, at any time, have been allowed to take part in its discussions. But there were occasions on which the Temple became virtually, though not formally, a Beth ha-Midrash. For we read in the Talmud,63 that the members of the Temple-Sanhedrin, who on ordinary days sat as a Court of Appeal, from the close of the Morning-to the time of the Evening-Sacrifice, were wont on Sabbaths and feast-days to come out upon 'the Terrace' of the Temple, and there to teach. In such popular instruction the utmost latitude of questioning would be given. It is in this audience, which sat on the ground, surrounding and mingling with the Doctors - and hence during, not after the Feast - that we must seek the Child Jesus.
> 
> But we have yet to show that the presence and questioning of a Child of that age did not necessarily imply anything so extraordinary, as to convey the idea of supernaturalness to those Doctors or others in the audience. Jewish tradition gives other instances of precocious and strangely advanced students. Besides, scientific theological learning would not be necessary to take part in such popular discussions. If we may judge from later arrangements, not only in Babylon, but in Palestine, there were two kinds of public lectures, and two kinds of students. The first, or more scientific class, was designated Kallah (literally, bride), and its attendants Beney-Kallah (children of the bride). These lectures were delivered in the last month of summer (Elul), before the Feast of the New Year, and in the last winter month (Adar), immediately before the Feast of Passover. They implied considerable preparation on the part of the lecturing Rabbis, and at least some Talmudic knowledge on the part of the attendants. On the other hand, there were Students of the Court (Chatsatsta, and in Babylon Tarbitsa), who during ordinary lectures sat separated from the regular students by a kind of hedge, outside, as it were in the Court, some of whom seem to have been ignorant even of the Bible. The lectures addressed to such a general audience would, of course, be of a very different character.64
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

PhD said:


> Actually, it is not uncommon for a Jewish male to read and expound on the Torah at the age of 13. At the bar mitzvah this is a common practice.



Read the above.


----------



## Apologia (Jan 24, 2007)

> 1. Ps. ixxxvii. 5-7. 2. Ps. cxxii. 1-5.
> In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence attendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called 'a son of the Commandment,' or 'of the Torah.'3 But, as a matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one.4 It was in accordance with this custom, that,5 on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year, His Parents took Him with them in the 'company' of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont6 to go up to the Temple; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance,7 Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, mentioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary.



Yeah, i have heard people argue this way too. But again, it is assuming too much from the verse, and we don't have evidence that this practice was the actual practice, it has been built on some outer statements and practices, but not solidly backed up.

I used to promote this same view till I read a little more into the history and found evidence lacking, so I had to give it up as an argument. Plus, if Jesus was being brought by his parents, for the purpose of catechizing prior to Passover...why did they not know where he was, and why did they not know he was at the temple? They didn't know where he was, and did not expect him to be there of all places. Seems kind of odd, if they brought him there for that purpose, doesn't it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

Apologia said:


> Yeah, i have heard people argue this way too. But again, it is assuming too much from the verse, and we don't have evidence that this practice was the actual practice, it has been built on some outer statements and practices, but not solidly backed up.
> 
> I used to promote this same view till I read a little more into the history and found evidence lacking, so I had to give it up as an argument. Plus, if Jesus was being brought by his parents, for the purpose of catechizing prior to Passover...why did they not know where he was, and why did they not know he was at the temple? They didn't know where he was, and did not expect him to be there of all places. Seems kind of odd, if they brought him there for that purpose, doesn't it?



Are you kidding me? This is Edersheim. Unless you are a scholar of greater note than he on the subject of Jewish practice, especially at the time of Christ, you need to do better than to offer yourself in objection to that commentary. He is citing well known teachings, in the Talmud, on the Jewish practice. It was men who were commanded to come up to the Temple for Passover and, as noted, Mary didn't have to go.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

By the way, you sure seem to have plenty of time to interact on _this_ thread. Don't complain to me that you don't have time to read those two other threads I linked to in preparation for interviewing Pastor Wilson tomorrow.


----------



## Apologia (Jan 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Are you kidding me? This is Edersheim. Unless you are a scholar of greater note than he on the subject of Jewish practice, especially at the time of Christ, you need to do better than to offer yourself in objection to that commentary. He is citing well known teachings, in the Talmud, on the Jewish practice. It was men who were commanded to come up to the Temple for Passover and, as noted, Mary didn't have to go.



Is that to say that his view is the only view? I have heard other Jewish scholars say differently, that is all I am saying. I have heard arguments for and against such an interpretation. Like I said, I was a strong advocate for that view, until I saw enough in my studies years ago to make me doubt that was necessarily the only reason. Plus, it seems when paired with the other normal teaching about passover throughout the OT, we don't find such a age restriction.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

Well, he cites the portion in the Talmud where he gets the practice from. Again, only men are commanded in Scripture to be present at the Temple during Passover.


----------



## Apologia (Jan 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> By the way, you sure seem to have plenty of time to interact on _this_ thread. Don't complain to me that you don't have time to read those two other threads I linked to in preparation for interviewing Pastor Wilson tomorrow.



Actually, I am working hard on packing books...it doesn't take too much to walk by the computer, hit refresh, and shoot a response. It is not like I am just sitting here staring at the screen all this time waiting for the next response...like it would if i sat here to read long threads.

Plus, I never said anything to relate my lack of time to following through on your request to read the particular threads you mentioned. I read part of one earlier as a matter of fact. You commented on being busy, I was sympathizing with you, and mentioning my lack of time being a portion of why I haven't spent all day ready all of the threads on the entire board to get the feel of the views here.


----------



## Apologia (Jan 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Well, he cites the portion in the Talmud where he gets the practice from. Again, only men are commanded in Scripture to be present at the Temple during Passover.



Yes, only men are commanded, but women and children were allowed...that is one of the opposite arguments I have heard expounded.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

Apologia said:


> Actually, I am working hard on packing books...it doesn't take too much to walk by the computer, hit refresh, and shoot a response. It is not like I am just sitting here staring at the screen all this time waiting for the next response...like it would if i sat here to read long threads.
> 
> Plus, I never said anything to relate my lack of time to following through on your request to read the particular threads you mentioned. I read part of one earlier as a matter of fact. You commented on being busy, I was sympathizing with you, and mentioning my lack of time being a portion of why I haven't spent all day ready all of the threads on the entire board to get the feel of the views here.



Easy...I was giving you a hard time. I have to remind myself that Air Force guys are sensitive.


----------



## Apologia (Jan 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Easy...I was giving you a hard time. I have to remind myself that Air Force guys are sensitive.



OK, you got me there....  

I am going for the day, tieing up some work and off to bed to start all over.

Don't talk too bad about me while I am gone!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 24, 2007)

Richard Bacon's pamphlet dealing with PC is the best comprehensive treatment of the whole question I've seen. It makes an excellent argument for the sacramental nature of the memorial Passover ceremony, and includes the evidence from Luke 2:41-42 that Jesus was marking his transitional year, after which Passover attendance would have been manditory (see the appropriate Mosaic legislation regarding male attendance at the 3X yearly feasts). F.N. Lee makes the same kind of argument as I recall.

Bottom line, Jesus had to be examined by the "session" in his day, same as covenant children today.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 24, 2007)

Jeff and William,

Do you guys adhere to information espoused by the FV advocates?

Reason I ask is that entrance into the board itself, upon taking a VOW of what you will uphold, is to 

"Members in the past have been banned only after sufficient warning and *repeated* violations of Board Rules, behavior unbecoming a Christian and/or espousing heresy (such as the Federal Vision, Roman Catholicism or Modalism). The banning of members is at the _discretion of the Administrators_. Because the Puritanboard is not a local church there is not a session or forum to address issues as we are not set up in this manner."

Also it states, "We also will *not allow* anyone "pro-Federal Vision" on the board. The Federal Vision is a heretical group propagating the academic deviancy of the New Perspectives on Paul in a pastoral setting. Those adhering to the FV will not be allowed on the board, and those pro-FV found after registering will be banned. The RPCGA has deemed FV as antithetical to the Gospel, and the Westminster Confession."

You clicked "I AGREE" to these things BUT you have links in your signatures to www.covenantradio.com, which houses info on:

12-20-06
Andrew Sandlin
Backbone of the Bible

12-28-06
Gregg Strawbridge
on the Church Calendar

12-14-06
Jeff Meyers
on Worship

11-29-06
Steve Wilkins
on Baptism

11-14-06
Gregg Strawbridge
on Paedocommunion 


Also, you have links to "The Parchment" which houses pro FV information, and links to Covenant Radio (what a misnomer that is) as well as http://www.apologiabooks.com/ which sells books by Jeff Meyers, Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, NT Wright and other heretics.

1) All links of that sort are "outlawed" on the *Puritan*board. 2) If you are advocating any FV doctrine, you need to own up to your sympathies to that group and quietly leave.

If this is all incorrect, and I've just made a "big mistake", then please explain.


----------



## Apologia (Jan 25, 2007)

I have been a member on this board since yesterday, 1/24/07). I came to this board for two main reasons. First, It was discovered that I was being accused and spoken of on this board (and not in a good light) without my being present to defend myself. So I came to be present.

Secondly, I came to to engage in dialog with other people of more learning than myself, to help in my studies of many issues, including but not limited to the FV issue.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Do you guys adhere to information espoused by the FV advocates?



We have not had the time to study the FV issue in as much depth as we would like. I have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing everything they say as necessarily heretical, and therefore have not come to the conclusion that they are personally heretical in every aspect (to do so would be to say I condemn about half of my denomination, and nearly half of the Reformed faith, to hell...something I do not take lightly or rush into doing). My denomination seems pretty split on the issue, and many are still studying it just as I am. Our personal church session has done much preliminary study in the past years and have found no issues worthy of declaring heresy at this time, and likewise, at this time neither I nor Bill (the other member you have addressed these questions to) have come to any hard conclusion. There are parts of what we here that are beneficial, and there are parts we are still working through and questioning. More below in discussion of your other points.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Reason I ask is that entrance into the board itself, upon taking a VOW of what you will uphold, is to
> 
> "Members in the past have been banned only after sufficient warning and *repeated* violations of Board Rules, behavior unbecoming a Christian and/or espousing heresy (such as the Federal Vision, Roman Catholicism or Modalism). The banning of members is at the _discretion of the Administrators_. Because the Puritanboard is not a local church there is not a session or forum to address issues as we are not set up in this manner."
> 
> Also it states, "We also will *not allow* anyone "pro-Federal Vision" on the board. The Federal Vision is a heretical group propagating the academic deviancy of the New Perspectives on Paul in a pastoral setting. Those adhering to the FV will not be allowed on the board, and those pro-FV found after registering will be banned. The RPCGA has deemed FV as antithetical to the Gospel, and the Westminster Confession."



To my knowledge I have not espoused FV from a pro-FV standing, but I have raised questions for discussion of it in an effort to further my study and 
understanding. But, if raising questions and discussing the issues of FV in an effort to understand it better is espousing it in your definition, then I am 
“guilty", both in intent and action. However, it should be noted that I have also added to already started threads on this issue.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> You clicked "I AGREE" to these things BUT you have links in your signatures to www.covenantradio.com, which houses info on:


 
Well, if you look close enough, we don't just _*HAVE*_ links to CovenantRadio.com, we *ARE* CovenantRadio.com. It seems that you, as well as many others who are bashing us in an uncharitable and unchristian manner on this board, have not fully grasped the purpose and intent of Covenantradio.com. There are many issues that are dividing the Reformed church today, and the FV is just one of them. There are many people out there confused and have questions on these topics, including the FV (I have seen much evidence on this board alone to back that up).

Now, we could dismiss it (and other topics) as complete and utter heresy and never speak to or about these people again. Or we could open a forum of discussion for both sides to discuss their views, and allow the listeners the ability to ask questions, seek clarification, and further study the issues. That is what we have sought to do with the show. We are not being one-sided on these issues. The show is not a show that presents what Bill and Jeff espouse doctrinally. It is not a show about or for US and our views, but a forum for others to inquire on many issues, and we become the mouthpiece and reported to take it to the proponents for answers.

The issues on CovenantRadio are Baptism (Paedo vs Credo and other related views), Communion (Paedo vs Credo), Theology (many aspects of Reformed Theology), Worship (various aspects) and Eschtology (various issues). We started the show just over two months ago, and have invited people from all sides of these issues. It just so happens that we have had more FV proponents agree to come on the show than the FV opponents we have asked (consider this an open invitation to anyone here who would like to appear to discuss any of these categories). It seems the misunderstanding and bashing of us here and elsewhere has hindered the ability to get guests on to discuss all of these issues from both sides.

It also seems that one of the greatest complaints against us, as hosts of Covenant Radio, is that we were offering “softball” type questions to these FV men. However, we have time and again reminded everyone that if they have a question they are more than able to ask them on the Covenant Radio forum. We have clearly stated that we would ask any question put to our guests no matter the bias or intent. The fact that those on the anti-FV side rail against us for not asking the “right” questions is total nonsense since we do not know of all the supposed right questions. If you have questions that you think is pertinent to the issue then ask it. The choice is yours however do not rail at us because we could not read your mind and ask the question(s) you thought we should ask.

The Covenant Radio show is providing a forum and source of information from all sides of the issues plaguing the church. I wonder, have you listened to any of the programs, or are you jumping to a conclusion that is not warranted simply because the name of the guest may be affiliated with the FV system? Anyhow consider:



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 12-20-06
> Andrew Sandlin
> Backbone of the Bible



This was out first show that discussed some of the issues directly related to the FV. Sandlin was on to discuss this book and some of the controversies surrounding the issue. Sandlin states he is not a pro-FV advocate, but sympathetic to portions of their teaching.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 12-28-06
> Gregg Strawbridge
> on the Church Calendar



To my knowledge, the Church calendar is not an aspect of FV teaching.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 12-14-06
> Jeff Meyers
> on Worship



I also don't recall worship being an FV related topic. Meyers came on to discuss his book on Worship, and we soon have Gore on to discuss his view, which I assume from what i have read, is different. Meyers will be back soon to discuss his new book on Ecclesiastes, which I assume is not a pro-FV book either.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 11-29-06
> Steve Wilkins
> on Baptism



Covenant (Paedo) baptism was the topic. We are open and always looking for others to come on to discuss other views, and if they wish to oppose other guests comments, then that is what we're here for. So far, out of the roughly 1000 podcast subscribers, no one has taken issue with what was said. It is an open forum for further discussion.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 11-14-06
> Gregg Strawbridge
> on Paedocommunion



Again, Paedo vs Credo communion was the topic. Communion is an issue that predates the FV issue, and is not directly linked to the FV issue necessarily (since not all FV advocates are paedocommunionists).

Again, the Covenant Radio show is an open forum for both sides of many issues to present their views and provide further discussion for those who have questions or are studying. I have seen, in my one day on this board, many people who even at this time say "what exactly is the FV." So on that topic alone, the dialog and discussion is still relevant and desired. You need to understand what we are seeking to do with Covenant Radio, and not just chalk us up as guilty by association as you (and others on this board) imply by your comments. It is presumption like that which continues to divide the church, in my opinion. I am glad that you have at least sought us out to ask us to clarify...many others do not lend such a courtesy, they just bash away, even in their misunderstanding. So I thank you for asking.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Also, you have links to "The Parchment" which houses pro FV information, and links to Covenant Radio (what a misnomer that is) as well as http://www.apologiabooks.com/ which sells books by Jeff Meyers, Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, NT Wright and other heretics.



The parchment is Bill's personal blog, and presents issues he is studying, which yes, includes the FV as an issue of study and discussion. And of course links to Covenant Radio, since he is a co-host with me as stated (and your little attempted jab at the name just shows your narrow minded ignorance on our purpose and how hasty you want to be judgmental). Bill also houses links to anti-FV blogs, articles and sites, or did you miss that? 

The Apologia Book Shoppe is my book store, and carries books from many angles of views. I do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater, therefore I will not dismiss all of the works of men like those you mention as useless. Plus, since these issues are being greatly discussed and debated in the church, I have an outlet for people to find information on various topics. Someone does not have to be a complete advocate of the views of someone to carry their materials. If I maintained that kind of narrow minded thought, then I would have to close shop, as I do not know of anyone that I could say I espouse 100% of what they say across the board. Are you saying that there is no benefit at all to anything any of these men write? That all has to be dismissed because of their views on some of these other issues? I do not take such a stance.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 1) All links of that sort are "outlawed" on the *Puritan*board.



There is plenty of discussion of the FV on this board, so if having links to other sites where the issues are also discussed is outlawed, then many threads and members of this board should be removed for even discussing it, as I have seen tons of links in posts to outside blogs and sites that discuss the FV (unless of course only links to sites that 100% bash the FV are the only ones allowed). 



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 2) If you are advocating any FV doctrine, you need to own up to your sympathies to that group and quietly leave.



I am sympathetic to the church body as a whole, which still at this times seems split on this issue. I am advocating continued study of issues. My denomination, and many others in the Reformed faith are divided over this issue. My denomination is still examining it, and has many branches divided on both sides. It is not like this is a clear cut issue of right or wrong in the church, there are many great named advocates on both side of the issue, which to me says there is still much to discuss before throwing out the "H" bomb. For as many church council reports that have been written against the FV, there are just as many that have come down on the other side. The church is divided, and we are still studying.

Now I understand the denomination behind this board has already come to a totally denomination-wide united decision on this issue and declared it heresy. So if this means that the case is closed, and no more discussion can be had on this denomination board, then I am guilty of breaching a subject with questions I have, that you have declared as a taboo subject. In which case, I will cease from further discussions of any kinds on this FV issue, and engage in discussion and study of the issue elsewhere.

But, if it is possible to be on this board without taking a 100% anti-FV stance, but to come in study-mode, and engage in discussion and dialog of the issues, then that is what I am here to do. If this board is strictly a site that someone can only talk about issues from the side the denomination stands on, then the boards becomes just a platform to "preach to the choir," and loses the ability for iron to sharpen iron in dialog and in-depth discussions on issues and controversies, which is what I was looking for.

I will say, one thing I have continued to notice in my short time here, is there are many people who are quick to assume the worse, quick to accuse, quick to judge, quick to ascribe error, and slow to investigate before speaking. Christian charity, understanding, and love seem to be missing from many people on hear, sadly.

Let me know,


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 25, 2007)

> I have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing everything they say as necessarily heretical, and therefore have not come to the conclusion that they are personally heretical in every aspect (to do so would be to say I condemn about half of my denomination, and nearly half of the Reformed faith, to hell...something I do not take lightly or rush into doing). My denomination seems pretty split on the issue, and many are still studying it just as I am. Our personal church session has done much preliminary study in the past years and have found no issues worthy of declaring heresy at this time, and likewise, at this time neither I nor Bill (the other member you have addressed these questions to) have come to any hard conclusion.



Is the PCA this thoroughly split on these issues these days? If so, that's a massive speed of adoption of *relatively* new teachings. If so, not even speaking about FV in particular, that's disturbing how quickly its become that popular without GA sanction.


----------



## Apologia (Jan 25, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> Is the PCA this thoroughly split on these issues these days? If so, that's a massive speed of adoption of *relatively* new teachings. If so, not even speaking about FV in particular, that's disturbing how quickly its become that popular without GA sanction.



Maybe the teachings are not as new as some think?! The more I have seen, the more I seem to find them quoting old Reformers that we admire, using the same language, etc. Just what I have seen so far. Like I said, there is enough of a division to make it still worth studying, I would think.


----------



## re4med (Jan 25, 2007)

Since I was also addressed on these issues I will add that I *agree* with the substance of the post made by Apologia. I really could not offer anything more that would matter or give light to the situation. Though I know full well that we are a minority here this does not change the fact that we have not broken any rules or done anything that warrants these baseless comments and criticisms. If the fact that we have had FV men on our program (to talk about other topics) means that we are "guilty by association" based on the jury of the PB Admins then I guess we are. Should that matter to people who are interested in the truth? No. 

Just because some members of this list have offered motive assessments and said things about us that we have categorically denied does not make them true. However, I cannot help what others think even in the face of the truth.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 25, 2007)

Apologia said:


> I have been a member on this board since yesterday, 1/24/07). I came to this board for two main reasons. First, It was discovered that I was being accused and spoken of on this board (and not in a good light) without my being present to defend myself. So I came to be present......


 
Thanks for the input, and for being honest.

You are suspended until you come to a decision to remove those links and reject FV. Email me if you change your mind and I'll evaluate your standing then.

The Puritanboard does not espouse, in any way, FV "theology" as the rules designate. We equate that with Roman Catholicism and Mormonism, etc.

This is not something "quick to judge." Its been going on as long as Wright ahs been at Westmisnter, and now its infecting the hcurch through his "disciples."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 25, 2007)

PhD said:


> Since I was also addressed on these issues I will add that I *agree* with the substance of the post made by Apologia. I really could not offer anything more that would matter or give light to the situation. Though I know full well that we are a minority here this does not change the fact that we have not broken any rules or done anything that warrants these baseless comments and criticisms. If the fact that we have had FV men on our program (to talk about other topics) means that we are "guilty by association" based on the jury of the PB Admins then I guess we are. Should that matter to people who are interested in the truth? No.
> 
> Just because some members of this list have offered motive assessments and said things about us that we have categorically denied does not make them true. However, I cannot help what others think even in the face of the truth.


 
This is ludicrous based on the pro-active content that you are espousing on the sites mentioned and that you have linked to.

You are suspended until you come to a decision to remove those links and reject FV. Email me if you change your mind and I'll evaluate your standing then.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 25, 2007)

Jeff & William,

I know you cannot respond and, though I would continue to dialogue on this with you in other forums, I respect and completely support Matt's decision. He would be unfaithful to his Presbytery were he to do otherwise.

Whether or not you state that you support or promote FV theology, it is pretty evident from your list of speakers that you primarily broadcast things from their perspective.

As I told Jeff - it is quite astonishing that, after 4 years, there would be an admission that you haven't really studied the other side of the issue and that Jeff would be asking so many questions. Perhaps when you _have_ studied the issue and can articulate what the major Seminaries are saying and most Reformed luminaries are concerned about then you would be in a better position to actually get to the bottom of the point. If it's just a constant hit parade of Federal Vision proponents telling others that they're being misrepresented then I just don't see how your show is a "dialogue" on the issue.

In short, it is up to the discretion of the board to determine what is "Pro-FV" and it's pretty hard to argue that you're "seeking" on this subject.

Thank you, nevertheless, for you respectful interaction while you were here and I pray, with all earnestness, that God will lead you into all Truth. Thank you, also, that you sent my questions to Pastor Wilson for your show.


----------

