Someone has indicated G.I.'s views have changed. Can't remember where I saw that. Anyone confirm?Of which, G.I. Williamson was one of the majority report authors. It is indeed an interesting piece of history for the OPC.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Someone has indicated G.I.'s views have changed. Can't remember where I saw that. Anyone confirm?Of which, G.I. Williamson was one of the majority report authors. It is indeed an interesting piece of history for the OPC.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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
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 ----------
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.
we will therefore not be fairly representing the opposing view.
no one yet has attempted to make the argument for Benjamin Burton as to why PC is the logical end of paedo-doctrine.
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.
Fore further reading:
The 1988 Majority Report to the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church
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.
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.
I don't want to derail here, just wondering what the explanation against it is?
What this thread needs is some Kumbaya love.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So I assumed all Presbyterian churches practice this. Am I wrong?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
GI Williamson...
It would be a misrepresentation to say he advocates that view now- he does not, nor does he teach it.