Biblical Arguments For/Against Paedo-communion

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
For those supporting the PC view, do you have any historic precedent in the church to back up your position? Just wondering if this has been considered at all . . . thanks.

Yes! Please take a look at these links, for instance:

A Catena of Quotations from the Church Fathers

THE HISTORY OF PAEDOCOMMUNION: FROM THE EARLY CHURCH UNTIL 1500

Cyprian and Augustine are among some of the more famous names among those believing in paedocommunion in the early church.

But have there been any confessional (or creedal) affirmations of the practice in the Church? In light of the key role we all agree creeds and confessions play in the doctrine of the Church as a whole, I think that question is very relevant and telling to the issue at hand.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I find a very strong parallel to this issue and the other thread in this forum dealing with schisms within Presbyterianism. I would find little comfort in my micro-denomination that affirms something that so many titans have rejected. Are Creeds and Confessions Scripture? No but I shudder to think how some cast them off so easily.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

But have there been any confessional (or creedal) affirmations of the practice in the Church? In light of the key role we all agree creeds and confessions play in the doctrine of the Church as a whole, I think that question is very relevant and telling to the issue at hand.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

I find a very strong parallel to this issue and the other thread in this forum dealing with schisms within Presbyterianism. I would find little comfort in my micro-denomination that affirms something that so many titans have rejected. Are Creeds and Confessions Scripture? No but I shudder to think how some cast them off so easily.

Chris and Rich, I think your posts are well-intentioned. But there are some issues related to the subject of paedocommunion which you may or may not have considered.

First of all, the support of Augustine IS major support. Quoting him is not like quoting Doug Wilson or Rich Lusk. Few people have had a greater theological influence in the history of the church. Thus, since he DID believe in paedocommunion, I think we should think about that seriously. Of course, that does not prove whether or not PC is correct. But it should at least give us pause to think.

Second, you need to consider whether the specific doctrine of paedocommunion is something likely to be addressed in the creeds and confessions. Did the early creeds and confessions say anything about infant baptism, for example? I may be wrong here, but I don't think that they did (at least not most of them). Nevertheless, we know that paedobaptism was ubiquitous. Nothing remotely resembling modern "credobaptism" even existed until the 11th century Petrobrussians, as far as I know.

In fact, consider the Anglican church, which DOES accept paedocommunion. They have "The 39 Articles" of Anglicanism, which hold a similar place in their church as does the WCF in a Presbyterian church. The Anglican church practices paedocommunion, and yet that doctrine shows up nowhere in the 39 Articles. Interesting!

At this point, it is helpful to remember that Augustine lived AFTER the formation of the Nicene Creed and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Those two creeds did not mention anything about paedocommunion. But does it therefore follow that they were opposed to it? Certainly not! (Anyone who disagrees needs to explain to me why the prolific author, Augustine, didn't bother to debate the issue if there were detractors.)

Thirdly, you need to consider the HUGE number of fronts on which the Reformation/Puritan church had to battle the Roman Catholic church. They didn't NEED anything new to argue with Rome about! Rome itself allowed paedocommunion up until the 4th Lateran Council of 1215, which solidified "transubstantiation" and thus required "confirmation". (In fact, pockets of the RC church still continued to practice paedocommunion even up until the 1500s.) But in general, Rome stopped practicing paedocommunion in the 3 most highly corrupt centuries prior to the Reformation. -- So, by the time of the Reformation, virtually no one practiced it. Thus, when the Protestants broke away from the RC church, they too (by default) did not practice paedocommunion. They battled the RC church over the much bigger issues of transubstantiation, the papacy, indulgences, sola fide, sola scriptura, etc., etc., etc. They were going after them on so many fronts, that they simply never had the time nor the reason to focus on paedocommunion like they might have otherwise done. They were breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, not from the Eastern Orthodox Church.


Fourthly, let me turn the argument around on you: How many creeds and confessions specifically deny paedocommunion? To my knowledge, there are very few! Of course the framers of the WCF and of the Belgic confession did not hold to PC, but neither did they specifically prohibit PC in their confessions. the only major confessional document I'm aware of that does this is the Westminster Larger Catechism. --- I realize that some may quibble with me on this one point. Very well, suppose that I allow that there are a few anti-PC confessions. So what? What about the Anglican 39 Articles? What about the numerous confessions which certainly do NOT prohibit paedocommunion? --- In short, silence is NOT an argument for prohibition.


To sum up, concerning history and confessions:

1) Augustine's support of paedocommunion is weighty. Had the church at large disagreed with him on this point, he would have no doubt written voluminously to support his point, just as he did with a number of other subjects.

2) Most creeds and confessions simply do not address the question of paedocommunion. And silence is a very weak argument. In fact, the protestant denomination of Anglicans DO support paedocommunion, and yet their confession does NOT mention it. Thus, we shouldn't be surprised to see similar things in earlier church creeds and confessions. Not every doctrine is covered in every creed.

3) Paedocommunion was one of the few issues where the Reformers did NOT disagree with the Roman Catholics, and thus they had much less impetus to seriously consider the issue. They were too focused on more important issues at the time.

4) Even anti-paedocommunion groups have often not banned paedocommunion in their confessions and creeds. This is yet further support to suggest that we should NOT base our paedocommunion decision on its inclusion in creeds, or lack thereof.




[Edited on 11-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[AdamM]

First of all, the support of Augustine IS major support.

Of course, the question that needs to be addressed is what was Augustine's rationale for infant particpation in the Lord's Supper? Is it the same as modern paedocommunion advocates? If it can proved to be different (based upon his reading of John 6 - a position I have yet to read any modern pc advocate put forth), then I think the whole appeal to Augustine by paedocommunionists is rendered a moot point.

In fact, the protestant denomination of Anglicans DO support paedocommunion

Are you sure this is correct? I have heard of a few REC congregations that support paedocommunion, but most Anglican churches I am familiar with practice confirmation. If I recall correctly, confirmation is not understood by Anglicans as a sacrament like Rome, but the child is not permitted to partake of the Supper until they are confirmed.





[Edited on 11-29-2005 by AdamM]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by AdamM

First of all, the support of Augustine IS major support.

Of course, the question that needs to be addressed is what was Augustine's rationale infant particpation in the Lord's Supper? Is it the same as modern paedocommunion advocates? If it can proved to be different (based upon his reading of John 6 - a position I have yet to read any modern pc advocate put forth), then I think the whole appeal to Augustine by paedocommunionists is rendered a moot point.

First of all, I would recommend picking up a copy of Tim Gallant's paedocommunion book, Feed My Lambs. He DOES believe that John 6 offers strong support for paedocommunion (and I agree with him).

Second, please try to be consistent, and consider how your anti-PC views would simultaneously "prove" that paedobaptism is incorrect. In this case, you suggest that Augustine's support of PC is moot because his rationale was different than some modern PC advocates. But what about his reasoning for supporting paedobaptism? Was it the same as the modern Presbyterian rationale for baptizing babies? I think not! Thus, does that render his support of paedobaptism "moot"? No way!

In any case, regardless of Augustine's reasoning, it is important to note two things:

1) He believed in paedocommunion.

2) As far as we can tell from church history, NOBODY QUESTIONED HIM ON IT! He didn't argue with anyone to try to convince them, and no one tried to argue with him to unconvince him. But if paedocommunion was such a rare practice in the early church, then how do you explain this?

Originally posted by AdamM

In fact, the protestant denomination of Anglicans DO support paedocommunion

Are you sure this is correct? I have heard of a few REC congregations that support paedocommunion, but most Anglican churches I am familiar with practice confirmation. If I recall correctly, confirmation is not understood by Anglicans as a sacrament like Rome, but the child is not permitted to partake of the Supper until they are confirmed.

I personally know some Anglicans whose churches practice paedocommunion. One in particular is Mark "Saiph" Kodak who is a paedocommunion advocate here on the Puritanboard.

I'll see what links I can grab for you, and I'll post them. Maybe not every Anglican church practices PC, but a lot of them do (including ones that practice confirmation).






[Edited on 11-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Yep . . . according to this site, paedocommunion is the majority practice for Anglican churches in North America.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Joseph,

I think my larger concern has to do with unity and, to a great extent, the human pride that undermines it. Paedocommunion is certainly a debatable subject historically. My main concern are those that separate themselves into micro-denominations in order to practice the things they're convinced they re-discovered within the last few decades.

If people are hard-over on paedo-communion then go join a reformed Anglican or Eastern Orthodox Church if that is so crucial to faith and life. Or, if you you have generational patience, labor faithfully, prayerfully, and humbly within your denomination to reform it back to a proper understanding of the practice. Just don't expect it to happen overnight as characterizes some who make vows and then leave in a huff when the denomination hasn't "seen the light" quickly enough for them.

Alongside the issue of paedocommunion is the issue of submission. If I became convinced of the paedocommunion position, I would still need to contend with the larger issue of Godly submission to the elders of the Church. Do I cast off bonds of fellowship and submission to a Church body in favor of my rediscovery of paedo-communion and go find a micro-denomination that fits my new conviction? I think the answer is "yes" for many and I think they do so far too easily. I think my kids will survive not partaking in the meantime. What they will be more damaged by spiritually is a father who grumbles against leadership and then expects them to submit to his authority.

My primary complaint against the movement is not in its effort to recover a practice but the schismatic spirit that attends many I've met that are part of the movement. This is why I find parallels to the discussion about "What's wrong with Presbyterians" within this forum.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Yep . . . according to this site, paedocommunion is the majority practice for Anglican churches in North America.

No bias at all there.

 

[fredtgreco]

Let's also be clear: paedocommunion is a symptom, not a cause of the problems with the FV. Their view of the sacraments is off, but so is that of election (see DTK's post), regeneration (read the chapter in the book The Federal Vision), covenant theology and especially perseverance (see the response to LA Presbytery.

The errors are systemic and lead to each other - the flawed view of election that DTK points out leads directly to the unbiblical formulation that God does not give the grace of perseverance to all the elect.

It is one big mess.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I personally know some Anglicans whose churches practice paedocommunion. One in particular is Mark "Saiph" Kodak who is a paedocommunion advocate here on the Puritanboard.

[Edited on 11-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]

Joseph,
If I am not mistaken, mark K. is not dogmatic about the issue; he has mentioned that both positions have good arguments.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by PAIN IN THE NECK]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Let's also be clear: paedocommunion is a symptom, not a cause of the problems with the FV. Their view of the sacraments is off, but so is that of election (see DTK's post), regeneration (read the chapter in the book The Federal Vision), covenant theology and especially perseverance (see the response to LA Presbytery.

The errors are systemic and lead to each other - the flawed view of election that DTK points out leads directly to the unbiblical formulation that God does not give the grace of perseverance to all the elect.

It is one big mess.

As I mentioned in the other similar thread..............

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Joseph,

I think my larger concern has to do with unity and, to a great extent, the human pride that undermines it. Paedocommunion is certainly a debatable subject historically. My main concern are those that separate themselves into micro-denominations in order to practice the things they're convinced they re-discovered within the last few decades.

If people are hard-over on paedo-communion then go join a reformed Anglican or Eastern Orthodox Church if that is so crucial to faith and life. Or, if you you have generational patience, labor faithfully, prayerfully, and humbly within your denomination to reform it back to a proper understanding of the practice. Just don't expect it to happen overnight as characterizes some who make vows and then leave in a huff when the denomination hasn't "seen the light" quickly enough for them.

Alongside the issue of paedocommunion is the issue of submission. If I became convinced of the paedocommunion position, I would still need to contend with the larger issue of Godly submission to the elders of the Church. Do I cast off bonds of fellowship and submission to a Church body in favor of my rediscovery of paedo-communion and go find a micro-denomination that fits my new conviction? I think the answer is "yes" for many and I think they do so far too easily. I think my kids will survive not partaking in the meantime. What they will be more damaged by spiritually is a father who grumbles against leadership and then expects them to submit to his authority.

My primary complaint against the movement is not in its effort to recover a practice but the schismatic spirit that attends many I've met that are part of the movement. This is why I find parallels to the discussion about "What's wrong with Presbyterians" within this forum.

Thank you for your excellent post! I couldn't agree with you more.

I believe in paedocommunion, and I have 4 very young daughters.

However, I currently go to a credobaptistic, credocommunion church. I have been going there for 5 years, and as long as I live in this area, I have no plans to leave.

I think unity is FAR more important than forcing the issue of paedocommunion. I will be an outspoken advocate for the practice as long as I believe in it. But I certainly will not turn my back on my church over it.

I am not a schismatic. I would rather stay where I am, and patiently discuss the issues with those around me. So far, God has blessed me in regard to the paedobaptism issue: He has moved my pastor to let me get my daughters baptized, without my pastor getting in a big huff about it. So who knows, maybe God will likewise bless my approach to the paedocommunion issue. In any case, I certainly value unity.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I will be an outspoken advocate for the practice as long as I believe in it. But I certainly will not turn my back on my church over it.

I am not a schismatic. I would rather stay where I am, and patiently discuss the issues with those around me. So far, God has blessed me in regard to the paedobaptism issue: He has moved my pastor to let me get my daughters baptized, without my pastor getting in a big huff about it. So who knows, maybe God will likewise bless my approach to the paedocommunion issue. In any case, I certainly value unity.

Joseph,

I have said this before, and I mean it not as a theological point, but rather as a help to a fellow seminarian: you will not be permitted to be an "outspoken advocate" of paedocommunion in almost every Presbyterian denomination. That sentence alone would get you about half no votes in most Presbyteries.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Joseph,

I have said this before, and I mean it not as a theological point, but rather as a help to a fellow seminarian: you will not be permitted to be an "outspoken advocate" of paedocommunion in almost every Presbyterian denomination. That sentence alone would get you about half no votes in most Presbyteries.

Fred,

Thank you for the reminder. I realize this is an issue in some places. But I also know that it is not a guaranteed roadblock, either. Dr. Vern Poythress teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary, and holds to paedocommunion. G.I. Williamson is a very popular OPC guy with pro-paedocommunion beliefs. I'm sure you are well aware of the OPC majority report on PC from the 1980s. Then there is pro-PC Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. in the same denomination as Dr. McMahon. I could go on, but I won't.

In short, I realize that being pro-paedocommunion will limit my choices, but by no means should it shut them all out. If Poythress, Williamson, and Sproul Jr. can make it in Presbyterian denominations, then I think God may have a Presbyterian place for me, too.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Joseph,

I have said this before, and I mean it not as a theological point, but rather as a help to a fellow seminarian: you will not be permitted to be an "outspoken advocate" of paedocommunion in almost every Presbyterian denomination. That sentence alone would get you about half no votes in most Presbyteries.

Fred,

Thank you for the reminder. I realize this is an issue in some places. But I also know that it is not a guaranteed roadblock, either. Dr. Vern Poythress teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary, and holds to paedocommunion. G.I. Williamson is a very popular OPC guy with pro-paedocommunion beliefs. I'm sure you are well aware of the OPC majority report on PC from the 1980s. Then there is pro-PC Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. in the same denomination as Dr. McMahon. I could go on, but I won't.

In short, I realize that being pro-paedocommunion will limit my choices, but by no means should it shut them all out. If Poythress, Williamson, and Sproul Jr. can make it in Presbyterian denominations, then I think God may have a Presbyterian place for me, too.

Joseph,

With all humility, your comments are not based in realism. Sproul Jr has a bit of a leg up on both of us with name recognition. Williamson has been in the OPC almost since its founding. I have seen no hard data (i.e. a statement from the man himself) that Poythress is PC, or anything in writing to that effect.

In each case, the man in question labored for a very long period before even making his views known (or coming to those views). In fact, each man is relatively silent about his views now, not agitating. You should also place almost no stock in the fact that a majority report was issued in the OPC (by one vote, I might add). It is far more significant that the majority report was soundly defeated, even with Williamson (perhaps one of the best OPC churchmen of the 20th century) as its supporter. The report has been consigned to oblivion, and its not even available on the internet any more.

I'm being frank here, for your benefit. Don't judge the acceptance of a view by how many pixels it gets on the internet.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Don't judge the acceptance of a view by how many pixels it gets on the internet.

Fred, that is the most important thing you've ever said. And, I think there's quite a few RTS classmates of yours that need to have this beat into their heads.

Being nuanced and novel in your views, riding a bandwagon of internet bliss, may be fun for a while, but when no serious Church will ordain you for your anti-Reformed viewpoints and arrogant attitude against Reformation distinctives, the Puritans, and others of similar vein, one probably won't be as happy-go-lucky about their nuanced-ness.

 

[AdamM]

First of all, I would recommend picking up a copy of Tim Gallant's paedocommunion book, Feed My Lambs. He DOES believe that John 6 offers strong support for paedocommunion (and I agree with him).

For what it's worth, I am familiar with Gallant's arguments and find them to be rather weak.

Augustine believed that according to John 6 participation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was necessary for salvation, therefore if you wanted your child to go to heaven, you had better make sure your infant "ate" the Supper at the earliest age. I find it hard to believe that anyone in our circles would advocate that position and I hope that is not your application of John 6.

In this case, you suggest that Augustine's support of PC is moot because his rationale was different than some modern PC advocates.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Every position needs to be evaluated according to the quality of the argument. If Augustine based his support of PC on a faulty premise that PC advocates today don't argue for, then his position is irrelevant to this debate.

someone in the past supported paedobaptism for the wrong reasons

Was it the same as the modern Presbyterian rationale for baptizing babies? I think not! Thus, does that render his support of paedobaptism "moot"? No way!

Well, if someone in the past based their support of paedobaptism on a wrong rationale, then I wouldn't give much weight to their position. People do the right thing for the wrong reasons all the time, but as I mentioned earlier, every position must stand or fall based upon the quality of the argument supporting it.

2) As far as we can tell from church history, NOBODY QUESTIONED HIM ON IT! He didn't argue with anyone to try to convince them, and no one tried to argue with him to unconvince him. But if paedocommunion was such a rare practice in the early church, then how do you explain this?

I don't see anyone here claiming that the church in Augustine's time didn't wrongly practice paedocommunion.

For what it's worth, the early church father Origen specifically states that children were not given communion while his contemporary Cyprian indicates the opposite and no mention is made one way or the other of the practice by the earliest church fathers, so the argument from Church history is somewhat muddled.



[Edited on 11-30-2005 by AdamM]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Being nuanced and novel in your views,
riding a bandwagon of internet bliss,
may be fun for a while,
but when no serious Church will ordain you for your anti-Reformed viewpoints and arrogant attitude against Reformation distinctives, the Puritans, and others of similar vein, one probably won't be as happy-go-lucky about their nuanced-ness.

Interesting position, Gabriel . . . Dr. McMahon is a pastor in the same denomination that ordained R.C. Sproul Jr. . . . Does that mean that his church isn't a "serious church"?




[Edited on 11-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

I have seen no hard data (i.e. a statement from the man himself) that Poythress is PC, or anything in writing to that effect.

Please listen to this interview with Vern Poythress. Start listening at around 14:45 in the interview. For several minutes, Poythress (a PCA guy) talks quite extensively about his support of paedocommunion.




[Edited on 11-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Being nuanced and novel in your views,
riding a bandwagon of internet bliss,
may be fun for a while,
but when no serious Church will ordain you for your anti-Reformed viewpoints and arrogant attitude against Reformation distinctives, the Puritans, and others of similar vein, one probably won't be as happy-go-lucky about their nuanced-ness.

Interesting position, Gabriel . . . Dr. McMahon is a pastor in the same denomination that ordained R.C. Sproul Jr. . . . Does that mean that his church isn't a "serious church"?




[Edited on 11-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]

Joseph,
I do not want to sound harsh, but I am getting tired of you referring to the RPCGA and McMahon as having any connection w/ PC. Please do not align the denomination, The RPCGA denounces the practice. As far as RC jr. goes, he may off the cuff agree with the premise, he is not going against his conscience nor the confessional vows he has taken w/ the RPCGA. His advocacy (if he advocates it at all), is silent at best.

You still have not provided anything on Sproul Jr. Please quit tossing his name around.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

Joseph,
I do not want to sound harsh, but I am getting tired of you referring to the RPCGA and McMahon as having any connection w/ PC. Please do not align the denomination, The RPCGA denounces the practice. As far as RC jr. goes, he may off the cuff agree with the premise, he is not going against his conscience nor the confessional vows he has taken w/ the RPCGA. His advocacy (if he advocates it at all), is silent at best.

The RPCGA may officially denounce the practice, but by accepting the ordination of R.C. Jr., they tacitly admit that being pro-paedocommunion does not make one unorthodox.

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
You still have not provided anything on Sproul Jr. Please quit tossing his name around.

Ask Dr. McMahon. He himself has openly said on the Puritanboard that R.C. Jr. is pro-paedocommunion. The RPCGA allows him to believe it, just not to practice it.

 

[Scott Bushey]

RC Jr's ordination has nothing to do with things he toys with mentally. His confessional vows are his conviction and that vow is what he has sworn to; not his deeper thinking.

If you have no information to back up what you are saying, I suggest either getting it from the horses mouth, and until then, quit throwing his name around as if the idea is etched in stone.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
If you have no information to back up what you are saying, I suggest either getting it from the horses mouth, and until then, quit throwing his name around as if the idea is etched in stone.

I repeat: Dr. McMahon himself has said that R.C. Jr. is pro-paedocommunion.

Also, here are some various links which corroborate what I am saying about R.C. Jr.:

A Report on the 29th PCA General Assembly

"In a sermon I heard recently by R.C. Sproul Jr. he gave a brilliant and emotional defense of paedocommunion."

Kingdom Offences

http://www.paedocommunion.com/whoswho.php

http://www.upsaid.com/rabbisaul/index.php?action=viewcom&id=1168

 

[biblelighthouse]

Let's get this thread back on track, and go back to focusing on the Biblical arguments themselves.

As I said before:

One of my favorite paedocommunion texts is 1 Corinthians 10:17, which demonstrates that the body of Christ and the table of Christ are coextensive:

"For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

Why are we "one body"? We are one body because "we are all partakers of that one bread."

Are tiny children part of the body of Christ? Yes, of course.
Thus, tiny children are also "partakers of that one bread".

The body and the table are coextensive.

And Gabriel Martini himself admits the following:

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Children of believers are part of the body of Christ and kingdom of God as members of the visible Church, by birth. They enter this community objectively through baptism

Of course I agree, and thus 1 Corinthians 10:17 is a Scriptural mandate for paedocommunion.

However, RAS has offered the excellent question:

Originally posted by RAS

The questions that needs to be answered though are, how do we know they are part of the body of Christ, and are we speaking visibly or invisibly?

Well, who is addressed in 1 Corinthians 10, the invisible church, or the visible church?

The chapter, from the very beginning, is clearly addressed to the visible church.

For starters, Paul draws a parallel between the OT church in the wilderness (Israel) and the NT church. He links the Red Sea crossing to baptism, and their manna & water to the bread & wine of communion. Twice, Paul says that what happened to them was written "for us".

So, was all of Israel regenerate? Certainly not! In fact, that is Paul's point in this passage . . . even though the Israelites received great blessings parallel to what the NT church receives, they were not all regenerate, and many of them fell away, and received judgment. Paul goes on to warn the church that the same thing can happen to them! Thus, unless you are an Arminian, it is impossible to think that Paul was addressing only the invisible church.

1 Corinthians 10:17 is addressed to the visible church. The visible body of Christ partakes of the "one bread". And how many members of the church partake? "ALL" of them do, according to this Scripture.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Also, here are some various links which corroborate what I am saying about R.C. Jr.:

A Report on the 29th PCA General Assembly

Taken from the above report:

"Sometimes personalities were involved. In the summer of 2000, R.C.
Sproul, Jr., sought to transfer into the presbytery. Some questions were raised about his views on the Sabbath, the regulative principle of worship, and paedocommunion (although exceptions are routinely granted on these issues, and in the past paedocommunion beliefs have not prevented admission to the presbytery). I think that the real issue was Christian education. (Sproul hates government schools.)"

The abvove does not valisdate the claim......
~My emphasis added/SPB

"In a sermon I heard recently by R.C. Sproul Jr. he gave a brilliant and emotional defense of paedocommunion."

The above is FV sensitive. I will quote the author:

"In a sermon I heard recently by R.C. Sproul Jr. he gave a brilliant and emotional defense of paedocommunion."

The above is as well hearsay, not factual. No link to the sermon!

Kingdom Offences

http://www.paedocommunion.com/whoswho.php

The above proved nothing about RC's position; here's the quote:

"What about R.C. Sproul Jr.'s daughter? I tell you that when he told us of having to withhold the Supper from her I almost lost it."

http://www.upsaid.com/rabbisaul/index.php?action=viewcom&id=1168

The above link didn't mention Sproul at all in regards to PC. ?????

Again, RC has vowed to keep to the WCF and RPCGA's book of church order. If the discipline was that important to him, would he stay? The RPCGA rejects PC, period!

Your sources are weak. Someone told me last week that I was 'hoodwinked' by the sources I cited; I agreed. Yours are as bad Joe. I suggest emailing RC and getting the validation from him. Make sure he clearifies to you, the level of importance the discipline is to him and why he stays with the RPCGA.



[Edited on 11-30-2005 by PAIN IN THE NECK]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

Again, RC has vowed to keep to the WCF and RPCGA's book of church order. If the discipline was that important to him, would he stay? The RPCGA rejects PC, period!

Of course he would stay. He would stay for the same reason G.I. Williamson stayed with the OPC church, and the same reason Vern Poythress stayed with the PCA church.

Paedocommunion is important. But it is NOT important enough to break fellowship over!

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK

Your sources are weak. Someone told me last week that I was 'hoodwinked' by the sources I cited; I agreed. Yours are as bad Joe. I suggest emailing RC and getting the validation from him. Make sure he clearifies to you, the level of importance the discipline is to him and why he stays with the RPCGA.

My sources are weak? That's funny: I didn't know Dr. McMahon was a "weak" source. Well, you are welcome to your opinion. But I disagree with you. I rather respect Dr. McMahon.

Do you know Sproul Jr.'s email address? I would be more than happy to contact him personally, to find out directly from him what he believes.

Thank you,
Joseph




[Edited on 11-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Scott Bushey]

I quoted the sources; look at the quotes. They say nothing other than exactly what you say. There are no quotes from RC. You say, they say, it's all hearsay/blog garbage. Has RC written anything on PC? Why not?

I hold the same fire to your feet as I do with Matt. I know what the RPCGA standards are. if RC is PC, prove it! If he is, again, the conviction is not worth leaving the RPCGA over it, hence, it cannot be that great of an issue w/ him.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
If RC is PC, prove it! If he is, again, the conviction is not worth leaving the RPCGA over it, hence, it cannot be that great of an issue w/ him.

Hogwash. Paedocommunion is an important issue to me. Nevertheless, I would not leave a church over it.

Similarly, paedocommunion is important to Vern Poythress. But he has not left his church over it.

Similarly, paedocommunion is important to Mark Horne. But he has not left his church over it.

Similarly, paedocommunion is important to G.I. Williamson. But he has not left his church over it.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Correct. It is not that big of an issue that one would leave their church over; thats what I said about RC. However, the FV troup believes it to be a great sin, much like not baptising your child. Their interpretation is that it rejects the covenant outwardly by withholding the supper from your children. Here lies the difference between the orthodox and FV.

Let me give you an example, as a covenant theologian, I could not in right conscience, remain in a church that was not presbyterian in government nor see the NOT placing of the sign upon my child as a "great sin". I would leave. Thats conviction I am speaking of! Or, a dispensational church. or, a church that has no membership, etc. etc. etc. I have that conviction. RC, obviously does not have the same level of conviction that the FV camp does (in regard to PC-if he is pro PC at all- no one has substantiated anything, just a bunch of hearsay).

As well, all of these things, according to hypercovenantalism, are linked tight;y together. You cannot be FV and not feed your child. You cannot be FV and not have the (mis)understanding of justification that they hold to.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
Let me give you an example, as a covenant theologian, I could not in right conscience, remain in a church that was not presbyterian in government nor see the NOT placing of the sign upon my child as a "great sin". I would leave. Thats conviction I am speaking of! Or, a dispensational church. or, a church that has no membership, etc. etc. etc. I have that conviction. RC, obviously does not have the same level of conviction that the FV camp does (in regard to PC-if he is pro PC at all- no one has substantiated anything, just a bunch of hearsay).

That is one place where we disagree. I go to an independent baptistic Bible church. But my elders let me have my daughters baptized, since that is my conviction. And I am OK with that. I think church unity is more important than such questions over baptism and communion.

There's also something else to think about: At this time, there are really not any Presbyterian denominations which accept paedocommunion. But with the support that is gradually being gained within the PCA, OPC, etc., that may eventually change. Once there is a critical mass of pro-PC ministers, there may emerge a PC-accepting Presbytery. If that happens, you may be surprised at how many PCA, OPC, and other ministers DO change their church affiliations. But at the moment, that is just not a possibility within the Presbyterian church. A pro-PC minister would have to switch to Anglicanism, and most ministers are just not willing to do that (for good reasons).

Originally posted by PAIN IN THE NECK
As well, all of these things, according to hypercovenantalism, are linked tight;y together. You cannot be FV and not feed your child. You cannot be FV and not have the (mis)understanding of justification that they hold to.

You are incorrect.

Mark Horne is a FV guy. And he is a minister in the PCA church. AND he does NOT practice paedocommunion, even though he believes PC is biblical.

So, being FV does not automatically put someone on a wholly different sacramental plain concerning paedocommunion. It is possible for one of them to remain in the PCA denomination without practicing PC.