Paedocommunion by Rayburn

Status
Not open for further replies.
Presumptive regeneration undermines human responsibility - the responsibility of children to keep the covenant, and not be profane people like Esau.

What covenant are they/we supposed to keep Daniel? I am confused terribly by this statement..

The covenant of grace...though they can only keep it if they are regenerate.

I never heard that we 'Keep' the COG. How does one do that?
 
What do y'all make of the following?

Last paragraph of Dr. Rayburn's article -

"We do not practice paedocommunion here at Faith Presbyterian. We get as close to it as we can, the rules of our church being what they are, but a profession of faith is still required in the PCA for participation at the Lord’s Table. So, we take professions of faith much sooner than used to be the norm; and, happily, many, many other PCA churches are doing the same. And that is alright. If it takes some years, as it will, to convince the church that the practice of many centuries is in error, so be it. Our little children, having come to the table at five years of age or so, will not remember a time when they did not come, of a Lord’s Day, to eat the bread and drink the wine that Jesus Christ their Savior has provided for them by his body and blood. And in its own mysterious way, that Supper will, by the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit, do its work in nourishing their faith in Jesus Christ."

Their practice in this is for the elders to take the five membership questions from the BCO and translate them to a five-year-old (or whatever age) level. If the child answers correctly, they are admitted.

I think this is a workaround. Considering requirements such as self-examination and discerning the Lord's body in the supper, I do not see the wisdom in this.


It is definitely a workaround. They are not shy about their view that they are seeking to "reform" the church on this issue, and since they do not see themselves to be in error (and claim Rayburn's minority report on the issue as backup), I do not believe that they consider their approach to be a toeing of the line, as much as getting one step closer to orthodoxy.

As per the discussion of presumptive regeneration underlying this problem, read Rayburn's article on his view of "covenant succession", which can be found on Faith PCA in Tacoma's website, but be sure to read the great critique of this doctrine by Alan Strange in the Mid-America Reformed Journal of Theology. He really nails the problems involved with this view of covenantal succession/PR.

As per the FV connection, yes, it is there. The session will deny any direct support of FV doctrines, but having heard Rayburn speak on more than one occasion, it is clear (and he will say so himself) that he is a fairly strong FV "sympathizer".... Their church is well-established, large, and exerts a fair amount of influence among the presbytery of the PacNW, which is why Leithart's examination is continually being delayed. "You know, the issues are just so complex, we really need to take more time on this (regardless of Leithart's blogging statements in clear opposition to at least several of the GA's nine points that were put out this last summer).
 
Great summary Pastor Myer. Incidentally, I do recognize why Covenant Succession/PR plays into this. I was simply trying to avoid that particular issue and focus on some of the clear arguments that demonstrate that, since the Passover and Lord's Supper, have a "substantial" connection that the arguments are weak for PC on the basis of both the historical data and the Scriptures.

For the record, I've never liked the term presumptive regeneration. I know we've had discussions on here that demonstrate that, depending upon what one means by ther term, that not all views of it are unorthodox. I prefer simply to note that we know everyone in the visible Church is either a disciple or they are not. Our knowledge of their regeneration is never said to be a basis for anything we do in the visible Church. The Church ministers the visible means of grace to all indiscriminately and the Holy Spirit seals the benefits to those who are Christ's.

My main point in rebuffing the idea that PR has something to do with participation in the Lord's Supper is that a person's presumed regeneration is not the arbiter for an Elder administering the Sacrament. Discernment and maturity are, however, clear visible indicators and, I don't care how much we may presume that a 3 year old is regenerate, he has not matured sufficiently to discern what he is doing yet and I reject the PC view that conflates all Covenant ideas into one.

Thanks again Brother!
 
God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not. :2cents:

In this statement there is a movement from promise to fulfilment, thereby leading to an unwarranted conclusion. The fact that God promises to do something for our children does not tie God to any point of time for the fulfilment of the promise. Hence we have no warrant to conclude that covenant children should be treated as regenerate. The most it could mean is that we are to treat them with the hope God will regenerate them in His time. Hence covenant theology is neither presumptive of regeneration or non-regeneration. We give the children the means, pray to God for His blessing, and look expectantly to see the fruits.
 
God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not. :2cents:

In this statement there is a movement from promise to fulfilment, thereby leading to an unwarranted conclusion. The fact that God promises to do something for our children does not tie God to any point of time for the fulfilment of the promise. Hence we have no warrant to conclude that covenant children should be treated as regenerate. The most it could mean is that we are to treat them with the hope God will regenerate them in His time. Hence covenant theology is neither presumptive of regeneration or non-regeneration. We give the children the means, pray to God for His blessing, and look expectantly to see the fruits.

Exactly! If we simply stopped focusing on the secret things of God when the revealed things are in front of our eyes then we wouldn't have this problem. I don't know why this took so long for it to be an epiphany for me that the Church must deal with disciples as they are in front of them. There simply is no measuring device to presume regeneration.

In fact, when it comes to practical theology, we all really end up acting this way and treat all in the visible Church indiscriminately. There's even no presumption of non-regeneration during Church discipline. We all hope and pray that this is going to be the opportunity for them to be brought to their senses. Hebrews 4 even repeatedly talks about this sense of "let us" strive and that we should be on the lookout for one another. We're never permitted to just let somebody either fall behind with no concern or not to worry about the seeming "strong ones". We strive together for the goal of the Gospel.

I understand why it happens though. We see that we must understand that God's electing love is absolutely essential to the Gospel. This is good but we don't always use it in the context properly and start to think that the fact that we know that God will save His own allows us to take an unwarranted step and act as if we can tell who are and are not His own.

In a very real sense, we need to know when we should be thinking about regeneration and, visibly, when the knowledge of that state is immaterial to the task at hand.

Blessings!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top