Paedocommunionist denomination?

[luvroftheWord]

I guess the question that always comes to my mind is why the vast majority of Presbyterians believe their children are not fit to come to the table. This is where presumptive regeneration comes into play. If we believe that our children are saved, why do we withhold the table from them? Does God not have the power to save our infant children?

I know lots of emphasis is placed on 1 Corinthians 11, but I really don't think this can exclude children. They may not be able to examine themselves the way we as adults do, but then again, they are only accountable for what they have the capacity to do, at least in my mind. And besides, it is the responsibility of the parents to teach the child to examine himself from birth.

That's just my view, though. I am willing to submit to church authority on the issue. I guess I would also disagree with the idea that the two sacraments are different in the way John described.

 

[JohnV]

[quote:81a5659cad][i:81a5659cad]posted by LOTW[/i:81a5659cad]
I guess I would also disagree with the idea that the two sacraments are different in the way John described. [/quote:81a5659cad]
Answer?
:tongue:

So there!

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:8bb6fe84b8][i:8bb6fe84b8]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:8bb6fe84b8]
I guess the question that always comes to my mind is why the vast majority of Presbyterians believe their children are not fit to come to the table. This is where presumptive regeneration comes into play. If we believe that our children are saved, why do we withhold the table from them? Does God not have the power to save our infant children?

I know lots of emphasis is placed on 1 Corinthians 11, but I really don't think this can exclude children. They may not be able to examine themselves the way we as adults do, but then again, they are only accountable for what they have the capacity to do, at least in my mind. And besides, it is the responsibility of the parents to teach the child to examine himself from birth.

That's just my view, though. I am willing to submit to church authority on the issue. I guess I would also disagree with the idea that the two sacraments are different in the way John described. [/quote:8bb6fe84b8]

I've said this before, and I am curious, Craig, given your view of the church and the authority of Confessions (which I agree with):

Doesn't it give you any pause to know that EVERY single confession of EVERY branch of Christendom - even false branches like Rome - all have for the entire length of the Church taken 1 Corinthians 11 to say exactly the opposite of what you posit?

When I say every, I mean every. Rome, Methodism, Presbyterian, fundy baptists, reformed baptists, liberal mainline churches, episcopals, charismatics, churches in Europe, churches in Africa, Asia, America, etc. Other than a few odd references here and there, the paedocommunion movement is non-existent confessionally.

{I'm not interested right now is Tommy Lee's vague citations from some Church Fathers; I want [b:8bb6fe84b8]Confessional or Creedal[/b:8bb6fe84b8] statements.}

Please forgive my boldness as an elder, but as one who has come to care for you, Craig, and who appreciates your thoughfulness, you need to give much more thought to this. Bunyan used to speak of the two ditches of error on either side of the road of truth. We can so often be (rightly but overly) concerned to escape the rampant individualism and anti-covenantalism of our day, and it cause us to fall into the ditch on the other side of the road. Paedocommunion was not practiced in the hey-day of covenantal theology: not by Calvin, Witsius, Turretin or the Puritans. I know that you think you have a good bead on this issue now, but I humbly ask you to reconsider. you don't. You've (like me) got a long way to go baby.

 

[Scott Bushey]

John,
Ok. We are together on this!:cool2:

 

[luvroftheWord]

Fred,

Thanks for your advice. You are certainly correct. I don't know as much as I think I do. But as I said, I am willing to submit myself to the church rather than raise a stink about my own views. And who knows? Maybe the more I study I will change my views. I am in no way a dogmatist on this issue.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:64ff30d936][i:64ff30d936]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:64ff30d936]
Fred,

Thanks for your advice. You are certainly correct. I don't know as much as I think I do. But as I said, I am willing to submit myself to the church rather than raise a stink about my own views. And who knows? Maybe the more I study I will change my views. I am in no way a dogmatist on this issue. [/quote:64ff30d936]

Craig,

You are welcome. I'm very glad for your words. You are young, but you are starting out very wise. May God in his grace make you a much better man than I am at my age!

 

[Preach]

Dr. Strawbridge

Has anyone read Dr. Strawbridge's short article defending paedocommunion? I am wrestling with this issue, and am hoping that some of you can read his article (http://www.wordmp3.com/gs/paedocommunion.htm) and respond. Thanks,
Bobby

 

[Me Died Blue]

Though this thread has been dead for a few months, I'd like to hear more about what everyone thinks about the issue of paedocommunion (and the moderators should probably also move it to the CT forum). I personally lean strongly toward the side favoring it and implementing it, but am very open-minded for discussion of it that seeks to look at the issue honestly.

From my understanding, paedocommunion would be a given and would fall undisputedly into the category of Covenant Theology and a covenantal doctrine of the church and the sacraments were it not for two things: 1) the warning in 1 Corinthians 11, and 2) the overwhelming historical majority against it.

Concerning the former of these two, I'm not going to quote all the surrounding passages and get specific right away at least, but I think that the interpretation that Paul was warning against the specific abuses going on in the Corinthian church that time are a far better consideration of the passage's [i:de0d969fa0]context[/i:de0d969fa0] than is the interpretation to generalize it into a universal command for individualistic introspection, one which inevitably creates the distinction between "covenant members" and "professing covenant members," which seems to destroy the whole covenantal mindset which presumes regeneration.

Concerning the latter, I do have to admit that the factor of historical majority is strongly against paedocommunion. Furthermore, I absolutely do not want to minimize the authority that the Confessional and historical word should have in our doctrine, as so many evangelicals wrongly do today. Nonetheless, as Craig Sowder has recently mentioned in the "Let's play a little game..." thread, we shouldn't allow those standards to [i:de0d969fa0]completely[/i:de0d969fa0] set the boundaries for what questions we are allowed to ask theologically, and make them equal with Scripture for all practical purposes. We cannot say, "If an issue hasn't already been accepted by the church by 2000 A.D., then it is [i:de0d969fa0]never[/i:de0d969fa0] worthy of consideration." Should we handle such issues carefully and with a grain of salt because of the historical weight? Absolutely! But nonetheless, we have to realize the factor of human error and the [i:de0d969fa0]possibility[/i:de0d969fa0] that not [i:de0d969fa0]every[/i:de0d969fa0] issue has been properly dealt with yet. What good is being Reformed if we are not at least [i:de0d969fa0]open[/i:de0d969fa0] to continually being reformed? [i:de0d969fa0]Semper Reformanda[/i:de0d969fa0]--we acknowledge this principle with our mouths, but do we really believe it? There are the two important factors of 1) Confessional authority, stability and unity, and 2) Willingness to be continually refined. The Roman Catholic Church takes the extreme of [i:de0d969fa0]only[/i:de0d969fa0] embracing the former, while groups like Pentecostals totally reject it and only focus on the latter. As Reformed and always reforming, we need to have a healthy, biblical balance between the two--which I believe is one that leans toward the former (Confessional authority) but still gives room for the latter (continual reformation).

These are my general current thought surrounding the issue of paedocommunion, mainly involving the Scriptural analysis that has been discussed and the Confessional authority that people like Fred have mentioned. I want to hear everyone's thoughts on this and openly discuss it some more.

In Christ,

Chris

 

[ConfederateTheocrat]

The Reformed Episcopal Church allows it.

 

[Me Died Blue]

This thread has been dead for nearly a year, and in light of the last post I made in it before its resurrection today, I need to clarify for anyone who reads this thread for the first time that I was persuaded against the paedocommunion stance between the time of my above post and the present. You can do a search on the word in my posts if you're curious as to why I was persuaded against it.

 

[ConfederateTheocrat]

Sorry for ressurecting it.

 

[Me Died Blue]

No problem at all, and feel free to keep posting in it if you wish - my above post was just so that no one who may be reading the thread for the first time would mistakenly think that I still hold that view.

 

[ConfederateTheocrat]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
No problem at all, and feel free to keep posting in it if you wish - my above post was just so that no one who may be reading the thread for the first time would mistakenly think that I still hold that view.

Ok, thanks for clarifying : ).