Reversal on Paedocommunion

Robert Truelove · #1 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 08:24 AM

Some of you may have noticed that since I have been here I have been skirting the paedocommunion question whenever it comes up in a thread. Some have asked my position on this and I have just sort of whistled (figuratively speaking) and looked the other way. It's a good question because I am in a denomination that allows each session to determine its position in regards to paedocommunion. Many assume all of the churches in the Covenant Presbyerian Church are paedocommunion (which isn't true).

I am at a place with my church where I can now come out and clear the air.

Early last year we went paedocommunion (each local session has liberty to decide the practice of each church in regard to paedocommunion in my denomination). This move was a huge mistake on my part. While I had done some study on this, and everything seemed to be in order, I had not taken near the time, effort, study, and prayer that this subject required. Looking back, there were other extraneous circumstances that were influencing me that also factor into the mix. Long story short, this subject has been one of my primary pursuits this year and I have since reversed my position on paedocommunion.

While I was not the senior pastor when we made the change, I was was an elder on the session and gave a thumbs up for the change. I have have asked the congregation to forgive my lack of diligence for not having studied this issue through more thoroughly before having allowed the change.

Currently I have been leading the church through a study of the sacraments culminating in a series of lectures that critique the paedocommunion position. At the conclusion of the lectures, we will be formally re-adopting the confessional view on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

There will be 3 [now only 2] lectures in this series as relates to paedocommunion.

1. The Arguements from Passover (This message is now online)
(only adult males partook--there will be direct interaction with many arguments to the contrary made by the paedocommunists).

2. 1 Corinthians 11
(a defense of the traditional understanding of this text--a demonstration of the differences between baptism and the Lord's Supper--a demonstration that common paedocommunion interpretations are 'novel')

3. How Should We Consider Covenant Children?
[Due to some uncertainties as to exactly how I would like to present this, I have decided to postpone this lecture to a future date. I decided I also wanted to present it outside the context of a series of paedocommunion as the implications are much broader than the subject of communion.]

I would like to ask for prayer in the preparation and clear articulation of this series. Also, if anyone has a pro or con point, that relates to any part of the series as stated above, feel free to post a reply here. It may be that someone presents something 'new' that I haven't read or thought of that I may bring into the lectures. Don't expect a reply from me here though...I'm not going to debate or engage this subject here much until I complete my series. After that, it will be available on the Internet for free.

NaphtaliPress · #2 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 08:39 AM

turmeric · #3 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 10:22 AM

Semper Fidelis · #4 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 10:39 AM

Daniel Ritchie · #5 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 02:05 PM

It is a sign of humility in a man when he changes his mind; usually our hearts are so proud that when we think that we are right on something that it is almost impossible to shift us when we come to a conclusion. I shall try to remember to pray for you at this time Robert

.

Augusta · #6 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 09:28 PM

armourbearer · #7 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 10:58 PM

Contra_Mundum · #8 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 11:50 PM

Recently was pointed out to me a difference between Presbyterians and Puritans (proper), since they are practically of the same species, and difficult to tell apart.

Presbyterians could be described as those who believe in a church comprised ALL of professors of the faith (and their infant children) BUT those notorious (unrepentant) sinners. Emphasis on identifying those to be removed.

Puritans could be described as those who believe in a church comprised ALL of notorious Christians (and, usually, except for the baptist variety, their infant children). Emphasis on identifying the visible saints who ought to be included.

I think this speaks to the question of our children, and how to treat them. I believe in the indispensable fact of parental observation for evidence of conversion. The question might be asked: what constitutes "evidence"? Testimony of an inward "work" may be helpful, but is the wrong place to look, since it asks for the recounting of subjective experience. "What do they believe?" is an objective criterion, as is noting the "fruit of righteousness" (Heb. 12:11) proceeding from DISCIPLINE. And beside correction, catechism is a form of discipline.

We have discussed "presumption" before. I think much of the debate is over terminology, not substance. Although those are not worthless talks, because we need to air the issues, and that takes the judicious use of language and carefully defined terminology. If I'm "treating" the child I'm discipling as if he/she is a Christian, it means I am expecting either 1) the Spirit is using the Word at that moment in the process of regeneration/conversion (bringing to life), or 2) he's using it for sanctification (growth in grace). There is a third possibility, that of hardening, but God's promises aren't attached to the Word for hardening, so I'm not focused on that "by faith."

Rob, I wish you well in this series.