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.

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.

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.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

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/inde...iewcom&id=1168

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

As I said before:

And Gabriel Martini himself admits the following:

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

However, RAS has offered the excellent question:


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.

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

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!

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."

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]

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!

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]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

The whole point of placing the sign on our children is covenantal. We covenant with Christ and a covenanting community. The community that you are attached to is not a covenantal community. In that, you are not truly covenanting. You may think you are, but in reality, you are not. Think about it this way, Isaac places the sign, and leaves Israel forever. How has he covenanted? or, he has an egyptian place the sign on his child. Where's the covenant community he has covenanted with?

Presbyterianism is based upon presbyterian government. That government is biblically based; on covenant. Independancy is (as Fred G. recenly said) an oxymoron!

You as well have PC convictions; will they allow that also? Who is running the church over there? You or them?


Ah yes, unity..........You say you hold to the WCF. The WCF calls witholding the sacrament from our children "a great sin", but for the sake of unity, youi will ignore this. Your pastor is independant baptist, one whom holds to 'believers baptism', yet he will forego all his convictions for your conscience. Incredible! And there you have todays problem in the church. Anything goes.


Exactly. because it is blatant error.


The only support is rooted generally in FV supporters. No one was talking about this 5 years ago. It is because of FV.


I am sure. We have many abberant groups out there even now.

I am sure. FV is viral.


I understand. What I mean is that the two go hand in hand.

Scott,

blatant ?

didn't you mean to say historical ?

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by Saiph]

__________________
Misery induces despair, pride induces presumption. The Incarnation shows man the
greatness of his misery by the greatness of the remedy which he required.
~ Pascal, Pensees 526

Historically blatant.

Again:


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

As I said before:

And Gabriel Martini himself admits the following:

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

However, RAS has offered the excellent question:


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.

Sorry Scott . . I thought blatant meant loud and obnoxious. . . I see now it has other meanings . . I did not know that. No big deal.

The sacraments are only efficacious in the elect, so it does a child no good to partake of communion (an active sacrament, not passive like baptism) before themselves professing faith and examining themselves prior to communion. You are only gambling with feeding them judgment in a much greater way than with someone who professes faith and exhibits fruit of regeneration.

The sacraments are efficacious to both when attended by the word.
The elect and reprobate alike are fed by the holy feast. The question is whether that food becomes spiritual poison, or spiritual nutrition.

I agree with Mark.

Also, I believe the Lord's Supper can be efficacious in a positive way to the elect, EVEN if that elect person is not saved yet.

The paedocommunion given to a child can be part of the very Gospel that is preached to him, in order to help bring him to faith in Christ.

(This argument is parallel to the same argument regarding baptism . . . the baptism of a child can be means to bringing them to faith in Christ at a later time.)

Dr Nigel Lee writes:

Let me state why I, with John Calvin, oppose paidocommunion. But first, to note age thesholds, it would be helpful if the reader would study the following passages preferably in the original Hebrew or Greek: Gen. 2:17-24; 14:13-24; 17:23-27; 22:2-19; Ex. 12:3-4, 8-11, 26-27,37, 43-48; Num. 9:2-13; Prov. 22:6; Lam. 2:12; 4:4; Luke 2:40-52; 22:1-20; John 6:2-4,10,53; Acts 22:3; I Cor. 5:7-13f; 10:1-22; 11:1-10,20-34; 13:11; 14:20-37; Phil. 3:5; I Tim. 2:8-15; 6:12f; Heb. 5:12 to 6:2; I John 2:12f; and Rev. 2:20f.

I oppose all attempts to reconstruct the clearly antipaidocommunionistic teaching of our Westminster Confession 28:1 & 29:3,8 & 31:4 and our Westminster Larger Catechism QQ. 169-177. True Presbyterians and other men of like persuasion respect Calvin's views in his Commentaries on Ex. 12:24-43; Lam. 2:12; John 6:53 & Heb. 6:2; in his Sermons on Deuteronomy 16:1-8 cf. vv. 16f; and his Institutes IV:13:6 & IV:16:30 & IV:19:4f.

In summary:
1, infant baptism signifies regeneration (but not conversion);
2, one's first communion at teenage signifies conversion (not regeneration);
3, Eucharist replaces the Passover (but not circumcision);
4, the 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6's chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20);
5, no females nor any preteenagers ever partook of the Passover till it was thus deformed by Post-Christian Liberal Judaism (+/- 200 A.D.);
6, there is absolutely no trace whatsoever of paidocommunionism in patristic writings but only in pagan sources prior to 250 A.D.;
7, novel paidocommunionism is a ritualistic heterodoxy of the "Eastern Orthodox" and kindred denominations quite opposed to truly-orthodox Reformed Theology;
8, the practice of paidocommunionism abolishes the need first of catechization and then of profession of one´s faith before one´s own very first manducation at the sacrament;
9, paidocommunism ultimately leads to an uncatechized Church (which Calvin says cannot long continue without catechizing); and
10, Calvin in his Institutes (IV:16:30) accordingly concludes against the Anabaptists: "œThey object that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to Baptism than to the Lord´s Supper "“ to which, however, there are never admitted.... The Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed...infancy, are fit to bear solid food.... They cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord´s body. Why should we stretch out poison instead of vivifying food to our young children? ... Circumcision, which as is well known corresponds to our Baptism, was intended for infants. But the Passover for which the Supper is substituted...was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they thus be blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?"�

Cordially in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ,

Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
Professor-Emeritus of the Queensland Presbyterian Theological College
Website: www.dr-fnlee.org

God Triune, at the beginning, created the tri-universe (cf. Gen. 1:1)

Still waiting on any pro PC advocates to interact with Dr. Lee's assertions.........



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

Since you seem to be suggesting that the paedocommunion.com site is lying, I figured I would go straight to the horse's mouth just to verify what has been said.

Both the Episcopalian.org and AnglicansOnline.org sites agree that any baptized person may partake of the Lord's Supper, regardless of age.


They do practice "confirmation", but not as a gateway to communion.

In other words, my statement was true. Paedocommunion is the Anglican/Episcopalian majority practice.

[Edited on 12-4-2005 by biblelighthouse]