BenjaminBurton
Puritan Board Freshman
As one still struggling through some of this paedo-doctrine, it does in some ways seem like PC would be a logical end. I don't want to derail here, just wondering what the explanation against it is?
Is paedocommunion the "logical end" of paedobaptism?
- Thread starter BenjaminBurton
- Start date
- Status
I was just mentioning the other day to someone that Baptists consistently say that PC seems most logical but to be logical one would have to completely ignore the Reformed teaching on both Sacraments.
On the one hand we believe baptism is to be administed to the children of believers and that a cognitive understanding of the sacrament is unnecessary for the infant baptized.
On the other hand, we believe that the Lord's Supper requires understanding, ability to discern the Lord's Body, and the ability to self-examine.
Thus, we see different requirements for participation in each sacrament. The only way PC is "logical" is if one interprets the Scriptures to teach that self-examination and a discerning of the Lord's Body is unnecessary for participation in the Lord's Supper. Neither Baptists nor the Reformed believe this so I'm left wondering how anyone who understands a Reformed confession could possible deduce that PC is a "logical end". It is most illogical.
That is new to me. It seemed more logical that the paedoes would following the example of covenant family from Moses. That is only if you take in very small children who could partake of the paschal lamb. From a Baptist view one must be a member of the confessing body of Christ.
Cornelius P. Venema did a Covenant Radio program on Paedocommunion that was a pretty good discussion from a Paedo view.
It is unbiblical and dangerous because of the warnings placed upon the partaking of it and the need for self examination. Pastor Greco and I had a discussion on this topic a very long time ago if someone can find it on the PB. I can't seem to find it. But here was a half decent thread on it. http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/exceptions-required-taken-paedo-communion-49648/#post636855
Huh? It's "new to you" that we baptize infants and that we don't require the infants baptized to understand the sacrament at the time of their baptism?
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Not to interject, but to clarify-
The link, and the point of the link is that there are so many "exceptions" one would consequently have to take to the Westminster Standards to justify that view, it would be hard to hold the Standards at all.
This shows how embedded and interrelated is this systematic doctrine in reformed theology.
It's not at all a matter that infant baptism goes with paedo communion- not at all.
Baptism is for more than one purpose (e.g. adult profession of faith, and faith of a believer in covenant promises to their children).
The Lord's Supper requires a credible profession of faith, and self examination in light of that.
The link, and the point of the link is that there are so many "exceptions" one would consequently have to take to the Westminster Standards to justify that view, it would be hard to hold the Standards at all.
This shows how embedded and interrelated is this systematic doctrine in reformed theology.
It's not at all a matter that infant baptism goes with paedo communion- not at all.
Baptism is for more than one purpose (e.g. adult profession of faith, and faith of a believer in covenant promises to their children).
The Lord's Supper requires a credible profession of faith, and self examination in light of that.
I misread your quote in conjunction with this first line. I read it like you were saying that Baptists thought it was logical and assumed by your comment that they practiced it. Sorry Rich.
I'll just point out the obvious: communion is a meal -- a meal that involves an alcoholic beverage, what's more. It may be a very small meal (I don't know how much was eaten in the early church). However, it is obvious to anyone with a brain that it wasn't intended for babies, but for someone *at least* old enough to consume a meal of bread and wine. That pragmatic point in and of itself shows that there is a separation between the intention of who would partake of communion and baptism (from a paedobaptist standpoint).
Thanks. I was noting that many Baptists do claim that PC is the "logical end" of paedobaptism but then went on to point out that this is based on a misapprehension of our understanding of the nature of the Sacraments.
It is a valid point but one might get around it by suggesting an infant could be forced to choke it down just as an infant, not yet on solids, could be forced to eat the bread.
I guess that is where intinction came in? Speaking of which, was there any dipping of the bread in the wine going on at PCA GA this year?
BenjaminBurton
Puritan Board Freshman
I wasn't saying it is the logical end. Just as I said in my preface to the question, I'm working through the paedo stuff bit by bit. Maybe I'm still too Baptist for my own good but the initial response to my question didn't clarify much.
You said that PC seems like the logical end did you not? I clarified that:
1. Baptism of infants does not require that the infants understand their baptism at the time of administration.
2. The Lord's Supper (a distinct Sacrament) requires understanding and discernment.
Conclusion: Paedocommunion is not "logical" given 1 and 2.
Was there something you wanted an answer to other than your stated issue that you were struggling with an apparent contradiction in practice?
BenjaminBurton
Puritan Board Freshman
Nope, that's fine. Thanks.
No. I wasn't aware they celebrated it that way for any of the GA's. When did that happen?
I was actually among the Elders who helped administer the Sacrament on Tuesday evening.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Answer: Yes.
This was one of the primary (although not the only) considerations in my switch from Reformed paedobaptist views to Baptist views 3 years ago. While I don't agree with everything in the book, If I recall correctly Jeffrey Johnson's The Fatal Flaw makes this argument as well. Fred Malone makes the connection in "A String of Pearls Unstrung" and elsewhere. (That article is available on the Founders site.) I haven't read Gary Crampton's book that came out this year but I understand he makes the connection as well. I wonder if he was reading my postings from 2008?
As I noted in my "Why I am Now a Baptist" thread and post here in 2008, I don't think it's any accident that a good many of the FV men, especially those in the CREC like Wilson, Booth and Strawbridge, are former Baptists (or were at least formerly baptistic) who seem to have accepted paedocommunion shortly after becoming paedobaptists, if not simultaneously. I think some of them if not all may have been connected to theonomy at some point. They don't seem to have been as interested in strict confessionalism as our friends here are and seem to have followed things to their logical conclusion. When I was first investigating paedobaptism, some of the FV men like Strawbridge and Horne were more persuasive to me than others because they seemed to deal with the biblical data in more detail compared to some other paedobaptists. But as I delved into it deeper I backed away from going that route after seeing the implications of paedocommunion and seeing 1 Cor. 11 as being insurmountable. in my opinion it doesn't matter whether "the body" spoken of is interpreted to be the body of the Lord in the ordinance or the body of Christ. Someone who is not a professing believer is incapable of discerning it either way.
Being somewhat strapped for time, I'll leave it to our paedobaptist brethren to give detailed explanations why they accept paedobaptism but reject paedocommunion. Beyond "The confessions say so and that's what the Reformed have always believed," part of it is 1 Cor 11 along with some other considerations. Another consideration for some is the question of whether or not the children partook of the Passover. If I recall correctly, you actually have men on both sides of the baptism issue who have differing views on whether they did or did not partake.
We Baptists are thankful that our confessional Reformed paedobaptist brethren do not practice paedocommunion however inconsistent we may think that is.
Paedocommunion seems to have been the universal practice in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches up until the High Middle Ages. The Romanists then abandoned that practice for various reasons. The teaching that infant communion is necessary was anathematized at the Council of Trent. The EO's continue to practice it to this day. That's probably one reason why a good many former Reformed church members who adopted FV views and thus were strongly committed to paedocommunion have gone the EO route instead of crossing the Tiber.
Chris, part of the reason FV proponents often used to be Baptists is because Baptists and FVers both define either the visible or invisible church in terms of the other, as opposed to the strong distinction between the two in Presbyterian ecclesiology. Baptists define the visible church in terms of the invisible -- the invisible is the focus and it becomes the basis for the visible. Sometimes a credobaptist decides he has neglected the visible church and, as a result, he becomes a paedobaptist (as I did). But if he keeps his Baptist tendency to confuse the distinction, he may end up swinging to the opposite (and more dangerous) error and define the invisible church in terms of the visible (Federal Vision). This is why a lot of FVers were Baptists before they were Presbyterians.
Visually, it looks like this:
Baptist (invisible determines the visible) ------------- Presbyterian (sharp visible/invisible distinction) -------------- Federal Vision (visible determines the invisible)
Visually, it looks like this:
Baptist (invisible determines the visible) ------------- Presbyterian (sharp visible/invisible distinction) -------------- Federal Vision (visible determines the invisible)
True, but I think only the most desperate PC advocate could claim that shoving bread and wine down a newborn's throat is what Jesus intended. Most will concede that it is actually toddler communion, in which case they have given up the argument that PC is a necessary consequence of paedobaptism (because they have introduced a time delay that doesn't exist for paedobaptism) -- unless they want to argue that it is theologically necessary but pragmatically impossible or ridiculous.
Austin,
The Particular Baptist recognized that the visible Church is liable to be troubled by mixture of elect and non-elect.
Chris (Pilgrim) was a Baptist and became a very strong proponent for paedo-baptism for many years. He was also a moderator on this Forum. He is very well acquainted with arguments on both sides.
Chris,
I don't remember Crampton making this kind of argument in his book. It was more of discussion concerning the WCF in relation to baptism. It has been awhile since I read it and I gave mine away so I can't go look at it. I guess I will have to buy myself another copy.
Thanks. I wasn't actually addressing arguments surrounding baptism, but pointing out why there is a pattern of Presbyterians who used to be Baptists becoming FV. Baptist ecclesiology and FV are polar opposites (notice they are opposite on my spectrum). It is hard to maintain the "middle ground" of Presbyterianism if one is used to regenerate church membership. That's all I was saying. I think I can speak on this because I am a Baptist-turned-Presbyterian, so I understand why FV (if one is not careful) can appeal to people with my transformation. I don't think a paedobaptist-turned-credobaptist (like Chris) is in any danger of becoming FV.
Believe it or not there are FV Baptists. The Baptist who migrate toward it are more focused on the FV view of soteriology though and not the FV view of the sacraments. Federal Vision is a strange non-monolithic breed of mixed theology. It's views concerning Covenant and Sacramentalogy vary depending on what group and whom you are following.
Paedocommunion is no more the "logical" end of paedobaptism than Arminianism is the "logical" end of the necessity of faith.
Matthew Tringali
Puritan Board Freshman
Well, admittedly it is neither fair nor charitable to have this discussion when people with PC views are not allowed to be members of this board.
Is it fair or charitable to have a discussion about Arminianism? About sacerdotalism? About any other error?
Paedocommunion is a serious and dangerous error.
baron
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm sorry but I am confused here. Do not all Presbyterian's have paedocommunion. The reason I ask is in the 1990 I started to attend a Reformed Presbyterian Church that was EP and they practiced paedocommunion. My wife did not like the idea and we talked to the pastor about it. In fact he even questioned us before they allowed us to partake of communion. My wife thought the little children were getting tipsy off the wine. But the explained to us that children could partake as long as they were baptized and being taught. Also the children in Israel were able to partake of the paschal lamb. So we stoped going there, due to paedocommunion. Then I was talking to other Presbyterian that practiced the same thing from other churches. So I assumed all Presbyterian churches practice this. Am I wrong?
First off I am not sure you understand the nature of this Forum. We do allow people who do not fully subscribe to the Confessions to join. They need to list their reasons and make them known. We do not allow advocating unbiblical nor unconfessional positions. We do allow discussion to be had on this forum which discusses opposing views. So if you desire to ask questions concering what you consider to be a positive understanding of the PC position then go ahead and ask away.
Folks blogged about it and I thought it came up here; happened in the 2009 GA but I had thought it was mentioned as something that had been happening. Not sure now.
Blogging at the PCA General Assembly « Gairney Bridge
Southern Presbyterian
Puritan Board Doctor
Matthew Tringali
Puritan Board Freshman
Fair question, my point is not to silence a discussion on any topic but merely to point out our own bias and thus, no, we are not going to have "fair nor charitable" discussions on any of those topics which these board members are required to hold a certain position.
Interesting, thank you for the clarification, I have to admit that I did not think PC was a permitted exception here.
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
Just an FYI into the discussion, the OPC formed a five-member committee to study paedobaptism back in 1987. The surprising result was that, despite the confessional nature of the OPC, three of the five members of the committee favored paedocommunion in their report. I don't think anything came of that though.
Report of the Committee on Paedocommunion
Report of the Committee on Paedocommunion
Matthew Tringali
Puritan Board Freshman
Of which, G.I. Williamson was one of the majority report authors. It is indeed an interesting piece of history for the OPC.
- Status
Similar threads
