Is paedocommunion the "logical end" of paedobaptism?

[Esther W.]

GI Williamson...

It would be a misrepresentation to say he advocates that view now- he does not, nor does he teach it.

What is the deal with Williamson... are you saying he no longer believes in the view (or that he simply does not promote or teach it)? What information do we have about Williamson as to his thoughts on this since he co-authored that report?

Thanks!

He was a committee member, that is not equal to being a paedocommunion advocate- it may have been assigned to him to argue for paedocommunion- as it was assigned another to be anti paedocommunion in formulating their arguments. It is the role of men appointed to committee's to argue for and against, from scripture-period. The result of these particular reports, was that no consensus could be found <from scripture>, though the majority found <from scripture> that paedocommunion was not supported- Because a consensus could not be reached on all that the scriptures spoke, they settle on what consensus could be agreed on <basically no age test>

 

[Contra_Mundum]

from G.I. Williamson, Editorial, Ordained Servant, 12:4 (Oct.2003), p.i. http://opc.org/OS/pdf/OSV12N4.pdf

Some years ago I was asked to serve on a committee appointed by our General Assembly to study the subject of paedocommunion. This I did with the conviction that it was my duty to come back to the Assembly with an honest statement of the results of my study. In this instance I came to the tentative conclusion that the arguments for paedocommunion were cogent, and that the arguments against paedocommunion were weak. I therefore helped to write a majority report that recommended that our standards be changed to allow for this practice. The General Assembly did not act favorably on our recommendations. And by that very fact it, in effect, asserted the continuing authority of our present standards. It is for this reason that I have steadfastly declined to requests that I have received to write, or even speak, publicly (I mean outside the official assemblies of the church) on this issue. Some have not understood this. But my reason is quite simple: though I still think we need better arguments for the status quo than any I have seen, I am bound by my own subscription vows to honor the official standards of the church. And that is the way I want it. I do not want other ministers of the church to preach or teach things publicly that are contrary to our official doctrinal standards. If they are right, and the church’s standards are wrong, I want them to prove it by due process in the assemblies of the church, so that our subordinate standards are changed. I want them to come to their fellow ministers and elders (who are jointly responsible to maintain the church as the pillar and ground of the truth) with such cogent arguments for their position that we are finally constrained to make the changes they want. And since I want others to do that for the sake of the church’s unity and integrity I believe it is my duty to do it as well.

I don't know if any more recent publications have had any effect on GIW's views. But he did not, and does not teach P-C, by his own statements, though he may hold them as private conviction.

 

[Matthew Tringali]

Thank you Rev. Buchanan, that is very helpful and immensely admirable on the part of Williamson.

 

[Scott1]

What we have is dubious credibility of the cited web site in appropriating support of its cause.

And, the longstanding integrity and faithfulness of great men of God, the esteemed author of the Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (which holds faithfully the Confession's examined participation view) being chief among them.

 

[Peairtach]

the pertinent distinction between the two sacraments is that baptism in all biblical cases is an act is done to individuals, while communion is something that individuals do, with warnings attached

If we're looking at the continuation of covenantal administrative principles from the Old Testament period, paedocommunion would only follow if there was the paedo-Passover in the Old Testamen i.e. that children were made to eat the Passover as soon as they could masticate.

But according to the Passover rules only adult males were required to go to Jerusalem, and there were various things e.g. ritual uncleanness that would have kept them from partaking of the Passover.

As the "thanks" button is on hiatus today, let this serve as a workaround for these helpful posts.

There was no "automatic right" to partake of the Passover just because you had been circumcised, although if you were a male you were supposed to be circumcised before
you took your first Passover.

There is no "automatic right" to partake of the Lord's Supper just because you have been baptised, although you are supposed to be baptised before your first Lord's Supper.

 

[Scott1]

In deference to those who know more about OPC polity and process, I want to be careful in saying my understanding comes from reading the report and its history on the OPC website, some of the posted information, and some anecdotal evidence, also some comparison with the PCA.

Study committees have some use, especially in relatively unknown areas or applications to new situations. They can provide valuable reference material for those particularly. But they do not settle (and are not the mechanism for) strongly divided opinion- not in a confessional denomination.

I don't think they are a suitable or peaceable way to merely allow different views "to be heard." Truth is based on more than that kind of competition.

In this case, the OPC never (through General Assembly) adopted a report.

So there was not even an "en thesis" opinion of the Assembly at that point in time.

Second, the report was substantially divided, lessening whatever import it might have. E.g. When the PCA adopted its "federal vision" report, the committee was unanimous and the General Assembly receipt was (charitably) recorded as "about ninety percent" in favor.

Third, the adopted position by a subsequent General Assembly clearly affirmed the traditional view, the practiced view of the denomination since its founding, and repudiated paedocommunion.

Fourth, one committee member who had a contrary view at that time, has been able to in good conscience admit it as not being that of the confession, not teach or advocate the contrary view. Rather to teach the confession view (for a long time).

The fact that one or two members of a study committee at a certain point in time had a different view is of very little significance to supporting the belief itself.

It says more about the limitations of "study committees" than anything else.