Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The whole argument for paedocommunion is based on emotion, it seems. "Why do you hate little kids?!?"
Uhh, I don't.
We believe that it is an ordinance too. We just say more than that...
Yes, it is common for credobaptists to deny that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are means of grace. However, it is not a necessary rejection! I know of lots of baptists who view the two as means of grace. (Heck, just look at Wayne Grudem's theology text!)
What you've shown me is that you take an example - albeit a common one - and seem to think that it is the necessary position.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by john_Mark
Would you rethink the perspective of your question in light of being asked the following?
If regeneration is completely of God, then why does the sacramental sign of that grace depend upon an act of man? That is, the "Lord's Supper" requires something of me before I can partake. Why?
The Lord's Supper doesn't require any more of a Christian than baptism does. Communion is just as much a sign of union with Christ as is baptism. You can't be saved without regeneration (signified by baptism). But you cannot be saved without partaking of the blood and body of Christ, either (cf. John 6:53)! (And that is of course signified by the Lord's Supper.) Barring tiny children from the table is just as atrocious as barring them from the font. Either way, you imply that they are outside the covenant, and are therefore "too young" to be saved by grace.
Yes it does. That is why every branch of Western Christendom has been united behind the idea of a credible profession of faith before communing. If you are right - then we must chuck all discipline out the door. There is no reason to bar ANYONE from the table, since the most wicked and profane sinner shows just as much fruit of union with Christ as an infant. Bringing tiny children to a sacrament that is a sustaining sacrament and shoving it down their unthinking, unprofessing throats is as foul as Adam's eating the forbidden fruit.
The more that I hear these ridiculous (unbiblical, clearly unconfessional and unhistorical) arguments for paedcommunion, the more I see that it is near the foundation of all errors in modern "Reformed" circles regarding justification and the covenant.
May God protect His Church from such "consistency."
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Rick Larson
And where does any of this "what if you're wrong"..... "no...what if YOU'RE wrong" get us?
That is why we have a Church and confessions. So it is actually, "what if the Church is wrong" "no what if these couple of people are wrong"
Originally posted by slshaw
What happened to the rules of the site? There is a lot of bitterness and sarcasm that has no place among believers. Also, the rules say to stay on subject. The original question was about paedobaptism, not paedocommunion.
The only thing of which I have been convinced is that we are wretched creatures that resist the grace that is offered by law.
This is my second, and last, post to this site.
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
I believe being a Reformed Baptist is a totally good thing. I also believe it is Reformed holding to Covenant Theology. It just isn't Presbyterian Covenant Theology.
[Edited on 11-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]