Paedocommunion

[travis]

So, is there anyone on this board that actually approves of this practice? I know that there are some solid churches that allow this, Covenant Presbyterian Church comes to mind.

 

[non dignus]

I think it's perfectly natural for the feminized church to bring children to the table. It stands to reason.

 

[beej6]

Having just heard a series on the means of grace, I fear that the error of paedocommunion be serious enough to question the soundness of such a church that accepts it...

 

[Theoretical]

I don't think it's an automatic orthodoxy disqualifier, but I think it comes really, really close, and for practical purposes should be one.

This seems like such an obvious issue. One sacrament's commands clearly require discernment and some measure of cognitive understanding to partake worthily, while the other is household oriented and should be given to infants as well as new adult believers (the latter with cognitive understanding-profession).

While I disagree with the credobaptist position that both require cognitive expression, that view has a vastly stronger scriptural backing (and one that I respect) than the utterly dubious foundations of paedocommunion.

 

[Contra Marcion]

I think one would have to think twice before espousing any position that would bring into question the orthodoxy of G. I. Williamson, or even Robert Rayburn, Jr. These fine, Godly men, both light years smarter thatn myself, believe in Paedocommunion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As I've said repeatedly before, we don't measure the orthodoxy of a position by using an ad populum argument of the men that hold to it. To many, the argument: "Well, Billy Graham is an Arminian..." is a compelling argument for a denial of doctrines clearly taught in the Scriptures.

I do not agree that "...there are some solid Churches that practice this...." It is a corruption of the Covenant theology that our Reformed Confessions universally confess contra this practice.

 

[Contra Marcion]

As I've said repeatedly before, we don't measure the orthodoxy of a position by using an ad populum argument of the men that hold to it. To many, the argument: "Well, Billy Graham is an Arminian..." is a compelling argument for a denial of doctrines clearly taught in the Scriptures.

While I do agree in principle with what Rich is saying here, I meant more than just "Well these are good men, and so anything THEY say must be OK". My point is that Williamson is considered Orthodox, and yet believes in paedocommunion. In fact, the OPC never felt it necessary to remove him from the editorial staff of Ordained Servant. Rayburn is, to the best of my knowledge, the stated clerk of the NW presbytery of the PCA. In both cases, the broader Church has seen no reason to suspect them of some kind of doctrinal unsoundness, simply because they take and exception or two to the Westminster Standards.

Now, if your point is that paedocommunion makes one unable to be fully compliant with the Westminster Standards, then yes, obviously that is true. There are, however, an awful lot of people who are not in any way, shape or form liberal, who still advocate paedocommunion.

As an aside, I think one of the unfortunate developments of the recent FV controversy is that paedocommunion is often linked with FV-ism automatically, as though if one gives the wine to a one-year-old, he must also deny the Covenant of Works.