Sign, Signification, and Paedocommunion

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
(Fear not, for I am against paedocommunion)

I was reading somewhere that the FV's ignoring the confessional understanding of sign, signification, and the sacramental union between the two leads them to paedocommunist arguments. I agree with that line of reasoning but I am trying to connect the dots...
 
Jacob,
Here's my attempt.

We want to distinguish between sign and signification, so that we recognize signs pointing to reality, but which are not themselves the reality. It is an exclusive divine work to unite sign and signification in the sacramental union, such that the spiritual reality is in fact true for the recipient/participant. The sacramental union is what makes a sign more than a sign, and faith is instrumental for receiving the benefit. The absence of faith is more than simply engagement with "nothing but" the sign. Because of the nature of the sacrament (which has divine promise attached, and is a means of grace) unbelief in connection with the abuse of the sign is worthy of special condemnation. It not only treats of the sign as an indifferent thing, but it is contemptuous of the sign.

Baptist views range from being nearly the same as our view of sacraments as means of grace (among our Confessing brothers), to the more common symbolic or bare-sign treatment. (Yes, Presbyterians can have memorialist views also; but the issue is what do our Confessions and fathers teach.) So, on the end away from us, the pure memorialist view lacks signification; not that it doesn't mean something related to the Lord's passion, but that it is not any kind of "feeding on Christ." No wonder then that many in this camp repudiate even the word "sacrament." There is no sacramental union they recognize. This is no less true in the matter of baptism, where baptism is essentially a personal confession. It is symbolic, but the baptism itself connects to no divine initiative that reaches to the individual. Faith (therefore salvation) is simply the prerequisite condition for the person's being "turned into" a sign. And if it be decided that faith was not present prior to encountering the waters, the sign of the first baptism is not considered a sign any longer. And the symbolism should be repeated.

The FV teaches conditional union, conditional election, conditional justification, etc., this they say as a result of their understanding of "covenant" and all it entails. They reject the inward/outward distinct types of participation in the covenant. If you are "in covenant," then you are "in all the way," in terms of this present life, regardless of the genuineness of one's faith. What this means is that the sign of baptism put the receiver into covenant with God, and at the same time made over to him in his name all the blessings of salvation. In other words, there is no practical distinction between the sign and the thing signified, so closely are the two brought together. Where one is seen, the unseen is assuredly present.

This is clearly moving into the realm of sacramentally dispensed grace unto all the participants. If the FV advocates are not moving to Rome, they are moving toward Anglicanism and Lutheranism, as regards the efficacy of sacraments by themselves (with the Word, presumably). Salvation granted, that can become lost, is not permanent grace. But if the sacramental union is in the elements themselves, then the salvation imparted to those who eventually go to hell must be real, no different from those who attain to heaven, but temporary.

If baptism (to an infant) made him a true recipient of grace, so that he has faith, election, justification, etc. through a new birth; then the grace present in the sacrament of sustenance (communion/eucharist) is naturally of similar benefit. What is the point of waiting at all for a confession, when the signified grace that is present in the sign is creative of the faith, election, justification, etc. that culminate in glorification? A confession is just something that may be called for sometime during life, but it is no obvious prerequisite to participation in the meal. All that is necessary is for the baptized not to separate from the source of his grace, which is the church dispensing those sacraments. This connection is the source of greatest assurance.

Many (most?) FV proponents were once in the Baptist camp and memorialists, where both sacraments/signs were confessing ordinances. Many baptists today will say to Presbyterians, that if we were consistent we would also practice paedocommunion. This doesn't seem right to us, partly because of the distinction between sign and signification, and the sacramental union that is made effectual unto faith.

However, it makes perfect sense to those Baptists who have embraced the FV form of religion. Having embraced (they think) the Reformed view of covenant baptism, they complete the work by making communion no less a sacrament unto conversion. At one time they had signs with no sacramental significance. Those signs did, however, have intrinsic significance. They never separated sign and signification at the point the Reformed Confessions call for it. Now they have signs which are the significance.

Back to you.
 
I obviously agree with Bruce here. If we're talking about the FV specifically (and not all who make arguments for PC) then fundamental to the error is a rejection of the Reformed distinction between the Church as ministerially announcing grace in the Sacraments and the Spirit actually conveying that grace to whomever He sovereignly determines. I don't know why FV remain in Reformed congregations as the Standards, in som many places, militate against the FV understanding of the Sacraments.

Take the Lord's suppoer as an example. The Reformed conviction is the the supper requires a mature apprehension of what is being received and lists the ignorant as those unworthy of the sacrament. Fundamental to our understanding of the Sacrament is repentance. Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace in the Confessions. I don't simply assume that my children have been born again. They have received a sign that promises eternal life if they repent and believe and I'm hopefully optimistic about them. I see signs of repentance and don't doubt it but also see in the Scriptures a pattern that waits to see mature flowering before assuming that what one is seeing early on is proving its mettle.

What I just wrote is reprehensible to some people's thinking. It's too dependent upon what I see in people but I have no other way to judge. I'm not God. I have to trust what the Scriptures say and not try to live as if every promise given to the Elect belongs to every person in the Church (regardless of election) and therefore make no judgments about them in any way. I pray for the conversion of my children every night in their hearing. I teach them the Gospel and they pray. My daughter is even in a communicant class along with her older brother but I'm not convinced yet that either of them have apprehended what the Body is that they are supposed to discern. As much as I love them, there is still the simple-mindedness of youth that makes it hard to determine if the wisdom of God resides or whether I just hear echos of things they have heard.

I have become increasingly convinced that need to be calling people to continued repentance. It's in seeing people repent that we have, in a real sense, the surest sign of evangelical life. It's why we put them out of the Church when they stop doing so.

PC denies the very need for repentance in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in my estimation. It treats the Supper as some sort of evangelical grace that does not require anytyhing of the recipient except active Church membership. The Supper should be a time when the congregation is being called to be broken before Christ. The PC practice assumes that there are those that can approach in whom we have no idea whether that is occurring and so it removes any ability for the Elders to ex-communicate because it creates a category of communicant who you have no way of measuring repentance as they have not the words to express their faith or lack thereof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top