The Federal Vision (FV) and Paedo Communion

[turksheadpeak]

Fathers and Brothers-

Good morning. I am new here, so please forgive me if this topic has already been discussed ad nauseum. Links to previous discussion threads would be appreciated.

It seems to me that there is a functional alignment between the Federal Vision (FV) and the practice of affording communion to covenant children prior to a public confession of regeneration, or Padeo Communion. For the sake of future context, please let me unequivocally state at the beginning that I am NOT a proponent of either of these viewpoints, I just have personally discussed this with people who are.

When I have encountered arguments for the FV and separately for Padeo Communion, they are presented as disconnected issues. However, when I observe them in practice they seem both causal and functionally aligned.

My observation is that those men who are prone to be domineering latch onto the authorities offered in the FV, and then in turn justify these authorities with arguments made from a moral responsibility to obey Christ’s calling in their lives. These men then become the sole adjudicators of whether a child in their home is a believer and not the elders in the church, or the church at large. Thus in the function of the church, what authority do the elders in the church have to tell another, presumably equal, man whether or not his children have made credible statements of faith? Rather than confront men in the congregation who are affording their young children communion with the fact that they have no authority over fencing the table within their family, these sessions simply abandon the issue. After this has occurred, arguments for Padeo Communion are then developed, which tend to be emotional and centrally focus on the exclusion of covenant members from covenant blessings.

Am I wrong with this assessment? Is this overly simplistic and forcing a cause and effect where there is none?

Alternately, are there proponents of the FV that have taken a public stance against Padeo Communion?

In Christ-

turksheadpeak

 

[RamistThomist]

Fathers and Brothers-

Good morning. I am new here, so please forgive me if this topic has already been discussed ad nauseum. Links to previous discussion threads would be appreciated.

It seems to me that there is a functional alignment between the Federal Vision (FV) and the practice of affording communion to covenant children prior to a public confession of regeneration, or Padeo Communion. For the sake of future context, please let me unequivocally state at the beginning that I am NOT a proponent of either of these viewpoints, I just have personally discussed this with people who are.

When I have encountered arguments for the FV and separately for Padeo Communion, they are presented as disconnected issues. However, when I observe them in practice they seem both causal and functionally aligned.

My observation is that those men who are prone to be domineering latch onto the authorities offered in the FV, and then in turn justify these authorities with arguments made from a moral responsibility to obey Christ’s calling in their lives. These men then become the sole adjudicators of whether a child in their home is a believer and not the elders in the church, or the church at large. Thus in the function of the church, what authority do the elders in the church have to tell another, presumably equal, man whether or not his children have made credible statements of faith? Rather than confront men in the congregation who are affording their young children communion with the fact that they have no authority over fencing the table within their family, these sessions simply abandon the issue. After this has occurred, arguments for Padeo Communion are then developed, which tend to be emotional and centrally focus on the exclusion of covenant members from covenant blessings.

Am I wrong with this assessment? Is this overly simplistic and forcing a cause and effect where there is none?

Alternately, are there proponents of the FV that have taken a public stance against Padeo Communion?

In Christ-

turksheadpeak

They are technically separate issues, but for all practical purposes they imply one another. Even more interesting, the CREC's recent "you have to accept previous baptism/communion" membership is going to make this even worse. For example, if a paedocommunion family in the CREC goes to a credocommunion church, it seems that the latter would have to accept the former.

 

[jwithnell]

I've observed the connection too, but hadn't come to the "why" you offer. This is worth considering!

Another connection: if man is to work out his own sanctification, than what is constituted as righteous is weakened. Hence the presence of Revoice in a presbytery that has opened itself up to Federal Vision.

 

[MarrowMan]

They are not disconnected, but inextricably linked as part of an FV understanding of covenant. Once you go the “objectivity of the covenant” route, paedocommunion is sure to follow.

 

[jwright82]

I think given the objectivity of the covenant thing whether or not an individual is for or against paedocommunion is arbitrary.

 

[MarrowMan]

I think given the objectivity of the covenant thing whether or not an individual is for or against paedocommunion is arbitrary.

Can you rephrase this? I'm having trouble following you here.

 

[jwright82]

Can you rephrase this? I'm having trouble following you here.

Sure, Doug Wilson (a paedocommunion advocate and FV'er) wrote a a book on this titled "objectivity of the covenant" somewhere in the title. It's well known they advocate this. If the blessings of the covenant of grace are objectively given to all members of the physical church than denying the Lord's Supper to one group is essentially arbitrary, it doesn't make sense.
Being a member of the church is objectively being a member of the covenant of grace so to deny a member of any blessing is arbitrary. Does that make more sense? Sorry it's kinda a 3000 mile up observation of it, I would like to know if Dr Clark agrees with my assessment? He knows more about this than I do.

 

[MarrowMan]

Sure, Doug Wilson (a paedocommunion advocate and FV'er) wrote a a book on this titled "objectivity of the covenant" somewhere in the title. It's well known they advocate this. If the blessings of the covenant of grace are objectively given to all members of the physical church than denying the Lord's Supper to one group is essentially arbitrary, it doesn't make sense.
Being a member of the church is objectively being a member of the covenant of grace so to deny a member of any blessing is arbitrary. Does that make more sense? Sorry it's kinda a 3000 mile up observation of it, I would like to know if Dr Clark agrees with my assessment? He knows more about this than I do.

Thanks for clarifying. You are spot on with your observation.

Incidentally the name of the DW book is "Reformed is not Enough"

 

[Ploutos]

Thanks for clarifying. You are spot on with your observation.

Incidentally the name of the DW book is "Reformed is not Enough"

That's funny, because the best way to sum up his theology is "faith is not enough".

 

[Theoretical]

That's funny, because the best way to sum up his theology is "faith is not enough".

 

[jfhutson]

If the blessings of the covenant of grace are objectively given to all members of the physical church than denying the Lord's Supper to one group is essentially arbitrary, it doesn't make sense.

Not sure if you disagree, but just to be clear, that infant children of believers are given all the blessings of the covenant of grace is the standard Reformed position. I think we need to define what "objectively" means. I have no comment on what any FV writer said, just want to be clear on the status of infants with respect to the covenant. Bavinck (quoted from the PCA paedocommunion report):

"Withholding of the Supper from children deprives them of not one benefit of the covenant of grace. This would indeed be the case if they were denied baptism. One who does this must suppose that the children stand outside the covenant of grace. But it is otherwise with the Lord's Supper. Whoever administers baptism and not the Lord's Supper to children acknowledges that they are in the covenant and share all the benefits of it. He merely denies to them a special way in which those same benefits are signified and sealed when that does not suit their age.

 

[MarrowMan]

Not sure if you disagree, but just to be clear, that infant children of believers are given all the blessings of the covenant of grace is the standard Reformed position. I think we need to define what "objectively" means. I have no comment on what any FV writer said, just want to be clear on the status of infants with respect to the covenant. Bavinck (quoted from the PCA paedocommunion report):

The FV paedocommunionist would consider the LS a blessing, right, privilege of the CoG. Thus why they refer to credocommunion as an excommunication. So, we would perhaps disagree with an FV understanding of the blessings of the CoG, but on their own terms communion is one of them.

 

[iainduguid]

The FV paedocommunionist would consider the LS a blessing, right, privilege of the CoG. Thus why they refer to credocommunion as an excommunication. So, we would perhaps disagree with an FV understanding of the blessings of the CoG, but on their own terms communion is one of them.

I've always thought the title of Peter Leithart's book, "Daddy, why was I excommunicated?" disingenuous. Any child theologically aware enough to ask and understand the answer to that question is surely ready to be examined to come to the Lord's Table. What the Reformed deny, however, is that the 2 year old who answers the catechism question, "Who made you?" with "God!" is ready to discern the difference between the Lord's Supper and snacktime.

 

[MarrowMan]

I've always thought the title of Peter Leithart's book, "Daddy, why was I excommunicated?" disingenuous. Any child theologically aware enough to ask and understand the answer to that question is surely ready to be examined to come to the Lord's Table. What the Reformed deny, however, is that the 2 year old who answers the catechism question, "Who made you?" with "God!" is ready to discern the difference between the Lord's Supper and snacktime.

It certainly is disingenuous. For what you state above, but also for the fact that young children were never commanded to partake of the Passover as part of Israel's cultic system. The command was to men, children's attendance was, at best, optional. It would seem God did not consider participation in the Passover to be an indispensable right for children in the OC administration.

 

[jfhutson]

The FV paedocommunionist would consider the LS a blessing, right, privilege of the CoG. Thus why they refer to credocommunion as an excommunication. So, we would perhaps disagree with an FV understanding of the blessings of the CoG, but on their own terms communion is one of them.

Getting further afield, does excommunication deprive a person of the benefits of the covenant? Thornwell:

"The difference between suspension and ex-communication is a difference in degree and not in kind. Ex-communication is more solemn in form, and more permanent and stringent in operation. But in the Protestant Church it never amounts to anathema ; it never dissolves the vinculum by which the person, in baptism, is related to the Church and the covenant of grace. It never consigns him to hopeless and eternal perdition. The only case in which the Church would be at liberty to denounce such a censure would be one in which the party had notoriously sinned the sin unto death. That is the only crime which cuts off from the hope of mercy and the possibility of repentance, and is consequently the only crime of which the Church, in the exercise of her declarative power, is competent to say, that the man is excluded from all the benefits symbolized in baptism, and has become an alien and an outcast. But as God has furnished us with no means of knowing when this sin has been committed, He has virtually debarred us from this species of ex-communication. The highest censure left to us is that of permanent exclusion from the sacraments..."

 

[MarrowMan]

Getting further afield, does excommunication deprive a person of the benefits of the covenant? Thornwell:

It is certainly far afield from the thread, but I disagree with Thornwell as quoted. Admittedly I haven't read much Thornwell, but if he thinks excommunication is merely exclusion from the sacraments, his understanding is deficient.

 

[jfhutson]

It is certainly far afield from the thread, but I disagree with Thornwell as quoted. Admittedly I haven't read much Thornwell, but if he thinks excommunication is merely exclusion from the sacraments, his understanding is deficient.

Tentatively (I haven't thought about it that much before), I think it is "merely" exclusion from the sacraments and the external fellowship of the church.

Turretin 18.XXXII.VI:

Further this ejection from the church is to be conceived of in different ways according to its twofold state. For as to the external state, [excommunication] denotes a real separation from the external communion of the church and the use of the sacraments... As to the internal, it is not a real expulsion from the mystical body of Christ; for he who has once been joined to that body can never be cast out from it. Rather, it is only a threatening or declaration of the intrinsic demerit of guilt (to wit, that such an impenitent and contumacious sinner deserves to be cast out of the society according to the sentence of God pronounced against such sinners...) Consequently, he is deservedly deprived of the sense of the presence of God in this life and will be deprived of the enjoyment of glory in the other, unless he repents.

 

[MarrowMan]

Tentatively (I haven't thought about it that much before), I think it is "merely" exclusion from the sacraments and the external fellowship of the church.

Turretin 18.XXXII.VI:

The second part you've added is what takes away my merely re: Thornwell. It's not just the sacrament, but also the fellowship of the church in view. That's a vitally important piece.

 

[SavedSinner]

I've always thought the title of Peter Leithart's book, "Daddy, why was I excommunicated?" disingenuous. Any child theologically aware enough to ask and understand the answer to that question is surely ready to be examined to come to the Lord's Table. What the Reformed deny, however, is that the 2 year old who answers the catechism question, "Who made you?" with "God!" is ready to discern the difference between the Lord's Supper and snacktime.

The Bible is the standard rather than his disingenuous twist on Coppes' book:

Daddy, May I Take Communion?: Paedocommunion vs the Bible​

 

[jwright82]

Not sure if you disagree, but just to be clear, that infant children of believers are given all the blessings of the covenant of grace is the standard Reformed position. I think we need to define what "objectively" means. I have no comment on what any FV writer said, just want to be clear on the status of infants with respect to the covenant. Bavinck (quoted from the PCA paedocommunion report):

From what I understand they believe that both elect and non- elect are justified, sanctified, adopted, etc objectively in the visible church. In fact I don't think they like that distinction. If that's true than an FV'er who doesn't believe in paedocommunion is just being arbitrary at the end of the day. Does that help?
I mean we have a rational for denying infant communion beyond Paul's prohibition because not all members of the visible church are members of the invisible church and blessings of the LS are reserved for members of both the visible and invisible church.
It's for this reason that if a communing member is involved in gross and unrepentant sin they are excommunicated and the privileges of the covenant are withdrawn.

 

[jfhutson]

I mean we have a rational for denying infant communion beyond Paul's prohibition because not all members of the visible church are members of the invisible church and blessings of the LS are reserved for members of both the visible and invisible church.

Not trying to be pedantic, but I don't think that's quite right since it's impossible to know who is a member of the invisible church (hence invisible). Admission to the table is not based on a probabilistic judgment of whether the person is elect. Admission to the table is based on one's understanding of the gospel and ability to prepare oneself and worthily receive. WLC 172 also says that one doubting whether he is in Christ may worthily receive.

It's for this reason that if a communing member is involved in gross and unrepentant sin they are excommunicated and the privileges of the covenant are withdrawn.

My posts above questioned whether we excommunicate based on a presumption that the person is not elect. That’s not one of the reasons for censures given in the Confession and based on the Turretin quote I don’t think it’s correct.

 

[MarrowMan]

My posts above questioned whether we excommunicate based on a presumption that the person is not elect. That’s not one of the reasons for censures given in the Confession and based on the Turretin quote I don’t think it’s correct.

No, we don’t excommunicate with respect to election. We can’t. We excommunicate based on a life grossly inconsistent with the Gospel and harmful to the body.

But, that has nothing to do with FV and paedocommunion. Perhaps start another thread.

 

[jfhutson]

No, we don’t excommunicate with respect to election. We can’t. We excommunicate based on a life grossly inconsistent with the Gospel and harmful to the body.

But, that has nothing to do with FV and paedocommunion. Perhaps start another thread.

Isn’t that the argument being presented here?

It's for this reason that if a communing member is involved in gross and unrepentant sin they are excommunicated and the privileges of the covenant are withdrawn.

I’m just trying to understand the point of disagreement. I don’t understand the meaning of “objectivity of the covenant” and how it differs from the orthodox understanding, and I’m trying to ask questions to find it.

I think the difference has more to do with the distinction between internal and external For what it's worth, rather than some of the distinctions I’m reading here.

 

[MarrowMan]

Isn’t that the argument being presented here?

I’m just trying to understand the point of disagreement. I don’t understand the meaning of “objectivity of the covenant” and how it differs from the orthodox understanding, and I’m trying to ask questions to find it.

I think the difference has more to do with the distinction between internal and external For what it's worth, rather than some of the distinctions I’m reading here.

FV is monocovenantal and through its formulation of "objectivity" essentially eliminates the visible/invisible distinction.

 

[RamistThomist]

It also rejects the internal/external distinction of the covenant of grace.

 

[jwright82]

Isn’t that the argument being presented here?

I’m just trying to understand the point of disagreement. I don’t understand the meaning of “objectivity of the covenant” and how it differs from the orthodox understanding, and I’m trying to ask questions to find it.

I think the difference has more to do with the distinction between internal and external For what it's worth, rather than some of the distinctions I’m reading here.

Ok objectivity means all baptized members of the visible church are in some sense justified and the rest so if that person apostatizes they really move from a state of justification to non-justification. They are really united to Christ spiritually in some sense. The Orthodox viewpoint is the unbeliever partakes in the external blessings alone, not the internal spiritual blessings. Does that make more sense?

 

[jwright82]

Isn’t that the argument being presented here?

I’m just trying to understand the point of disagreement. I don’t understand the meaning of “objectivity of the covenant” and how it differs from the orthodox understanding, and I’m trying to ask questions to find it.

I think the difference has more to do with the distinction between internal and external For what it's worth, rather than some of the distinctions I’m reading here.

If a member is excommunicated it doesn't automatically mean they aren't saved but that the church presumes such and withdraws the Supper which is reserved for communicate members.