Shameless ploy to get Krammy on the blog
Krammy,
I love ya man and I need you to come through for me on this one. Everyone still checking this blog can comment as they wish but we bearded guys got to stick together so Krammy this one is for you.
I am a recovering Baptist and thusly suffer great ignorance when it comes to sacramentology, so I had this question given to me and though I gave an answer I am not sure it is the right one given my naivete. It is one about the Lord's Supper. Somebody asked me why certain Presbyterians who eagerly baptize infants restrict the table to 'consenting' adults. This guy made the argument that restricting the table makes children 'second-class citizens' in the covenant and that raising children as if they were reprobate and not worthy of coming to the table sends a bad signal to children.
What do you think Krams? C'mon, man, be a hero
I love ya man and I need you to come through for me on this one. Everyone still checking this blog can comment as they wish but we bearded guys got to stick together so Krammy this one is for you.
I am a recovering Baptist and thusly suffer great ignorance when it comes to sacramentology, so I had this question given to me and though I gave an answer I am not sure it is the right one given my naivete. It is one about the Lord's Supper. Somebody asked me why certain Presbyterians who eagerly baptize infants restrict the table to 'consenting' adults. This guy made the argument that restricting the table makes children 'second-class citizens' in the covenant and that raising children as if they were reprobate and not worthy of coming to the table sends a bad signal to children.
What do you think Krams? C'mon, man, be a hero
posted by Unknown at 7:03 PM
7 Comments:
so............ i guess we'll take that as a no from krammy. typical
Ok, Jonathan, I'll say a bit, but let me first confess that I am unversed in this debate. I've got a sermon from a paedocommunionist who went to Covenant that I'll forward if you like. Still, I haven't looked into the other side of the debate at all. In summary, those against paedocommunion question infants ability to "examine themselves" as the scripture require (That's somewhere in 1 Corinthians, I think). On the other hand, paedocommunionists claim that restricting communion in this way shifts gravity from the promise of God to the understanding of converts. They parallel this move to the baptist hesitation in baptism, which relies on an existential argument. That's really all I've got.
Personally, "Sending a bad message to children" seems like the same order of existential bias recaste with a view to the future. They a betray a concern for the perseverance of the saints that does not rely on the Holy Spirit alone, but on proper practice.
Does that help? Sorry for the delay. It was a busy week and I was out of town for the weekend.
I see that Krammy is the only bearded guy who counts. What about Neal, Steve, me, etc.? Do we not count? Are we second-class citizens?????
So I'll throw in one for the "other" bearded-guy team. paedocommunionists believe we should treat our children as full members of the covenant from birth and therefore they deserve Eucharistic participation. Credocommunists (or whatever you want to call them) believe we should wait for a profession of faith to consider our children partakers of Christ and therefore worthy communicants.
Paedocommunion has been rising among Reformed ranks in the last few decades, particularly among postmillennialists (e.g., the Federal Vision guys all support it), but it is by all means a minority view; paedocommunion is not allowed by the PCA, although it will ordain people who believe in it (just not those who practice it). In favor, see Tim Gallant, Feed My Lambs, Peter Leithart, "Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated?" and paedocommunion.com. Robert Letham stands firmly (but not extensively argued) against it in The Lord's Supper, and Keith Mathison is a little ambivalent in Given For You.
Not sure I understand words that start with "paedo"...Can I lobby for keeping the theological comments in lay man's terms from now on?
john- I am actually a born again bearded man because I shaved on New Years Eve, but am now growing it back out. I did this to illustrate my views in support of second baptism. When you shave a beard and grow it again, it comes back thicker and stronger. So hey, why don't we get baptised again? My faith sure came back two or three times as strong.
Good resources, thanks John.
I had a discussion about it with my CM and he made a good point that the problem with paedocommunists (heretofore known as 'Baby Commies') is that they view the sacrament as some kind of magic food, akin to 'lembas bread' and that the sacrament of communion is about the fortifying of someone's faith, something that requires a profession.
Baby Commies have a too high regard of the sacrament according to Doug and what should keep them from not receiving communion daily...hourly...perpetually.
I heard R.C. Sproul's son is in hot water with his church's denomination (not PCA) for doing this very thing.
another place to look for help on questions like these, if you haven't already heard about it - PCA Historical Center, then click on "Position Papers." See www.pcanet.org/history
If I remember correctly, these papers are the results of a committee's research on the issue - committees commissioned by the General Assembly. I don't know for sure whether these represent the official position of the PCA on these topics, but nevertheless they're very helpful in thinking through some of these issues. There's one on paedocommunion.
Post a Comment
<< Home