Monday, April 11, 2011
Paedo-Communion and the Federal Vision
Those who signed the Federal Vision Joint Statement hold to paedo-communion. Paedo-communion is contrary to the Reformed confessions. One might think that would be enough of a reason to have the signers removed. It is not, for whatever reasons. Perhaps if they hold to baptismal regeneration, that will be deemed to be enough? Test case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Since you believe in infant baptism its pretty silly to not have infant communion. If one sacrament can be given without faith why not both? Acts 2:38 says "Repent and be baptized..." did the infants repent before or when they were baptized? Obviously not. So infant baptism is just as invalid as infant communion. I would rather the Federal Visionists stay with the ban on infant communion and join to it a ban on infant baptism than join the error of infant baptism with infant communion. But in either case, their consistency shows how inconsistent YOU are. THE RCC AND GREEK ORTHODOX have the same quibble, btw, that you and the Federal Visionists have. For as I understand it, the RCC allows infant baptism but NOT infant communion, whereas the Greek Orthodox (like the Federal Visionists) allow both. So maybe you're the RCC version of Presbyterianism and they are the Eastern Orthodox version of Prebyterianism, so to speak,
"If one sacrament can be given without faith why not both?"
There is a severe warning against those who eat without discerning the Lord's body.
There is no similar warning against those who obey the command to be baptized before obeying the command to repent.
-TurretinFan
But a warning can only be given to someone who can comprehend warnings. "He that eateth without discerning the Lord's body eateth damnation to himself" cannot apply to infants, since they are not ignoring the significance of the Lord's supper as an adult who ate without discerning would be. As infants they have no idea what's going on. All they know is that their parents put a piece of bread in their mouth.
The bible quote of "repent and be baptized" was in the context of ADULTS because they were the first to accept Christianity. Thereafter their children (infants)continued the tradition of Holy Baptism, Holy Chrismation and Holy Eucharist immediately following each other. This has historically continued for 2,000 years within EASTERN Christianity. There are multiple verses in the NT saying "entire households were baptized".
Also, there is documented writings in the early Christian catacombs of infants being baptized.
Remember, Christ NEVER denied the children therefore His Apostolic Church never did too.
Western (RC) had kept those Christian traditions up until the 11th century forward.
David
"The bible quote of "repent and be baptized" was in the context of ADULTS because they were the first to accept Christianity. "
The passage makes no such distinction between adults and children. That's reading in to the text what is not there. The context is the contrast between believers and unbelievers. Your opinions are subject to the correction Supreme authority of Scripture.
"Thereafter their children (infants)continued the tradition of Holy Baptism, Holy Chrismation and Holy Eucharist immediately following each other. "
We have no biblical evidence of unbelieving babies being baptized in Scripture. There is no proof of a " claimed tradition " that goes back to Jesus and the apostles. It must be pointed out the early church fathers are not apostles. Water baptism and the Lord's Supper are for those who are regenerate and not the unregenerate. Any claimed " traditions " are subject to the correction of Scripture as the Supreme authority.
"This has historically continued for 2,000 years within EASTERN Christianity. There are multiple verses in the NT saying "entire households were baptized". "
In those cases the passages themselves shows the entire household came to faith in Jesus Christ. Unbelievers were not baptized in those passages. Acts 2:42 and Acts 16:34 expressly has all of the household as having faith in Christ prior to their baptism.
"Also, there is documented writings in the early Christian catacombs of infants being baptized."
If I take you word that would only show me a case of which so called " tradition " is in error and subjected to the correction of Scripture. Since Scripture is Supreme as a rule of faith in matters of doctrine. Whereas tradition is neither infallible nor equal in authority to Scripture. So called " tradition " can error and has in the past. I can quote a church father who taught Jesus died at age 50 and claimed it was passed down tradition yet we clearly know that view and claim is incorrect.
"Remember, Christ NEVER denied the children therefore His Apostolic Church never did too."
There were no Christian baptism until Acts 2 at Pentecost. In Acts we find only those who had faith in Christ as being baptized even in so called " household " baptism. Scripture contrast those who are believers and those who are unbelievers. It is irrelevent on the so claimed claim of the distinction between adult and children. Since on the issue of baptism and the Lord's Supper no such distinctions are found in Scripture on that. Water baptism is not essential or necessary in order to be justified before God nor does it convey the grace of regeneration or justification nor is it the divine instrument which brings about regeneration.
"Western (RC) had kept those Christian traditions up until the 11th century forward."
To me it is just a mere tradition that was wrong that was passed down. Much of it can be linked to the false view of so called " baptismal regeneration " . Scripture is supreme over tradition.
ChaferDTS:
"The bible quote of "repent and be baptized" was in the context of ADULTS because they were the first to accept Christianity."
The passage makes no such distinction between adults and children. That's reading in to the text what is not there. The context is the contrast between believers and unbelievers. Your opinions are subject to the correction Supreme authority of Scripture.
a) The historical context is just what David said. His explanation of why the verse would say that makes sense in that context.
b) To change this command to "Repent and Be Baptized" into a command to first repent and only then be baptized, is rather arbitrary. It would have strange effects in the case of "Repent and Believe" to apply that same hermeneutic.
"Thereafter their children (infants)continued the tradition of Holy Baptism, Holy Chrismation and Holy Eucharist immediately following each other. "
We have no biblical evidence of unbelieving babies being baptized in Scripture.
a) We have no explicit statements that any babies at all (believing or unbelieving) were baptized.
b) But, we do have statements that "households" were baptized.
c) And, of course, David did not claim that there was Biblical evidence for his statement.
There is no proof of a "claimed tradition" that goes back to Jesus and the apostles.
Proof and evidence are two different things, of course. There is quite early evidence of infant baptism. As for chrismation and immediate communion, I'm not aware of such early evidence.
[to be continued]
It must be pointed out the early church fathers are not apostles.
Granted. Also, in anticipation, I grant that many errors are very old errors.
Water baptism and the Lord's Supper are for those who are regenerate and not the unregenerate.
a) Actually, the Lord's supper is not necessarily for all the regenerate.
b) We admit unregenerate people to the Lord's table. We don't mean to do so, but we do so.
c) The stern warning about the Lord's Supper being taken by those who lack discernment is not mirrored in a stern warning against people being baptized without discernment.
d) And, of course, if you want to assert that Baptism is necessarily limited to some group of people, the onus is on you to show that.
Any claimed " traditions " are subject to the correction of Scripture as the Supreme authority.
Even real traditions are subject to the supreme authority of Scripture. That's why - even if there were an apostolic tradition of paedo-communion, we might still oppose it if it conflicts with Scripture.
"This has historically continued for 2,000 years within EASTERN Christianity. There are multiple verses in the NT saying "entire households were baptized". "
In those cases the passages themselves shows the entire household came to faith in Jesus Christ.
Acts 16:14-15
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Respectfully, I don't see where it says her household believed.
[to be continued more]
1 Corinthians 1:14-16
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Again, respectfully, I don't see where it says that the household of Stephanas believed.
Unbelievers were not baptized in those passages.
a) I think what you might mean to say is that "no one can prove that unbelievers were baptized in those passages."
b) Of course, unbelievers are frequently baptized, even by anti-paedo-baptists. People who make false professions of faith, for example, are among the unbelieving who are baptized.
c) But all that David's point was, was that whole households were baptized, which at least suggests that the children were also baptized. Does it prove it? No, of course not.
Acts 2:42 and Acts 16:34 expressly has all of the household as having faith in Christ prior to their baptism.
Acts 16:29-34
Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
In that instance, baptism is mentioned before it is said that any of them believed. The caution here would seem to be to be careful about reading too much into the order of presentation.
Acts 2:37-42
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
I'm not sure what you see as the significance of this, but there it is.
"Also, there is documented writings in the early Christian catacombs of infants being baptized."
If I take you word that would only show me a case of which so called "tradition" is in error and subjected to the correction of Scripture.
Here I must interject that, obviously, Scripture nowhere prohibits infant baptism. But, of course, I agree with the main point, namely that extra-scriptural tradition is not itself authoritative beyond the power of persuasion.
[to be continued yet more]
Since Scripture is Supreme as a rule of faith in matters of doctrine. Whereas tradition is neither infallible nor equal in authority to Scripture. So called " tradition " can error and has in the past. I can quote a church father who taught Jesus died at age 50 and claimed it was passed down tradition yet we clearly know that view and claim is incorrect.
Yes, of course.
"Remember, Christ NEVER denied the children therefore His Apostolic Church never did too."
There were no Christian baptism until Acts 2 at Pentecost. In Acts we find only those who had faith in Christ as being baptized even in so called " household " baptism. Scripture contrast those who are believers and those who are unbelievers. It is irrelevent on the so claimed claim of the distinction between adult and children. Since on the issue of baptism and the Lord's Supper no such distinctions are found in Scripture on that. Water baptism is not essential or necessary in order to be justified before God nor does it convey the grace of regeneration or justification nor is it the divine instrument which brings about regeneration.
A lot of this seems to be either irrelevant or already addressed above.
"Western (RC) had kept those Christian traditions up until the 11th century forward."
To me it is just a mere tradition that was wrong that was passed down. Much of it can be linked to the false view of so called " baptismal regeneration " . Scripture is supreme over tradition.
ok ...
-TurretinFan
"Again, respectfully, I don't see where it says that the household of Stephanas believed."
In Acts. "And he believed with his whole house."
The closest would be this:
1 Corinthians 16:15-16
I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.
(assuming that it is the same Stephanus, which I suppose is possible, since apparently Achaia was the region of Greece in which Corinth was)
(B2k8, not sure what your error in thinking that it says his whole house believed in Acts.)
I was thinking of the jailor in Acts 16
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
Many times I have heard the baby-sprinklers say that infants were baptized here.
Yet, the jailor was "believing in God with all his house" and infants do not believe, so obviously there were not infants in his house.
Yes. I know how people rejoice with one another. I'm not sure how one believes "with" someone else. It seems so individualistic. But perhaps that's how the sentence should be read.
This post is in context of Christian beliefs rather than what ones personal opinion
That being said, historically Christianity has ALWAYS been Holy Traditions/Holy Scriptures inseperable.
In fact,the books chosen by His Apostoic Church were done so in the 4th century from HOLY TRADITIONS prior to that time.
No way, Christianity was never ever "bible only" or "scripture only" as the 16th century protesting man had claimed and sadly has been retained by those who don't know the true faith.
David
"This post is in context of Christian beliefs rather than what ones personal opinion"
Well, the O.P. is about the truth, not simply "Christian beliefs."
"That being said, historically Christianity has ALWAYS been Holy Traditions/Holy Scriptures inseperable."
People sometimes claim this. But, of course, the O.P. relies on Scripture. Unless the "Holy Traditions" contradict the Holy Scriptures, we shouldn't have a problem.
Whether they are separable or whether there even are any "Holy Traditions" outside of Scripture is something for another post.
"In fact,the books chosen by His Apostoic Church were done so in the 4th century from HOLY TRADITIONS prior to that time."
So were they chosen or did they just follow tradition? You're in a bind there.
But, again, whether they were or not doesn't really make a difference to this post.
And, further, of course, the canon of the New Testament was discussed by people before the 4th century.
"No way, Christianity was never ever "bible only" or "scripture only" as the 16th century protesting man had claimed and sadly has been retained by those who don't know the true faith."
I suspect you don't understand the position you're arguing against. But suffice to say that the "Protestants" of the 16th century were echoing the fathers.
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment