For those who haven’t noticed James Jordan has written two excellent article, The Closing of the Calvinistic Mind and FV, NPP, PCA, AAPC, ETC., regarding the Auburn Avenue controversy within certain presbyterian circles. I for one have seen in this entire controversy some intersting associations. There are some who I have seen come out on the extreme side against infant communion – they basically call it heresy. These same people I have seen elsewhere positively associated with Rushdoony. Haven’t they noticed that Rushdoony promotes paedocommunion in his Institutes of Biblical Law? Why weren’t they calling him a heretic? For those interested see pages 46, 752-53, and 849. Sometimes it does all seem childish.
Tags
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Favorite Sites
Liberty
Meta
the Great Lands 
AMEN!!! Let this be shouted from the housetops. Many in the Presby world like to throw the word “heresy” around as if it were no different than the word “blond.” Perhaps these Presbys ought to read their own Confession! Admittedly, paedocommunion is excluded by strict subscription to WCF. But the greater consideration should be given to this question: If children are admitted into the Church via Baptism (as the WCF states), then why are these same children excluded from the Lord’s Table? I would posit that the necessity of “self examination” in Communion is the same as the necessity of repentance in Baptism. And just like Baptism, the condition is satisfied by the parents. The way it is done currently is a sort-of halfway covenant by which children are grafted into the Church but excluded from one of the major ways in which their Christian livelihood is sustained(and often also excluded, de facto, from the ministry of the Word — packing them off to “Children’s Church”).