turksheadpeak
Puritan Board Freshman
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
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
