tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post111017861034186301..comments2024-01-05T13:36:55.379-06:00Comments on Two-Edged Sword: Infant CommunionLeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10422257306176024118noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1110507491983261072005-03-10T20:18:00.000-06:002005-03-10T20:18:00.000-06:00The fact that Ursinus was a credocommunionist does...The fact that Ursinus was a credocommunionist does not mean that we need to take HC 81 as requiring credocommunion. We do not subscribe to any man's private theologoumena, not even those of the authors of our confessions. We subscribe to the words of the confessions themselves. The HC, unlike Westminster, is very careful not to go beyond the Bible's language when talking about the Supper. Thus, if 1 Cor. 11 does not say anything against paedocommunion -- does not, indeed, say anything about it at all -- then Heidelberg 81 poses no more problem for the paedocommunionist position, for the same reason.<BR/><BR/>As for whether Tim needs to take an exception, what would that accomplish? He explains that he agrees with the language of the HC on the issue, and he says what he thinks that language means. It is up to his church to decide whether they think he is within acceptable bounds. So far, they've said "no."<BR/><BR/>Remember, Tim does think that the church needs to change Question 80 of the HC. So it is not that he has any scruples about suggesting that the catechism is wrong. Rather, I expect he wants to maintain the catechism's wording in Q 81, and honestly does not think that it conflicts with paedocommunion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1110333420048008252005-03-08T19:57:00.000-06:002005-03-08T19:57:00.000-06:00I agree. The paedocommunionists have some good ar...I agree. The paedocommunionists have some good arguments. However, they should be completely honest and admit that their position is not in accord with the confessions. What the confession says should not be the point of contention, for it is a matter of historical fact. The argument should rather revolve around whether the exception will be tolerated. I believe the RCUS has officially decided that it is unacceptable; however, other Reformed denominations are still working through the issue. As they do so, they ought to respect the integrity of the Three Forms of Unity and Westminster Standards.<br /><br />Peace to you,<br /><br />AndyGone for nowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07737184817375562018noreply@blogger.com