Paedocommunion - Baptism and Communion

Paedocommunion - Baptism and Communion

[MrSunnyJim]

In OT Israel, the sign of the covenant was circumcision, and was applied to all males. Some of these men were not of the faith, but they were still members of the covenant. The Pharisees were such men. "Believer" baptism does not signify belief, but only "credible" profession. Men with false faith may profess, be baptized, and then fall away. Infants are baptized into the covenant and are subject to its terms, but they may not end up as believers. The covenant body has always had unbelievers.

[rlh]

I am very appreciative of Douglas Wilson (which is why I am watching these videos). That said, I respectfully disagree with him on some things, including this. He closes the video by saying, “If you’ve welcomed the children into the covenant body, on what basis can you then say that they are NOT part of the covenant body?” If I may, the better question to ask is, “If it doesn’t make sense to welcome unbelievers into the covenant body and paedobaptism requires it, isn't paedobaptism wrong?”

[ETHANGELIST]

But at what age do they start partaking especially when they will be physically unable for a long time

[davebuehner]

I knew I belonged to and with my family in part because I ate with them (first at my mothers breast and later in the high chair). I did not first have to first confess I was of my father’s household or examine my membership. IOWs both my identity and my faith were taught and supported because I was included as part of the family. IMO it better to nurture the seed of faith in covenant children than to teach them they are faithless until they pass a performance test. It is akin to saying to a child you are not part of the family until you pass the family test. Childlike faith is real faith and real faith that needs to be nurtured and validated not discouraged and dismissed.

[bluesmanna]

So the whole point of the paedo-thing is that Christ's righteousness is imputed to even infants, through their faith, faith given to them in the womb, which I believe is scriptural (a lot of good book written examining the scriptural arguments for this). Paul in 2 Corinthians was not saying that they were not in the faith, but they needed to make sure they were born again, by examining the evidence of their fruitage.

[bluesmanna]

Obviously 'examining yourself' is a bit tougher to do as an infant. But saying that an infant has no faith for this reason seems silly to me. It's like saying that a mentally handicapped person, who is deaf, dumb, and blind, or simply a man in a coma, who has come to be born again, cannot meet the test of 'examine yourself' because he can show no real fruitage, when he himself knows the faith that burns within him, and so does God. God knows the faith he has put in his children :

[oracleoftroy]

Eh. Scripture gives us information about how the sacraments are to be conducted. For example, it tells us that baptism is to use the element of water, and communion is to use the element of bread and wine. No one would argue that what scripture says about one sacrament but not another can just be freely applied to the other, as if we can legitimately baptize by feeding bread and wine or take communion by getting wet.

I hope all that is uncontroversial so far.

1 Cor 11 offers instructions on how communion is to be conducted, and in verse 28 the recipient is to examine themselves. A child who is too young to examine themselves, even with the help of parents, is too young to take communion. I think it is appropriate for young children to give their confession to the elders and be admitted based on an age-appropriate understanding of the gospel, but I hesitate to ignore what is clearly instructed here.

I don't think the Baptist argument works because the basis of infant baptism is Gen 17, Acts 2 and the clear continuance of giving the sign of the covenant to all household members as we see throughout Acts. The Baptist thinks they get to gatekeep the invisible church, when in reality all who make up the visible church are part of the covenant community and should bear the sign of the covenant, and God is in charge of who he saves. They don't have to wrestle with 1 Cor 11: 28 as they already do that for baptism.

But covenant baptism just doesn't have that same foundation, and so the distinctions between the sacraments, and the instructions given in 1 Cor 11 all apply if there are distinctions for the recipient of the sacrament. One has to wonder why Paul felt to include that instruction if it was made irrelevant by credo-only baptism.

[carolinasosa]

So, you baptize children and they are not saved and even if not saved they take the bread? That could (literally) killed them (1 Cor. 11) you know?

[bluesmanna]

So I believe your reffering to 2 corinthians. And that exortation was given to examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith, not whether are not one is allowed to sit at the table of communion. I believe that to be at the table you must be perfect as he is perfect, that's the standard. Which is impossible, in that of ourselves. it's only by our faith the perfectness of Christ is imputed to us. So by Christ's righteousness we are allowed to sit at that table with him.

[gabrielkinzel]

Don’t you have to be saved to be apart of the body of Christ..?

[harpsichordkid]

Water without repentance is not baptism.
Bread without faith is not communion.
Read the Reformers. Read your catechisms. Be more concerned about being pro-Reformed than being anti-Baptists.