Infant Communion? / Doug Wilson

Doug Wilson unpacks his doctrinal position Paedocommunion: the belief that children of Believing parents receive the Lord's Table.

[CanonPress]

@OneFaithMinistries Few doctrines can be proved in a comment, but here's a tiny stab: my favorite passage is actually 1 Cor. 11 IN CONTEXT of 1 Cor. 10. I think that the sin that Paul warned the Cor. Church about was doing what we are doing by excommunicating covenant baptized children. Read Ch. 10. ALL ate of the bread (OT), and ALL passed through the sea (symbol of baptism), then, ch11, "YOU are divisive" " did you not learn from OT?" That's why they were judged. ALL BAPTIZED r welcome!

[CanonPress]

@OneFaithMinistries Examine the body! Examine yourself IN and AS the body. Is not that person across the room part of your body (in Christ)? Is not this child, baptized though not fully understanding, accepted by Christ even though he doesn't know it (as an old Reformed baptismal rite says), is he not part of the body as well? 1 Cor.11 warns about breaking apart the body. Some were drunk, others stuffed - they were divisive. They didn't recognize Christ in each other. WE don't recognize the kids

[Cjsoc]

Anyone have the link to the video explaining the biblical and theological evidence for it?

[MrRdybttl]

“Baptism ought to be administered to all those in the covenant of grace, because it is the first sealing of the covenant now first entered into… But the Supper is to be administered only to those who are visibly capable of nourishment and growth in the church. Therefore, it is to be given not to infants, but only to adults.” (Marrow of Theology I.xl.11, 18, pp. 211 & 212)

[CanonPress]

@OneFaithMinistries How do you know if an adult who is baptized has true saving faith? Because he SAID so? The supper is for the baptized, not the "Professing baptists." The Supper is for all who are bound covenantally to Christ. Question: Is the Supper for holy people or sinners?

While Calvin does reject infant baptism, he also debunks in very strong words many of the things the modern church as surrounded with the Supper, such as confirmation. Calvin said it was of the devil.

[OneFaithMinistries]

@CanonWired Did you really just ask that question? Thats why the passage says EXAMINE yourself. Babies CANNOT do that. Calvin said Infants were to be Baptized, he did not reject infant Baptism. And where did he reject Confirmation? Where?

[eltonron]

The reform missed all the big things, but kept the pomp, and circumstance.

[StoneysWorkshop]

having baptised all our children as babies I never thought of not having them partake in communion after their baptism.

[supersmart]

How can an infant 🚼 examine himself/herself based on 1 Corinthians 11

[ElasticGiraffe]

Orthodox baptize and commune infants. Little children aren't denied entry to or deprived of the life of the Church, which is the life of Christ himself. They are full members of Christ's body, just as their parents are.

I guess I don't understand what's supposed to be silly about paedocommunion. It's ancient Christian practice.

[CanonPress]

@OneFaithMinistries I never said that baptism guaranteed their salvation...adults partake...and are not guaranteed salvation by baptism either, so that doesn't follow as an argument. There is no indication that babies were NOT taking communion. So biblically there is not a CLEAR pro or con on that. History, however, is filled with examples of orthodox churches doing that until 12th century, when the Romanists took away the chalice from the laity. The kids choked without the wine, so no bread...

[TheMaineSurveyor]

Absolutely no Scripture was provided in this video in defense of this practice.

[OneFaithMinistries]

@CanonWired Prove it based on Scripture Alone then.

[OneFaithMinistries]

Continued... And if they cannot examine themselves, they partake unworthy. Well, we know the danger of doing that. Baptism can be debated on who it is for. There is Biblical grounds for Believers and Infant Baptism. We should not divide over that. However, Communion is for believers ONLY, scripture clearly tells that. You really have to go out of your way to prove otherwise. Do you really believe that not even one of the many reformers would have been for this if it were Biblical? Come on