Nothing To See Here

[Tarheel Baptist]

Ugly on the left and ugly on the right are only equivalent in their immorality.

Thanks for the example.

 

[subllibrm]

Thanks for agreeing that ugly

Thanks for the example.

Thanks for agreeing that ugliness is immoral and that Christians should have no part in it.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Thanks for agreeing that ugliness is immoral and that Christians should have no part in it.

When have I, or anyone else here would defend or promote ‘ugliness’…which I assume refers to action and attitudes and not physical features.
You just build straw men and argue against them…and I guess you end up winning.

However, your overall body of work here tells us exactly what you believe.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Where? By who?

Who me?!

 

[subllibrm]

When have I, or anyone else here would defend or promote ‘ugliness’…which I assume refers to action and attitudes and not physical features.
You just build straw men and argue against them…and I guess you end up winning.

However, your overall body of work here tells us exactly what you believe.

The black trannys feel differently.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The black trannys feel differently.

“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.“

 

[illinoisguy]

More on Doug Wilson - he is a proponent of "paedo-communion" or infant communion, for children as young as age 2. This is a general practice in the Eastern Orthodox churches, for babies as soon as they can ingest solid food, but for the most part not practiced in the Roman Catholic or mainline Protestant churches, which tend to withhold communion from baptized children until they have been confirmed. Presbyterians generally reject infant communion for baptized toddlers, and Baptists totally reject the practice.

Here's what Doug has to say about it, straight from the horse's mouth:

The Challenge of Child Communion | Blog & Mablog

Sharing Options Contents Introduction The Stakes The Fear and the Reality A Brief Description of What We Do The 2 Cor. 13:5 Obstacle And You Baptists . . . Giveaways are an Indication That You Need to be Reading More Introduction: When Christian writers and speakers use the word challenge, it...

dougwils.com

Doug does not see any need for conversion before being admitted to the Lord's Supper - he appears to be saying that partaking in the Lord's Supper is part of the process of conversion, which in most cases is a gradual thing:

"As we commune our children, we are teaching them and instructing them in the sacrament of Christ’s body, week after week. Your daughter takes a piece of bread, and mom leans over and says, 'This is the body of Christ, who died for you.'

"If someone asks why we don’t require a profession of faith first, our reply is that partaking of the Supper is a profession of faith.

"When they have come to adulthood, they have been woven into the covenant community, and it is a tight weave, administered over the course of years. Returning to the example of learning a language, they are native speakers, and don’t remember a time when they didn’t know. It is true that most of them will not be able to recall a moment of crisis conversion. We do thank the Lord for those instances where people meet the Lord on a Damascus road, but for those growing up in the church, such ought not be the norm."

See also this negative review of this teaching, from Protestia:

"Doug Wilson’s 'No Quarter November' is giving no quarter to reformed teaching on the Lord’s Supper. In 'The Challenge of Child Communion,' he argues that baptized toddlers (and possibly infants?) should receive communion. His central line is simple enough:

“If the baptized child is genuinely part of the loaf, then he should partake of the loaf.”

"It’s a striking sentence, and a revealing one. Because once you follow the logic behind it, you quickly discover that Wilson’s case depends not on historic Reformed theology, but on the same Federal Vision aberrations that the Reformed world has consistently rejected."

Federal Vision November - Protestia

Doug Wilson’s “No Quarter November” is giving no quarter to reformed teaching on the Lord’s Supper. In “The Challenge of Child Communion,” he argues that baptized toddlers (and possibly infants?) should receive communion. His central line is simple enough: “If the baptized child is genuinely...

protestia.com

 

[abcaines]

More on Doug Wilson - he is a proponent of "paedo-communion" or infant communion, for children as young as age 2.

Not his biggest problem but IMO it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what communion is about.

 

[Ransom]

More on Doug Wilson - he is a proponent of "paedo-communion" or infant communion, for children as young as age 2.

I don't agree, but I can't really fault Wilson for this. He's just a consistent Presbyterian on this point. If you wouldn't refuse infants baptismal water, then on what theological basis do you refuse bread and wine, once they're old enough to eat them? If they're truly members of the New Covenant, they should partake of its symbols.

Calvin made a distinction on this point between baptism and communion, saying that baptism was the rite of initiation into the New Covenant just as circumcision was into the Old, citing the continuity between them; on the other hand, communion was reserved for those who had confessed faith.

On that latter point, I agree with Calvin. Of course, as a Baptist, I'm consistent in the other direction and say baptism is also reserved for those who have made a confession of faith.

 

[illinoisguy]

IMO it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what communion is about.

Yeah. Based on Doug's plain statements, it appears that he sees communion as much more than a memorial of the Lord's death - it is an essential part of the process by which non-Christians (infants) are converted into Christians. Taking this to its logical conclusion, it could be deduced that those who deny communion to young children who have not made a confession of faith (this includes not only Baptists but also most conservative Presbyterians) are denying them the means of grace and holding them back from being saved.

There is some confusion among Christian Nationalists as to what makes a Christian nation, and what makes Christians. Some Christian Nationalists are proposing that infant baptism should be made mandatory - in their way of thinking, once everyone has been baptized, then the nation has been made Christian. That didn't work very well in the 8th Century when Charlemagne had the Saxons forcibly baptized, on pain of death if they refused - as soon as the imperial troops were gone, they rebelled and burned their churches.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

But, But, But, he uses the KJV.