Let's discuss this topic. First, here are those "prominent men" who hold to paedocommunion. R. C. Sproul Jr., Tim Gallant, G. I. Williamson, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Robert Rayburn Jr., C. John "Jack" Collins, Steve Wilkins, Gary North, R. J. Rushdoony, Andrew Sandlin, Ray Sutton, Curtis Crenshaw, N. T. Wright, William Willimon. Gallant says about "examining" om 1 Cor. 11, "The irony of the appeal to 1 Corinthians 11, in service to an argument against paedocommunion, is severely profound. In this chapter - and indeed in this epistle - Paul is fighting for the unity of the Church. There are to be no 'spiritual' or 'social' superiors/inferiors at the table, for all are one body in Christ. And yet the antipaedocommunionist appropriation of this text institutionalizes precisely such disunity. It denies the genuine status of baptized children, placing them outside of the meal that is, in a very real sense, the communal participation of Christ's people in Himself (10:16). Nothing could have been further from Paul's intention when he wrote 1 Corinthians 11. By means of his directives, he was ensuring unity, real unity, at the table. The examination that his warning calls for is, in part (and especially in the immediate context) a putting oneself to proof regarding who we are in relationship to the Church of Jesus Christ. And covenant children are members of that Church. The result of sound self-examination would rightly lead us to repent of our divisive history of shutting them out from the blessings of the table. That is the practical import of 1 Corinthians 11:28 in connection with the question of paedocommunion." This is a complete smoke screen. At any level whatsoever of rendering "self-examiniation" whether it is in light of a body or an individual, even regarding the inclusion of the whole covenatn community, it still renders the individual upon a task as to whether they are thinking about themsevles in relation to the whole correctly. Now a further argument to confound us is this - 2 Thessalonians 3:10, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Infants cannot work, thus this passage is not applied to them. So in communion they cannot "examine themsvles" thus this is not applied to them. This is how the paedocommunionist attempts to get around this passage. The logic, though, on this simpleton eisogesis is faulty: Those who pratake of the Lord's supper are to examine themsevles in relation to the whole. Those who work are to work and eat. In the former, infants are included if they are partaking of the Supper. In the latter infants are included if they are working. Since infants are not working, they are not included. That Scripture does not apply to them. Since they are partaking, they are included in 1 Cor. 11. Its impossible to deny one over the other, or use such an exegetical fallacy to state this argument as "aiding the paedocommunion cause." Here is another line of his thinking (part of it): "Brief Theses on Communion & Covenant Children" by Tim Gallant 1. The children of believers are possessors of the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 19:13-14), and therefore members of Christ's Church. 2. The children of believers are therefore rightly baptized, to signify and seal their real relationship with Jesus Christ, even as infants were circumcised under the old covenant (Gen. 17:10-14; cf. Col. 2:11-12). 3. Those who are baptized into Christ possess full inheritance rights in the new covenant (Gal. 3:27), and are therefore included in all its privileges (Gal. 3:26-29). 4. The sacrament of Lord's Supper is one of these privileges which belong to the baptized body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-17; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13)." Number 4 is not a logical step from #3 since #4 is a priveledge of growth not birth which requires specific interaction between the participant of the Supper and the body partaking in the Supper. Thoughts?