Hey thanks Jon! Well that is a hard part about some of this; if this was the only piece of evidence, I’d agree. But I do think there is a bit more evidence to take into account on that score. I think when taken in relation to other pieces of evidence (Acts 2; Matt 26; 1 Cor 10-11), I still support the distinction between communicant vs non-communicant members. I was very persuaded by JV Fesko’s Word, Water, Spirit.
As a paedobaptist, I find the use of the passages where Jesus blessed the children to be an unconvincing exegetical reach to say the least. My go to passage is Colossians 2:11-12 followed by an explanation of why we should consider the passsages that speak about circumcision in our discussions in addition to the passages that speak about baptism.
I greatly enjoyed this.
I have been considering this topic afresh as I explore more deeply what it means to be a protestant.
I wonder with you conclusion that this would also support pedo-communion. How could we deny them the central covenant rite.
Hey thanks Jon! Well that is a hard part about some of this; if this was the only piece of evidence, I’d agree. But I do think there is a bit more evidence to take into account on that score. I think when taken in relation to other pieces of evidence (Acts 2; Matt 26; 1 Cor 10-11), I still support the distinction between communicant vs non-communicant members. I was very persuaded by JV Fesko’s Word, Water, Spirit.
As a paedobaptist, I find the use of the passages where Jesus blessed the children to be an unconvincing exegetical reach to say the least. My go to passage is Colossians 2:11-12 followed by an explanation of why we should consider the passsages that speak about circumcision in our discussions in addition to the passages that speak about baptism.
Agreed. The circumcision argument is far more convincing to me. But as I argue here, these passages are not irrelevant to the question