In answer to a query on another post I put together a list of posts and other resources. For those working through the questions here are some HB posts and other resources that might help:
- Clark on Infant Baptism
- (That same web document was serialized here on the HB)
- Abraham Was Not Moses
- Does Baptism Save?
- How Does the Promise Relate to Baptism?
- What About the Silence of the NT Regarding Infants?
- Is it Sin to Refuse to Baptize Infants?
- The Strimple-Malone Debate
- The VanDrunen-Schreiner Debate
- Dennis Johnson, How My Mind Has Changed
- Danny Hyde, Jesus Loves the Little Children
You have no footnote for this: “The Passover feast was restricted to those who are able to understand God’s redeeming acts because it was a sign designed to nurture and lead to growth. It was not a sign of entrance into visible covenant assembly of God’s people, but served as a means of renewing the covenant of grace.”
If it is true, it would go a long way toward settling the current paedocommunion controversy. It would be helpful if you would adduce the evidence for it.
See the long (10?) series of posts I did on Cornel Venema’s book against paedocommunion. Use the search box (upper left) and search “paedocommunion.” He did a much better job on that question than I can do.
What about the following simple rule of Bible interpretation. Is the following true, and if so, how far does it go?
Unlike baptism, which has no didactic passage that places prerequisites on its recipients or specifies who the proper recipients are, the Lord’s Supper does have a passage such as this, i.e. 1 Cor. 11:28.
So whereas we have narrative passages that allow us to draw some conclusions regarding baptism, we are still left to determine the proper recipients based on our understanding of the Bible as a whole; but with the Lord’s Supper, this is not the case.
Therefore since we don’t establish practices on narrative passages alone, and especially not when they contradict didactic passages, then there is no ground for paedocommunion.
If this is true, then shouldn’t this alone be enough to end the paedocommunion debate? But when coupled with no precedent established in the OT of infants partaking of the Passover, why is this not the death nail in the paedocommunion coffin?