I was stating this in response to the paedobaptist view. “What happens when the house hold doesnt believe.” In other words, why would you baptize somebody who doesnt believe.Then continue to pray and evangelize that their eyes may be opened.
Oh I see. Thanks for clarifying.I was stating this in response to the paedobaptist view. “What happens when the house hold doesnt believe.” In other words, why would you baptize somebody who doesnt believe.
One thing I never understood regarding paedobaptism related to what a child was missing if one doesn’t baptize an infant.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Scripture says "Believe and be baptized" too, and numerous times. You've basically got one verse (or passage) that most of them use to argue for credo-communion versus a great many more than that which have to be explained away to arrive at pedobaptism. (I think that the argument over the Passover is perhaps inconclusive although I haven't looked at it in great detail.)The line of argument that says, "If paedobaptism is true, then so is paedocommunion" is simply wrong. Sorry. Scripture speaks of self-examination prior to partaking the Lord's Supper, so an infant may be baptised and yet not be given the Supper. Baptists like to adopt this position because they think it strengthens their credobaptist position. But it only gives a voice to weird reformed paedocommunionists, instead.