Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius  Thanks for sharing, Chris. I respect the difficulty of embracing new positions and the diligence I'm sure you've given this question.
Could you elaborate more on just what exactly your argument is? You stated that some men were baptized, that 2:42 may refer to communion, and concluded that we therefore must either accept paedocommunion or reject paedobaptism. I don't see how this follows from the passage. I'm not trying to debate you on this; your explanation just doesn't make sense to me and I'm looking for clarification so that I may understand your new position. |
Thanks for your question, David. Unfortunately I won't have much time for a protracted debate on this and don't anticipate being on here much at all in the coming weeks, but I will try to answer now since I am still online.
Very simply, I believe that all of those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were professing believers, and v. 42 states that this same group celebrated the Lord's Supper together. In my mind those who accept paedobaptism must also accept paedocommunion in order to do justice to the text. As I stated, I am glad that the Confessional Reformed do not practice paedocommunion, but at this point I regard that as a happy inconsistency.
I am well aware that many will not be satisfied with my reasoning, but I felt that it was incumbent upon me as a moderator of this board with 5500+ posts to explain my change in views, especially since a good portion (my guess is at least a few hundred) of my previous posts were dedicated to hammering Baptists.
FWIW I continue to think using the term Reformed to simply refer to those who accept TULIP isn't particularly helpful, but it seems to be a lost cause at this point.