In reply to:
Why don't you explain it to me instead of being sarcastic.

Howard,

Here we go again, eh? rolleyes2 There wasn't any "sarcasm" whatsoever in my reply. What I wrote was an attempt, a futile one it seems, to get you to once again examine yourself and how you perceive Baptists, in this case, as being horrid heretics, etc. By associating the practice of Baptists of dedicating their children with Arminianism, you both erred in doing so from a theological perspective and you failed to show charity to those for whom the Lord shed His blood for their redemption. In my experience Reformed/Calvinistic Baptists have a far more biblical and covenantal view of children of believers than do many paedobaptists. The fact that some fail to be consistent in their views in this one area surely does not demand that one judge them to be "Arminian". Would it only be true that more Presbyterians and Reformed believers viewed their children as those in dire need of salvation instead of presuming their inclusion in Christ, the Church would not be filled with so many deceived individuals who are yet unconverted but are deemed children of God.

In short, just because someone or a group, denomination, etc., doesn't embrace paedobaptism doesn't make them Arminian, Roman Catholic or damnable heretics. The Church today could sorely use more preachers like Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Show me a Presbyterian pastor that is half the man that Spurgeon was and I'll show you a saint the likeness of which few of us have ever seen. grin

In His Grace,



[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]