hisalone,<br><br>I desired to post one more detail concerning "infant baptism" This is related to Ishmael and Esau. They both were circumcised (Gen 17:23). The general provisions for circumcision seen in Gen 17:9-14 are very firm here. Now, PRIOR to the circumcision of Ishmael, Abraham was told, "My covenant will I establish with Issac." Additionally, Rebbecca knew by revelation, prior to the birth of her two sons, that Esau would be rejected. This information though regarding God's divine purpose was not used by either Abraham or Rebbecca for depriving either child--Ishmael or Esau respectively, of the sign of circumcision. Thus, if you understand that circumcision was replaced by baptism (Col 2:11-12) in the continuation of the covenant in God's one Church, then (1) members of the Church (Abraham and Rebbecca) were being obedient to Gen 17 (2) an outer covenant relationship, as opposed to an inner covenant relationship, was being recognized/obeyed, thus (3) there needs be no profession of faith by infants to be baptized, for a covenant relationship is in view, and (4) this argument also does away with presumptive regeneration, as nothing could be presumed, as they (Ishmael and Esau) were already rejected PRIOR to circumcision.

Reformed and Always Reforming,