<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I stand by my original statement, nowhere does it speak of the baptism of anyone but believers. The infant was inserted because I was showing the absurbity of an infant being able to exercise abstract thinking. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Wrong, and shown to be so at least twice. Believers AND their households. A good study on the original languages and covenantal relationships could help here. Also, the fallacy of knowing mens hearts shows itself here again. You don't uphold Believers Baptism.......you uphold Professors Baptism, Baptising those that profess, presuming them to be elect.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Presuming that scripture says something when it doesn't is not the same as presuming who the elect are. I don't understand your question. Where did I ever say I presume who is elect? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Where did I presume anything about scripture? I didn't. The term Believers Baptism would require that the Baptist position uphold that only the elect are baptised.......but honestly, we don't know mens hearts always (rarely) and Baptists uphold Professors Baptism. The Batist Confession agrees;<br><br>The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXIX<br>Of Baptism:<br>II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Baptism is a sign of the Christian's relationship to Christ, just as Circumcision was a sign of the descendents of Abraham's relationship to the living God </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So, what relationship do your children have then? Mine have a covenantal relationship, and were administered the sign and seal of such.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] What dilemma? It isn't the sign that saves but the profession. The sign of circumcision was given to show that the cutting away of sin was required to be included into the house of faith. Baptism, shows the washing away of sin by Christ is required for inclusion into the body of Christ. Just as not all that were circumsized were of the house of faith, so also not all that are baptized, I agree. Baptizing non-believers has no purpose and can be deceptive as I mentioned previously, some place all their hope in their baptism. Didn't the Israelites completely miss the point about circumcsion? The church is inadvertantly giving this same hope. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It isn't the profession that saves, but Grace. So, baptism is given to show inclusion? Think about what that means to children without it? The hope is given only through a false teaching of regeneration, not the truth upheld by scripture. The sign of circumcision was given to show inclusion into a visible covenant, as well.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] All of scripture speaks of the nation of Israel as the people of God and the Church as descendents of spiritual Abraham. They are not identical. All of scripture shows the discontinuity. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Then perhaps you could start a new thread and show this?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Where does scripture show that baptism preceeded a profession of faith? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>No where. However, scripture does show signs and seals being given prior to faith being expressed in the familial/household relationship in both the OT and the NT. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] The church has lost much of the truth today. I would never divide over Baptism, but I would not have my children baptized unless they requested it on profession of faith out of obedience to the word of God. Does this make us any less brothers in Christ? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I suppose you are ready to tackle that thread about Who Departed then? You may not divide, but you are following those that divided already. Any less brothers? No. Both correct? No.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
