Quote
It's exactly as I stated. Simon Magus was baptized on his profession of faith (Acts 8:13). However, this faith was not saving faith, being unaccompanied by repentance (v19). Therefore his baptism was an irrelevance and he was subject to the ban of the church (v21) until such time (if at all) as he should signs of repentance (v22).
I know WHY, but that was not the point....In your hermeneutic you claim you MUST know someone is saved prior to baptism (You said: Baptism is the outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly (Acts 10:47).). But as I already stated you can't prove this--Magus himself disproves your asserted hermeneutic.

Since baptism according to you is irrelevant let me ask you if the circumcision of the lost in the OT was irrelevant ? Let me make it clearer, are the commands of God irrelevant ? The answer is NO they are not. There was a purpose then and there is a purpose now. It is called obeying the covenant as laid down by its King....

Reformed and Always Reforming,