I'll overlook the "cheap shot" about that being my "best shot" and simply say that again, there is no disagreement that the new covenant administration does involve changes from the old. However, there is nothing in that new administration that speaks of the barring of the children of believers from receiving the sign. In fact, the new covenant administration is MORE universal, in that women are no longer prohibited from receiving the sign, which I am assuming you were referring to with your comment about 1/2 of the old covenant didn't receive the sign, i.e., circumcision.

Yes, let each be convinced in his own mind.... which I am. I left the credobaptist camp after having studied this issue over a period of years having found it wanting in so many ways. And, if you haven't discerned so yet, I stand between the "popular" paedobaptist view and the credobaptist view. I'm no stranger to these types of debates, which for the most part are nothing more than an exercise in futility. They always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps one of the very few times which hasn't done so is when I publicly debated John Reisinger on this topic. He was very gracious throughout the debate and we parted friends; agreeing on more than we disagreed as to what we both considered to be the essentials of baptism. One of the major essentials was how we as believers are to consider our children and how they are to be raised. On this there was no disagreement (I reject any and all forms of presumption re: covenant children). He also agreed that his definition of baptism, the same one which you now hold, was faulty and should be changed to better reflect that which he REALLY believed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]