Quote
Pilgrim said:
I see another one can't seem to grasp what is so simple: Baptists define baptism in such a way that it is no definition at all because the definition changes depending upon the recipient of baptism. Thus, in plain English, Baptists have no definition that is valid to describe what baptism MEANS. You all adamantly say baptism IS, "an outward sign of an inward reality". Okay fine... so by DEFINITION when I see the sign there MUST BE that "inward reality" existing in the person being baptized. If there is no reality, then baptism is NOT "an outward sign of an inward reality". Thus the definition is false.

It's a universal maxim: "Something cannot be and not be at the same time!" grin

I think I have gone through this simple little lesson far too many times at this point. If you or any other Baptist doesn't "get it" now, then I fear nothing I could say further on this particular point will be worth the effort. This is mostly due to another maxim: "Don't confuse me with the facts. I already have my mind made up!" rofl
In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

With all due respect (because there's a lot!) please go back and read my post and the arguments I made. If I didn't know better, it would appear that your doctinal position was blinding your ability to see plain logic, at least in this instance.

(Latin phrase goes here.)