OK. I appreciate your frankness and what you are saying. (Really,:D, not petulantly). My aim, as I stated in my first post on this forum, was to try to understand the principle source of our differences. I started by attempting to initiate just the sort of protracted argument you suggest but was quickly met with the one-liner skirmishes I had hoped would be 'taken as read' through mutual familiarity with the standard positional arguments. Since the "standard positional arguments" fail to convince either way, I was looking for something deeper: The hermeneutic basis of our divergent view of covenant theology and the crucial point of departure.
I realise many who have been down this road have a great deal of personal investment in the conclusions they have reached. I can respect that while regretting that the ability or will to set out a winsome case and discuss the issue openly seems lacking. Perhaps I underestimate the task. I have read some admirable papers on the subject from both camps (Strawbridge, Welty) and do not see baptism per se as a primary isssue. I do see Covenant theology and resultant ecclesiology as much more important and have the "normal" Christian's concern for the truth in cases of controversy.
Seriously, and without rancour, condescension or "cheap feelings of superiority" I shall simply quit the field and hit the books.
