Originally Posted by grace2U
I have never heard of Adam Clarke in my life, and I have never heard of any Baptist using him to support baptistic views. Why would they need to do so? The unequivocal statements of Luther and Calvin that Christian baptism was originally by immersion are really quite sufficient. rofl

If, as you say, Pilgrim, you don't want a debate on baptism, please don't smear Baptists with 'dishonesty.' It really isn't very kind. If, on the other hand, you do want a debate, I'm just the chap to give you one.

Steve


Well Steve as one of the other Baptists on this board might I point out that your lack of knowledge regarding the use of Clarke by "some Baptists" doesn't necessitate that they didn't employ him. Read more it will do you some good I'm sure. Frankly I've seen some poor arguments from my Baptist brethren that bring nothing but shame to the debate. So unless you personally can prove different regarding the article that Pilgrim referenced and are willing to show it I suggest you keep a civil tongue.

Now I've been here for the debates, they bring nothing but division and are worth nothing! It is entirely different matter to debate something that is a first cause or principle. But regarding the method of the ordinances (sacraments if you will) and to whom they are administered to they are not a first cause, they are at best a third cause. And as such should remain with those that are convinced as to how they should be preformed.

Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo