Donations for the month of February


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Meta4
Meta4
Canada
Posts: 77
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,154
Posts52,817
Members956
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,910
Tom 3,940
chestnutmare 3,060
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,805
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 13
Tom 9
Meta4 2
Recent Posts
"Christ died in a general way for all."?
by brightfame52. Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:22 PM
The God of contemporary Christian ~ A.W. Tozer
by Rick Bates. Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 AM
Red Letter Bibles
by Tom. Wed Feb 10, 2021 7:23 PM
Pride ~ William Mason 1773
by Pilgrim. Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:25 AM
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved?
by brightfame52. Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:31 AM
MacArthur Sermon Controversy
by Tom. Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:03 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 11 of 11 1 2 9 10 11
Re: The New Covenant [Re: Pilgrim] #56548
Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:15 PM
Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:15 PM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Midwestern USA
0
042Dave Offline
Plebeian
042Dave  Offline
Plebeian
0
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Midwestern USA
You are right. What I said is that the Pedo Baptists claim that infant baptism corresponds to and replaced circumcision. I endeavored to point out at least one inconsistency in that view.

Re: The New Covenant [Re: 042Dave] #56553
Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:18 AM
Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:18 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,910
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,910
NH, USA
Originally Posted by 042Dave
Pedo Baptists claim infant baptism replaces circumcision in the OT. If this is true, why can't we say if you are baptized as an infant, Christ will profit you nothing? Just as Paul, when he says says “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” Galatians 5:2 (KJV 1900)

There is no inconsistency whatsoever. Circumcision has been replaced by baptism. Paul isn't denying this truth whatsoever. He is attacking those who believed/taught that their circumcision=salvation. Put another way, neither circumcision nor baptism was efficacious to save. Neither was a 'sign' that the recipient or either was saved. The immediate and far context of Gal 5:2 is Paul's strong argument and denunciation of a salvation by faith + works. The overwhelming number of Israelites in the OT died in unbelief albeit they were circumcised. If circumcision was an infallible 'sign & seal' of one's salvation, then why would Moses say to the people of Israel, Deuteronomy 10:16 (KJV) "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."? Throughout the OT and then in the NT, salvation is not obtainable by ANY work whatsever, including faith. Yes, faith is NOT the proximate cause. Justification is THROUGH faith, not BY faith. Salvation is by GRACE through faith. Nothing can contribute to one's salvation. Thus, coming full circle, if anyone believes that circumcision or baptism is an infallible stamp of their being justified/saved/reconciled, etc., they are seriously mistaken and in jeopardy of being under the just wrath of God, no less than were the unbelieving Israelites as exemplified by the Pharisees.

Now, are their paedobaptists who believe that a baptized infant is saved? Yes, without any argument there are and perhaps far too many. I am not referring to only those who believe in "baptismal regeneration" but also those who believe in "presumptive regeneration". Dr. Joel Beeke makes this point in his short article here: Praying for Our Children. Many years ago, I publicly debated John Reisinger on the subject of baptism. He was more than surprised to hear me state that I didn't hold to the false notion that baptized infants were saved nor even presumed to be saved, nor that they would definitely be saved sometime in the future, having possessed a 'seed of faith' because if they were children of believing parent(s). The conclusion of our debate was my insistence that (Reformed) Baptists reared their children no differently than how I reared my children, i.e., they taught their children that they were hopeless and helpless sinners in dire need to salvation. They needed to pray to God for mercy and that He would bless them with saving grace, giving them a deep conviction of sin and a faith that embraced Christ Jesus and His shed blood and His righteousness imputed to them.

Methinks that many Baptists err in like manner by believing that baptism, their baptism is a sure 'sign' of their obedience and consequent salvation. I have attended myriad Baptist churches and witnessed their 'ordinance' of baptism whereby the pastor declared that the baptized individual was most assuredly now saved, having "followed the Lord in obedience and submitted to baptism by immersion".


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: The New Covenant [Re: Pilgrim] #56554
Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:37 PM
Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:37 PM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Midwestern USA
0
042Dave Offline
Plebeian
042Dave  Offline
Plebeian
0
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Midwestern USA
Where do you find a single example of infant baptism in the New Testament?

Last edited by 042Dave; Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:37 PM.
Re: The New Covenant [Re: 042Dave] #56555
Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:33 PM
Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,910
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,910
NH, USA
I have already written to you that I will not get involved in any further 'debates' on baptism. There are myriad discussions/threads on this board that expand years of such discussions. And very few resulted in anything positive. This is not to be understood as a ban on such discussions on this board. nope What I am clearly saying is that "I" personally will not entertain any such discussions.

Now, to answer your question... I suspect due to your misunderstanding or lack of sufficient knowledge concerning the "covenant of grace" and/or covenant theology in general and more than likely a presupposition that the "NEW Covenant" is basically a different covenant you do not comprehend the continuity involved. shrug Since I firmly believe that baptism has superseded circumcision as the "sign of the covenant", it must be the case that every Jew that infant and children assumed that this "sign" would still include them. In fact, it would have been expected that such a radical change to exclude infants and children from receiving the covenant sign would are require a clear command and explanation of such a change. No such command is to be found anywhere in the NT. The emphasis in the NT is NOT the exclusion of covenant children but rather upon the inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant, focusing upon, as should be expected, upon the conversion of adults. The NT (covenant) is not one of EXclusion but of INclusion; Gentiles and females vs. Jews and males. The family structure is not abrogated but affirmed and strengthened as well and the universality and spirtuality of the New Covenant.

I am bowing out of this discussion but others, if there is any interest may continue. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: The New Covenant [Re: Pilgrim] #56556
Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:53 AM
Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:53 AM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Midwestern USA
0
042Dave Offline
Plebeian
042Dave  Offline
Plebeian
0
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Midwestern USA
If you can prove your point, why not take on infant baptism?

Re: The New Covenant [Re: 042Dave] #56557
Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:51 AM
Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:51 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,910
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,910
NH, USA
Originally Posted by 042Dave
If you can prove your point, why not take on infant baptism?

Because I already stated more than once that over the 25 years The Highway has been online, there have been a plethora of discussions/debates over this issue of baptism. Very few have had positive results. This is a foundational doctrine for most Baptists and when it has been challenged, the 'heat' gets turned up and any objectivity disintegrated into the typical ad hominem slurs, etc. In my last response to you I thought I had made it more than clear that I have no interest whatsoever to be involved in yet another fruitless discussion over baptism; recipients, mode, etc., etc., etc.

Originally Posted by pilgrim
I am bowing out of this discussion but others, if there is any interest may continue.

Is that too hard to comprehend? You may continue to call out the non-credobaptists all you like, which actually are in the minority here. But I seriously doubt you will get any takers. IF you personally think that adult baptism only via immersion is salvific in nature, you have more important issues to be addressed. scratchchin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: The New Covenant [Re: Anonymous] #56558
Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:56 AM
Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:56 AM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Midwestern USA
0
042Dave Offline
Plebeian
042Dave  Offline
Plebeian
0
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Midwestern USA
The problem is, New Testament scripture does not support your claims for infant baptism. You haven't any other option than to remain silent.

Re: The New Covenant [Re: Anonymous] #56559
Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:07 AM
Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:07 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,060
NH
chestnutmare Offline
Annie Oakley
chestnutmare  Offline
Annie Oakley
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,060
NH
Dave (042),

Please note that when you see "Anonymous", it means that someone has unregistered from the Board so they will never respond to you.

Sorry.

Last edited by chestnutmare; Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:22 AM.

The Chestnut Mare
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by frost.
- - - -JRR Tolkien "Lord of the Rings"
Re: The New Covenant [Re: chestnutmare] #56560
Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:17 AM
Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:17 AM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Midwestern USA
0
042Dave Offline
Plebeian
042Dave  Offline
Plebeian
0
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Midwestern USA
It is a sin to judge a person's motives. Which you seem to be engaged in.

Page 11 of 11 1 2 9 10 11

Who's Online Now
1 registered members (brightfame52), 48 guests, and 62 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Pinoy Reformista, Randall Bachman, brightfame52, 042Dave, Lotero
956 Registered Users
Shout Box
February
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
1,214,265 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.057s Queries: 16 (0.008s) Memory: 2.9333 MB (Peak: 3.2303 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2021-02-24 20:04:12 UTC