# How about Colosians 2:11-12?



## Dachaser

As it seems apparent that Paul tied together one having faith in Jesus with water baptism!


----------



## timfost

Dachaser said:


> As it seems apparent that Paul tied together one having faith in Jesus with water baptism!



Yes, as well as circumcision. Who was supposed to be circumcised?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart



Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 4


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

One thing is sure: Paul saw a link between circumcision and baptism. That's pretty significant on its own.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> As it seems apparent that Paul tied together one having faith in Jesus with water baptism!



This is reflective of all of the gospel age. This has to be seen on a few heads; thinking covenantally, 1) the sign has always been for believers and their children. 2) The covenant has internal and external distinctions; true believers are in the internal side of the covenant, i.e. the true Israel of God. 3) those in the external side of the covenant have never been 'buried with him in baptism (or circumcision)'. *My emphasis added. Ishmael and esau were both in covenant; as was Demas, Ananias and Saphira and Simon Magus.

Consider all the warning passages in the book of Hebrews and the rest of the epistle letters to the local church. If everyone was in the internal side, who sat locally in these churches Paul was writing to, it would seem odd that Paul warned against, 'falling away'. Unless of course u are prepared to say that the Apostle was an Arminian.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, _even_ unto the end of the world. Amen.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 28:19–20.


David,
Do u equate 'discipleship' w/ regeneration and conversion? In other words, do u believe that all disciples are saved, as described above in the Great Commission?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> Yes, as well as circumcision. Who was supposed to be circumcised?


Spiritual circumcision, done by God before water baptism!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

All the thesis of the OP proves is that those who receive the outward sign of baptism _should_ likewise possess the inward reality of regeneration. That point was also true in the Old Testament. Hence, we read verses like "circumcise the foreskins of your hearts," and yet it was not an obstacle to the children of believers receiving the outward sign of circumcision. Consequently, the same principle with respect to the new covenant of sign of baptism (that those who have received the outward sign should possess the inward reality) is no basis on which to forbid infant baptism. 

"Move along! Nothing to see here!"

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## timfost

Reformed Covenanter said:


> "Move along! Nothing to see here!"



Or we could just get another baptism debate going!

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Kinghezy

timfost said:


> Or we could just get another baptism debate going!


I am still waiting for a "dog chasing its tail" gif. Not that I have any threads in mind that could use it...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Dachaser said:


> As it seems apparent that Paul tied together one having faith in Jesus with water baptism!



Are you inviting a dialog or are you just talking at the household baptists/paedobaptists on here? Honestly, there isn't much to dig into in your post. Why don't you at least exegete it for us and demonstrate why this seems so obvious to you? If not, I would suggest refraining from making such posts.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Are you inviting a dialog or are you just talking at the household baptists/paedobaptists on here? Honestly, there isn't much to dig into in your post. Why don't you at least exegete it for us and demonstrate why this seems so obvious to you? If not, I would suggest refraining from making such posts.


I am just suggesting that Paul directly tied faith in Jesus to one now being water baptized, as that would be the clear reading of the text!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tim,
It's really not a debate.


Dachaser said:


> I am jist suggesting that Paul directly tied faith in Jesus to one now being water baptized, as that would be the clear reading of the text!



Paul would have said the same of circumcision.....it is by faith one is in the internal side of the covenant. Nothing has changed.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Dachaser said:


> I am jist suggesting that Paul directly tied faith in Jesus to one now being water baptized, as that would be the clear reading of the text!



Okay. Why? Walk us through your thinking. Give us something to work with.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Tim,
> It's really not a debate.
> 
> 
> Paul would have said the same of circumcision.....it is by faith one is in the internal side of the covenant. Nothing has changed.


Paul states here though that faith is what gets us into the NC and the church, not the water baptism, for without faith in Jesus, one just getting all wet!


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Dachaser said:


> Paul states here though that faith is what gets us into the NC and the church, not the water baptism, for without faith in Jesus, one just getting all wet!



Brother, I refuse to interact with you if you continue to exclaim one-liners at everyone. Must you always end with an exclamation point? A period would do just fine on 99.9% of your posts.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


> ...without faith in Jesus, one just getting all wet!



Brother, I’m okay that you are a convinced Baptist. That’s fine. However, this kind of flippant rhetoric appears to be a cheap shot, and is frankly just plain offensive.

Please give the people in this thread the courtesy of elaborating on your _exegesis_ and theologizing so actual interaction might happen.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> Brother, I’m okay that you are a convinced Baptist. That’s fine. However, this kind of flippant rhetoric appears to be a cheap shot, and is frankly just plain offensive.
> 
> Please give the people in this thread the courtesy of elaborating on your _exegesis_ and theologizing so actual interaction might happen.


I did not mean to make any here upset, was just making a tongue in cheek reply.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Dachaser said:


> I did not mean to make any here upset, was just making a tongue in check reply.


Do you think the Covenant promises of the Lord are something that warrants tongue-in-cheek comments?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


> I did not mean to make any here upset, was just making a tongue in check reply.



I know, brother. I’m not angry. It’s just that people are already getting frustrated at the direction (or lack thereof) of this thread. These kinds of comments just add to it.


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> I know, brother. I’m not angry. It’s just that people are already getting frustrated at the direction (or lack thereof) of this thread. These kinds of comments just add to it.


I am trying to understand how we cannot get from that passage that Paul links water baptism to one having faith in Christ, do that under the NC just believer's get baptized.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Paul states here though that faith is what gets us into the NC and the church, not the water baptism, for without faith in Jesus, one just getting all wet!



Your post doesn't contradict what I wrote; 


> Paul would have said the same of circumcision.....it is by faith one is in the internal side of the covenant. Nothing has changed.



in fact, it says exactly what u said above. Hence, you have no idea what you are actually reading. As I have said in the past to you, Sir, u should spend some time reading and quit posting.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


> I am trying to understand how we cannot get from that passage that Paul links water baptism to one having faith in Christ, do that under the NC just believer's get baptized.



I understand that. I think what is frustrating to some on this thread is that when pressed, you simply reassert your understanding of the passage, mostly in one quick sentence. However, all of us already know what you think the passage says. What we want to know is _how you came to that understanding_. Asserting and explaining/defending are two different things.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> I am trying to understand how we cannot get from that passage that Paul links water baptism to one having faith in Christ, do that under the NC just believer's get baptized.


David, what you must do here is further the discussion. Ask, for example, "In what way can an infant be said to have been 'buried with Christ' in his baptism, and 'raised to walk in newness of life'?" That'll give them a question to work with, the answer to which I'm curious as well, though I suspect the answer will be along the lines of "the child is joined to Christ in the external administration of the covenant."
But let's see what they say.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> "In what way can an infant be said to have been 'buried with Christ' in his baptism, and 'raised to walk in newness of life'?"



Can an infant be regenerated?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Can an infant be regenerated?


Yes, but that would be apart from water baptism, as that would be the work of the Holy Spirit proper.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> David, what you must do here is further the discussion. Ask, for example, "In what way can an infant be said to have been 'buried with Christ' in his baptism, and 'raised to walk in newness of life'?" That'll give them a question to work with, the answer to which I'm curious as well, though I suspect the answer will be along the lines of "the child is joined to Christ in the external administration of the covenant."
> But let's see what they say.


Grest question, as Paul seems to be affirming that water baptism apart from faith in Christ and having new life by the Holy Spirit avails nothing!


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Scott Bushey said:


> Can an infant be regenerated?



Answer: Possibly. There seems to be indication that at least two biblical figures were regenerate _in utero_.

Follow on question: If an infant were regenerated, how could we tell?


----------



## Tom Hart

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Follow on question: If an infant were regenerated, how could we tell?


I'm curious under what circumstances it would be necessary to determine whether an infant be regenerate.


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Answer: Possibly. There seems to be indication that at least two biblical figures were regenerate _in utero_.
> 
> Follow on question: If an infant were regenerated, how could we tell?


Only God would know if they were or not.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Tom Hart said:


> I'm curious under what circumstances it would be necessary to determine whether an infant be regenerate.


In order to know whether it is appropriate to put on him/her the sign of the New Covenant.
But that is why we leave the matter of their regeneration to God, and baptize them when they can make a credible profession of faith. We deem it better to abide for some years saved though unbaptized, than baptized though unsaved. There's the divide.


----------



## Tom Hart

Ben Zartman said:


> In order to know whether it is appropriate to put on him/her the sign of the New Covenant.
> But that is why we leave the matter of their regeneration to God, and baptize them when they can make a credible profession of faith. We deem it better to abide for some years saved though unbaptized, than baptized though unsaved. There's the divide.


Infant baptism is OK so long as the infant can be proven regenerate. Got it.


----------



## Scott Bushey

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with _him_ through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Col 2:11–12.




Ben Zartman said:


> In order to know whether it is appropriate to put on him/her the sign of the New Covenant.
> But that is why we leave the matter of their regeneration to God, and baptize them when they can make a credible profession of faith. We deem it better to abide for some years saved though unbaptized, than baptized though unsaved. There's the divide.



1) Where do u see Paul making mention of what is 'appropriate'? The commission tells us to make disciples and baptize. Ben, as I asked David earlier, to which he failed to interact with; do u believe that all disciples mentioned in scripture (the term), were or implies regeneration. In other words, are the terms synonymous?

2) Please Sir, show me one instance in scripture where the sign was delayed? Where we see the leadership, malingering. Just one.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Tom Hart said:


> I'm curious under what circumstances it would be necessary to determine whether an infant be regenerate.



Mr. Bushey asked whether an infant could be regenerated or not. Sure, maybe.

But how would we know?

My point: It doesn't actually matter whether infants can or cannot actually be regenerated. That's a red herring to the matter at hand. Baptists don't baptize on the basis of _actual regeneration_. We baptize on the basis of _a profession of faith_.

So: Can an infant be regenerated? Possible, but since we can't know whether they are or aren't until they are old enough to profess faith, it doesn't actually matter.

Neither the Presbyterian nor the Baptist views of the proper subjects of baptism are in one whit affected by the actual regeneration (or lack thereof) of infants.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Hi Sean,
The question may come across as fodder, but given the interactions by a certain poster, it makes it an important point given the other frequent contradictions in the previous responses. 

Given what u have said, I am sure u agree that discipleship and regeneration are not synonymous. The Commission doesn't tell us to baptize regenerated people, but to teach and baptize disciples. How would u define a 'disciple'?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Hi Sean,
> The question may come across as fodder, but given the interactions by a certain poster, it makes it an important point given the other frequent contradictions in the previous responses.
> 
> Given what u have said, I am sure u agree that discipleship and regeneration are not synonymous. The Commission doesn't tell us to baptize regenerated people, but to teach and baptize disciples. How would u define a 'disciple'?


Someone who has claimed to been saved by Jesus Christ.


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


> Someone who has claimed to been saved by Jesus Christ.



Where do you get this definition?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Scott Bushey said:


> Hi Sean,
> The question may come across as fodder, but given the interactions by a certain poster, it makes it an important point given the other frequent contradictions in the previous responses.
> 
> Given what u have said, I am sure u agree that discipleship and regeneration are not synonymous. The Commission doesn't tell us to baptize regenerated people, but to teach and baptize disciples. How would u define a 'disciple'?



"one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another"
and
" a convinced adherent of a school or individual"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disciple

And to clarify (since you muddied the Great Commission a bit), the Commission says to: 1. MAKE disciples 2. And baptize them.


----------



## Scott Bushey

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> "one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another"
> and
> " a convinced adherent of a school or individual"
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disciple
> 
> And to clarify (since you muddied the Great Commission a bit), the Commission says to: 1. MAKE disciples 2. And baptize them.



Isn't making disciples, 'teaching them'?

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: KJV

I believe u bobbed and weaved a tad: Is discipleship and regeneracy, synonymous?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Scott Bushey said:


> Isn't making disciples, 'teaching them'?
> 
> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: KJV
> 
> I believe u bobbed and weaved a tad:* Is discipleship and regeneracy, synonymous?*



I am sorry, I didn't realize you were ASKING me if discipleship and regeneration were synonymous. It looked like you were making a statement. No, of course they are not synonymous.

You also asked: Isn't making disciples, 'teaching them'?

Yes, partly. You can't have disciples without teaching, but you don't just teach someone something and VOILA! they are disciples. "Discipleship" takes conscious commitment on the part of the disciple. I've been "taught" a lot of things that I don't care about and don't adhere to, and I am not a "disciple" of those people, ideas, movements, or schools of thought. But I am convinced of the rightness of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity, and I am therefore happy to acknowledge that I am His disciple.


----------



## Scott Bushey

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> "Discipleship" takes conscious commitment on the part of the disciple.



I disagree. How could u know the conscience of another man? If a person submits to being taught, agrees to it, they are being discipled. U have no idea of their actual commitment. If a person comes to my weekly bible study this week, never been to it before, is he being discipled?

In regards to the synonym; so u agree that discipleship and regeneration are not synonymous. The commission tells us to 'make disciples and baptize them'. It says nothing of waiting till they have a confession, outward commitment or regenerated.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> ...the Commission says to: 1. MAKE disciples 2. And baptize them.



To be fair, it could just as easily read (and, in my opinion, more likely reads) "make disciples [main verb] _by_ baptizing them [participle of means]."

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Isn't making disciples, 'teaching them'?
> 
> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: KJV
> 
> I believe u bobbed and weaved a tad: Is discipleship and regeneracy, synonymous?


Disciples of Jesus would be those who upheld and agreed with who Jesus was, and what He taught.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Scott Bushey said:


> I disagree. How could u know the conscience of another man?



"Conscious" not "conscience".



> If a person *submits to being taught*, *agrees to it*, they are being discipled. U have no idea of their actual commitment.



You just said what I said but in other words. You literally made my own point for me.

1. Submits.
2. Agrees.



> If a person comes to my weekly bible study this week, never been to it before, is he being discipled?



Why is he here there? Did a friend drag him along? Do you have a "celebrity Pastor" that's well known in the Christian world that this person wants to see? Is this someone who is already a Christian but is visiting your church because they are traveling out of their home location? The answer to your question depends on further facts not known to us. Just being present for some teaching does not make one a disciple.



> In regards to the synonym; so u agree that discipleship and regeneration are not synonymous. The commission tells us to 'make disciples and baptize them'. It says nothing of waiting till they have a confession, outward commitment or regenerated.



A confession or "outward commitment" is definitional to being a disciple, so no, you don't quite have it right here.


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> To be fair, it could just as easily (and, in my opinion, more likely reads) "make disciples [main verb] _by_ baptizing them [participle of means]."


WHich would mean that the imperative to teach and instruct loses it's emphasis if that was true!


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


> WHich would mean that the imperative to teach and instruct loses it's emphasis if that was true!



Huh?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> A confession or "outward commitment" is definitional to being a disciple, so no, you don't quite have it right here.



So if a person comes to church routinely, never makes a confession for quite some time, seeking to be baptized and become a member, when is he considered a disciple?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Scott Bushey said:


> So if a person comes to church routinely, never makes a confession for quite some time, seeking to be baptized and become a member, when is he considered a disciple?



When he makes a confession and seeks to be baptized and become a member.

How could someone possibly be said to be a *disciple* of Jesus Christ if they won't even profess faith in Him and express desire to be a member of His church?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Yea, I don't believe every disciple in the midst of the crowd gathering around Christ fits your description. We'll just have to disagree.


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> When he makes a confession and seeks to be baptized and become a member.
> 
> How could someone possibly be said to be a *disciple* of Jesus Christ if they won't even profess faith in Him and express desire to be a member of His church?



Is a conscious decision to be a disciple necessary to be a disciple of someone? When I was a child, I was in a sense my parents’ disciple, yet not of my own choice. I learned from them very naturally, and I do not remember making a conscious effort or decision to do so. Could not Christian discipleship happen this way, especially since the home is such an integral part of such in cases where the parents are Christians when the child is born?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor

Also, was Peter a disciple before he professed Jesus as the Christ?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Also, was Peter a disciple before he professed Jesus as the Christ?



Or after he confessed not being a disciple, publicly.


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> Also, was Peter a disciple before he professed Jesus as the Christ?


Yes, as Jesus choose Peterto himself.


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> Huh?


If one is water batized in order to make them disciples of Christ before they are taught about Jesus, how are they showing any real commitment?


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


> Yes, as Jesus choose Peterto himself.



So, it's possible, therefore, to be a disciple apart from public confession?



Dachaser said:


> If one is water batized in order to make them disciples of Christ before they are taught about Jesus, how are they showing any real commitment?



Question begging. Your question asserts that baptism requires conscious commitment, which is the very thing being debated here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Scott Bushey said:


> 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with _him_ through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Col 2:11–12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Where do u see Paul making mention of what is 'appropriate'? The commission tells us to make disciples and baptize. Ben, as I asked David earlier, to which he failed to interact with; do u believe that all disciples mentioned in scripture (the term), were or implies regeneration. In other words, are the terms synonymous?
> 
> 2) Please Sir, show me one instance in scripture where the sign was delayed? Where we see the leadership, malingering. Just one.


Sorry to have delayed my response--I have a full time job and other duties. But here we go: Paul says we are risen with him though the faith of the operation of God. Being "risen with him" I take to mean "born again." Baptism is the sign of this having been done. So, clearly: I do believe that in order to be a disciple you must first be born again. Are there disciples who are not? Sure. They are false ones, and there are many of them, but that doesn't invalidate the principle. How can you learn of Him, who is meek and lowly of heart, if you are at enmity with Him? A disciple is not merely learning facts; he is learning to be like Christ, through sanctification.
I will gladly show you a case of the sign delayed when you show me a case of baptism applied to an infant.


----------



## Taylor

Ben Zartman said:


> I will gladly show you a case of the sign delayed when you show me a case of baptism applied to an infant.



If you're asking for examples from the biblical narrative, I think it is wise to heed Bavinck when approach the baptism issue from this angle:

"We need to overcome our astonishment over the fact that the New Testament nowhere explicitly mentions infant baptism. This fact can be explained by saying that in the days of the New Testament, the baptism of adults was the rule, and the baptism of infants, if it occurred at all, was the exception. It was the period in which the Christian church had been founded and expanded by conversions from Judaism and paganism. It is precisely that transition that is clearly depicted in baptism. Adult baptism is therefore the original baptism; infant baptism is derivative; the former must not be conformed to the latter, but the latter must be conformed to the former. The validity of infant baptism does not lapse on that account, nor does it need tradition to sustain itself, as Roman Catholicism asserts. For also that which can be deduced from Scripture by legitimate inference is as binding as that which is expressly stated in it. This is how the church acts every minute of the day in the ministry of the Word, in the practice of life, in the development of its doctrine. It never stops with the letter but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit deduces from the data of Scripture the inferences and applications that make possible and foster its life and development. And this is also how it acts when it moves from adult baptism to infant baptism. Scripture indicates the general rule when baptism may and must be administered, and the church applies that rule concretely in the context of life. It does not have to say somewhere that children may be baptized. It says enough when it regards children in the same way as adults who have come to the point of professing their faith, and it never once mentions the administration of baptism to adults who were born of Christian parents."

—Herman Bavinck, _Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation_, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, vol. 4, 4 vols., Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 526.​


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Taylor Sexton said:


> Also, was Peter a disciple before he professed Jesus as the Christ?



Yes. He was a disciple of Jesus (he was clearly committed to following Jesus and His teachings). He was by no means a MATURE disciple, but he was a disciple.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Taylor Sexton said:


> Is a conscious decision to be a disciple necessary to be a disciple of someone?



It requires a commitment to the system / teachings / person that one is a disciple of. 

Being a disciple is an active thing. It's not a passive thing. One has to work at being a disciple. 

It's quite illuminating to read up one what "discipleship" meant in the context of 1st Century Judaism. One didn't just become a disciple because someone taught things at you.


----------



## deleteduser99

Disciples are baptized per Mt 28. Households were baptized in the NT. Households by nature include any present infants. Since there is no indication that the baptism was delayed for any on account of their inability to profess or to wait upon better proof of regeneration, ergo any present infants were disciples.

"Discipleship" is a word that will be determined by theological context in light of whether Scripture teaches exclusive professor's baptism or Household baptism. You must assume one position or the other first.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> It requires a commitment to the system / teachings / person that one is a disciple of.
> 
> Being a disciple is an active thing. It's not a passive thing. One has to work at being a disciple.
> 
> It's quite illuminating to read up one what "discipleship" meant in the context of 1st Century Judaism. One didn't just become a disciple because someone taught things at you.


Just a thought- there can be the conflation of the idea of a serious, committed, knowledgeable disciple with someone in the position of discipleship- someone perhaps just initiated into a discipleship, or who is interested on some level, following a teacher, exposed to a teacher, etc. In Scripture, some named specifically as Jesus’ disciples were a chapter or so later saying he was possessed by a demon, and in another place they left him.

An infant is initiated into this life of discipleship by baptism. They are willing disciples and continue on willingly as children, because God made them that way, to desire to follow after their parents’ ways (in general of course, ha!) Only later in life will they prove to have become disciples who will love and continue with Christ, or among those leave him and so end their discipleship. But there is absolutely nothing strange about the idea of a parent putting his child into a discipleship situation or position as an infant. God claims that infant of believing parents, does he not. 

It comes down to what baptism is to show forth, and what’s being said in baptism, and who’s saying it.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Ben Zartman

Taylor Sexton said:


> If you're asking for examples from the biblical narrative, I think it is wise to heed Bavinck when approach the baptism issue from this angle:
> 
> "We need to overcome our astonishment over the fact that the New Testament nowhere explicitly mentions infant baptism. This fact can be explained by saying that in the days of the New Testament, the baptism of adults was the rule, and the baptism of infants, if it occurred at all, was the exception. It was the period in which the Christian church had been founded and expanded by conversions from Judaism and paganism. It is precisely that transition that is clearly depicted in baptism. Adult baptism is therefore the original baptism; infant baptism is derivative; the former must not be conformed to the latter, but the latter must be conformed to the former. The validity of infant baptism does not lapse on that account, nor does it need tradition to sustain itself, as Roman Catholicism asserts. For also that which can be deduced from Scripture by legitimate inference is as binding as that which is expressly stated in it. This is how the church acts every minute of the day in the ministry of the Word, in the practice of life, in the development of its doctrine. It never stops with the letter but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit deduces from the data of Scripture the inferences and applications that make possible and foster its life and development. And this is also how it acts when it moves from adult baptism to infant baptism. Scripture indicates the general rule when baptism may and must be administered, and the church applies that rule concretely in the context of life. It does not have to say somewhere that children may be baptized. It says enough when it regards children in the same way as adults who have come to the point of professing their faith, and it never once mentions the administration of baptism to adults who were born of Christian parents."
> 
> —Herman Bavinck, _Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation_, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, vol. 4, 4 vols., Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 526.​


Taylor,
I wasn't asking because I believe that their absence puts the final nail in his coffin--I was simply illustrating that the demand Scott made of me was invalid.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Jeri Tanner said:


> Just a thought- there can be the conflation of the idea of a serious, committed, knowledgeable disciple with someone in the position of discipleship- someone perhaps just initiated into a discipleship, or who is interested on some level, following a teacher, exposed to a teacher, etc. In Scripture, some named specifically as Jesus’ disciples were a chapter or so later saying he was possessed by a demon, and in another place they left him.
> 
> An infant is initiated into this life of discipleship by baptism. They are willing disciples and continue on willingly as children, because God made them that way, to desire to follow after their parents’ ways (in general of course, ha!) Only later in life will they prove to have become disciples who will love and continue with Christ, or among those leave him and so end their discipleship. But there is absolutely nothing strange about the idea of a parent putting his child into a discipleship situation or position as an infant. God claims that infant of believing parents, does he not.
> 
> It comes down to what baptism is to show forth, and what’s being said in baptism, and who’s saying it.


That's just it--baptists don't believe that baptism is something God does to you. It is something men do, to testify to what God has already done. So we disagree that God "claims the infant of believing parents." Our theology of belonging to God is different. For us, either you belong to God all the way, having been actually regenerated, or you are, as Paul says, the children of wrath. Strange, that he would have been a member of the covenant community, with the sign placed on him at birth, and still said he had been of the children of wrath. Or maybe not, if we have our theology straight.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Ben Zartman said:


> That's just it--baptists don't believe that baptism is something God does to you. It is something men do, to testify to what God has already done. So we disagree that God "claims the infant of believing parents." Our theology of belonging to God is different. For us, either you belong to God all the way, having been actually regenerated, or you are, as Paul says, the children of wrath. Strange, that he would have been a member of the covenant community, with the sign placed on him at birth, and still said he had been of the children of wrath. Or maybe not, if we have our theology straight.


And yet, the children of believing parents are holy; meaning sanctified unto God, set apart (1 Corinthians 7:14)

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Yes. He was a disciple of Jesus...



So, confession that Jesus is the Christ isn't necessary, then, to be a disciple?



SeanPatrickCornell said:


> It requires a commitment to the system / teachings / person that one is a disciple of.
> 
> Being a disciple is an active thing. It's not a passive thing. One has to work at being a disciple.



With all due respect, brother, this narrowing appears arbitrary to me. Building upon what Jeri said above, it is difficult to see how a child who is "raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" is _not_ being discipled. Sure, they may not have yet made a conscious decision to _follow_ Christ, but, to me, that does not negate the fact that they are very much being discipled by their parents. Otherwise, what do we do with the admonition to teach our children to love the Lord (Deut. 6)? Therefore, to narrow "disciple" to only someone who has made a conscious decision and effort to follow another seems to ignore the broader aspects of biblical discipleship.



Ben Zartman said:


> Taylor,
> I wasn't asking because I believe that their absence puts the final nail in his coffin--I was simply illustrating that the demand Scott made of me was invalid.



Gotcha. I understand. Sorry for the confusion on my part, brother.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Taylor Sexton said:


> the fact that they are very much being discipled by their parents.


 It's worth pointing out, as it was once pointed out to me here on PB, that children are discipled by the church, not parents.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> Sorry to have delayed my response--I have a full time job and other duties. But here we go: Paul says we are risen with him though the faith of the operation of God. Being "risen with him" I take to mean "born again." Baptism is the sign of this having been done. So, clearly: I do believe that in order to be a disciple you must first be born again. Are there disciples who are not? Sure. They are false ones, and there are many of them, but that doesn't invalidate the principle. How can you learn of Him, who is meek and lowly of heart, if you are at enmity with Him? A disciple is not merely learning facts; he is learning to be like Christ, through sanctification.
> I will gladly show you a case of the sign delayed when you show me a case of baptism applied to an infant.


Water Baptism in the NT was the person testifying that they were now a covert and disciples of Jesus, and were now part of a local assembly of fellow believer's in Him.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> Disciples are baptized per Mt 28. Households were baptized in the NT. Households by nature include any present infants. Since there is no indication that the baptism was delayed for any on account of their inability to profess or to wait upon better proof of regeneration, ergo any present infants were disciples.
> 
> "Discipleship" is a word that will be determined by theological context in light of whether Scripture teaches exclusive professor's baptism or Household baptism. You must assume one position or the other first.


NT disciples of Jesus were those who were taught about Him and received that teaching.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> That's just it--baptists don't believe that baptism is something God does to you. It is something men do, to testify to what God has already done. So we disagree that God "claims the infant of believing parents." Our theology of belonging to God is different. For us, either you belong to God all the way, having been actually regenerated, or you are, as Paul says, the children of wrath. Strange, that he would have been a member of the covenant community, with the sign placed on him at birth, and still said he had been of the children of wrath. Or maybe not, if we have our theology straight.


Grest point, as not until the Lord saves the lost sinner, all are seen as not being part of the Community if Faith, but still dead in Adam.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

@Taylor Sexton, I thought it was worth finding that exchange from an older thread:

"Ephesians 6. Fathers are to use their natural authority, which includes a range of actions proper to the nature of their authority as civil superiors, to bring up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Ecclesiastical authority is entirely "ministerial" as opposed to "magisterial," that is, it is an act of service in the name of the Lord. It lays no claim to civil superiority."

↑
How is it that a Christian father is not discipling his children? (My question to Rev. Winzer)

"The specific actions connected with "discipling" are baptising and teaching in the name of the Lord, neither of which a father as a father is equipped or authorised to do."
National Center for Family Integrated Churches: morphing into a denomination?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor

Jeri Tanner said:


> It's worth pointing out, as it was once pointed out to me here on PB, that children are discipled by the church, not parents.



Yes, that's good. Thanks for the correction here. I was basically using "disciple" more broadly, but your point is very well-taken and received!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

Jeri Tanner said:


> @Taylor Sexton, I thought it was worth finding that exchange from an older thread:
> 
> "Ephesians 6. Fathers are to use their natural authority, which includes a range of actions proper to the nature of their authority as civil superiors, to bring up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Ecclesiastical authority is entirely "ministerial" as opposed to "magisterial," that is, it is an act of service in the name of the Lord. It lays no claim to civil superiority."
> 
> ↑
> How is it that a Christian father is not discipling his children? (My question to Rev. Winzer)
> 
> "The specific actions connected with "discipling" are baptising and teaching in the name of the Lord, neither of which a father as a father is equipped or authorised to do."
> National Center for Family Integrated Churches: morphing into a denomination?



Ah, yes, this is very helpful. Thank you!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


> Water Baptism in the NT was the person testifying that they were now a covert and disciples of Jesus



Isn't this the question being discussed here? No offense, brother, but you have a tendency—and I've noticed this especially recently—to just assert things as fact, much of the time begging the very question of the discussion. It makes it very difficult to dialogue.



Dachaser said:


> Grest point, as not until the Lord saves the lost sinner, all are seen as not being part of the Community if Faith, but still dead in Adam.



That would a strange, sudden, and otherwise unattested shift in economy from the Old Testament saints.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> NT disciples of Jesus were those who were taught about Him and received that teaching.



Like I said, the definition of "disciple" is determined by theological framework. You affirmed my point.


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> Isn't this the question being discussed here? No offense, brother, but you have a tendency—and I've noticed this especially recently—to just assert things as fact, much of the time begging the very question of the discussion. It makes it very difficult to dialogue.
> 
> 
> 
> That would a strange, sudden, and otherwise unattested shift in economy from the Old Testament saints.


We are now under a new and a better Covenant, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> Like I said, the definition of "disciple" is determined by theological framework. You affirmed my point.


Disciples are those who folliw and agree with ones teaching, correct?


----------



## Tom Hart

Dachaser said:


> Disciples are those who folliw and agree with ones teaching, correct?


Like my toddler?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> Disciples are those who folliw and agree with ones teaching, correct?



Depends on framework.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Taylor Sexton said:


> So, confession that Jesus is the Christ isn't necessary, then, to be a disciple?



Yes, but this doesn't prove what you think it proves (neither does it address what I was addressing).

Let me channel Peter's probably mindset at the time: "Whoever this Jesus is, he certainly knows a lot, has the power to do signs and wonders. Is he a prophet? Is he more? I am certainly intrigued and I want to learn from him. He said to follow him and so I shall, because whoever he is, he has something important to teach me. I am indeed his disciple!"

Here's what your line of thought leads to, if I were channeling Peter's mindset according to what you people are claiming being a disciple means: "I don't know who this Jesus guy is. He said to follow him and I had nothing better to do so I might as well follow him around to see what happens next until I get bored or hungry or remember that I have work to do. Honestly I don't really care what he has to say. Maybe I will learn something from him, maybe not. Whether I like it or not, I guess this means I am his disciple now. Whatever."

EDIT to add: In AD31 or AD32 or whenever Jesus was first gathering disciples, no one knew He was the Christ. To say that someone at that time must have confessed Him as Christ or else (by my definition) they weren't REALLY His disciples is silly. We in AD 2019 know fully well who Jesus is. We have a full revelation. Anyone who hears the Gospel and becomes a disciple of Jesus knows that Jesus is the Christ. If they don't confess this, then they are not a disciple of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> "I don't know who this Jesus guy is. He said to follow him and I had nothing better to do so I might as well follow him around to see what happens next until I get bored or hungry or remember that I have work to do. Honestly I don't really care what he has to say. Maybe I will learn something from him, maybe not. Whether I like it or not, I guess this means I am his disciple now. Whatever."



U do understand that there are people in our churches, that are unregenerate. Being in that state, is exactly how u state it above. They don't really care; cannot understand spiritual things. Their father is the devil, yet, some are even members who have been baptized. Some just attend. Sitting under a preacher is akin to discipleship; unless of course u are prepared to say that only people who have the sign placed on them are disciples. A disciple is one who routinely sits under a teacher/preacher.

In regards to what was cited earlier by MW:



Jeri Tanner said:


> "The specific actions connected with "discipling" are baptising and teaching in the name of the Lord, neither of which a father as a father is equipped or authorised to do."



The above child/infant has no understanding; yet, he/she are disciples.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Here's what your line of thought leads to, if I were channeling Peter's mindset according to what you people are claiming being a disciple means: "I don't know who this Jesus guy is. He said to follow him and I had nothing better to do so I might as well follow him around to see what happens next until I get bored or hungry or remember that I have work to do. Honestly I don't really care what he has to say. Maybe I will learn something from him, maybe not. Whether I like it or not, I guess this means I am his disciple now. Whatever."


 I don't think anyone characterized a disciple as being like that, and definitely not Peter. However Christ did have disciples who ended up accusing him of having demons, and he had disciples who left him and followed him no longer. "Disciple" is the Scripture's definition of those people, not ours.


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Yes, but this doesn't prove what you think it proves (neither does it address what I was addressing).
> 
> Let me channel Peter's probably mindset at the time: "Whoever this Jesus is, he certainly knows a lot, has the power to do signs and wonders. Is he a prophet? Is he more? I am certainly intrigued and I want to learn from him. He said to follow him and so I shall, because whoever he is, he has something important to teach me. I am indeed his disciple!"
> 
> Here's what your line of thought leads to, if I were channeling Peter's mindset according to what you people are claiming being a disciple means: "I don't know who this Jesus guy is. He said to follow him and I had nothing better to do so I might as well follow him around to see what happens next until I get bored or hungry or remember that I have work to do. Honestly I don't really care what he has to say. Maybe I will learn something from him, maybe not. Whether I like it or not, I guess this means I am his disciple now. Whatever."
> 
> EDIT to add: In AD31 or AD32 or whenever Jesus was first gathering disciples, no one knew He was the Christ. To say that someone at that time must have confessed Him as Christ or else (by my definition) they weren't REALLY His disciples is silly. We in AD 2019 know fully well who Jesus is. We have a full revelation. Anyone who hears the Gospel and becomes a disciple of Jesus knows that Jesus is the Christ. If they don't confess this, then they are not a disciple of Jesus Christ.


Peter reply back to Jesus showed a true disciple mindset, when he told Jesus He alone had words of eternal life! When the large crowds were deserting Jesus.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> U do understand that there are people in our churches, that are unregenerate. Being in that state, is exactly how u state it above. They don't really care; cannot understand spiritual things. Their father is the devil, yet, some are even members who have been baptized. Some just attend. Sitting under a preacher is akin to discipleship; unless of course u are prepared to say that only people who have the sign placed on them are disciples. A disciple is one who routinely sits under a teacher/preacher.
> 
> In regards to what was cited earlier by MW:
> 
> 
> 
> The above child/infant has no understanding; yet, he/she are disciples.


A saved child can be, but not an infant!


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> Depends on framework.


The Bible teaches us to make and teach disciples, do must be of age to be able to do those things.


----------



## Scott Bushey

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matt 18

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matt 19

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. Luke 18

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

'Infant' in Luke 18:

1. βρέφος, from Hom. and Pind., pap., means “young,” “fruit of the body,” as “embryo,” of animals, Hom. Il., 23, 266, of men, Sir. 19:11; Lk. 1:41, 44; “small child,” “*infant*,” 1 Macc. 1:61; 2 Macc. 6:10; 4 Macc. 4:25; Jos. Bell., 6, 205; Lk. 2:12, 16; 18:15; Ac. 7:19. ἀπὸ βρέφους, “from a child,” 2 Tm. 3:15; fig. 1 Pt. 2:2: ὡς ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη.

Albrecht Oepke, “Παῖς, Παιδίον, Παιδάριον, Τέκνον, Τεκνίον, Βρέφος,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 637.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


> We are now under a new and a better Covenant, correct?



Absolutely. Rejecting children of believers from the community of faith would be much, much worse.



SeanPatrickCornell said:


> "Whoever this Jesus is, he certainly knows a lot, has the power to do signs and wonders. Is he a prophet? Is he more? I am certainly intrigued and I want to learn from him. He said to follow him and so I shall, because whoever he is, he has something important to teach me.



Ironically, the Baptist church at which I was a member for four years, and at which I interned, all while I was still a convinced Baptist, would not baptize somebody who said only this. 



Dachaser said:


> The Bible teaches us to make and teach disciples, do must be of age to be able to do those things.



Thankfully, my parents didn’t follow this philosophy, and therefore taught me many things in infancy. You could say they took me as their disciple, teaching me their ways and values.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Taylor Sexton said:


> Thankfully, my parents didn’t follow this philosophy, and therefore taught me many things in infancy. You could say they took me as their disciple, teaching me their ways and values.


Agreed. My 2nd child sat through 9 months of family worship while still in the womb. The 3rd child is currently doing the same!

Reactions: Like 2 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> Absolutely. Rejecting children of believers from the community of faith would be much, much worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, the Baptist church at which I was a member for four years, and at which I interned, all while I was still a convinced Baptist, would not baptize somebody who said only this.
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, my parents didn’t follow this philosophy, and therefore taught me many things in infancy. You could say they took me as their disciple, teaching me their ways and values.


None are into the Community of Faith as in the NC until been born again.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> None are into the Community of Faith as in the NC until been born again.



Infants can't be regenerated?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> None are into the Community of Faith as in the NC until been born again.



David, your are not interacting with the board members when you only restate what you think in one liner comments. You really aren't communicating with the other board members. 

Let me just add another observation here. Remember, Jeremiah 32 follows Jeremiah 31 when the New Covenant is spoken of. 


Jer 32:37 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely:
Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
Jer 32:39 *And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:*
Jer 32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

David, if you are not going to answer in a more appropriate way maybe you should learn to ask questions and try to understand what is being noted to you. instead of just popping off one liners, where you only repeat what you think, try to listen and understand. 

Since you mention the New Covenant I will let you read something I discovered. I learned it from listening to Reverend Winzer when he participated on the PB. 



> The more I read Hebrews 8 the more I think I understand about how the shadows have passed away (v. 5) and how a lot of the modern Church is not reading this text or Jeremiah 31 correctly. There is a Priesthood that is being extinguished here and one that is being exalted. We no longer need the shadows or Levitical Priesthood to mediate and teach us since Christ (the substance) has become the High Priest and removed the shadows. The Substance is here and we can approach God directly through Christ by His Holy Spirit. The veil was torn from top to bottom. As the text repeated from Jeremiah 31 states they all shall know God from the least to the greatest. His Law will be placed in all of our hearts without the need for a Levitical Priest to mediate His word to us. That is the part that is being missed. This is about the transference of priesthood from the shadows and types to Christ our High Priest and antitype. We have a better Covenant with a better Priest who is in heaven now. Christ is a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. We no longer will tell our neighbor to go seek out the local Priest to mediate God’s word for us. For it has now been written and is mediated differently since Christ our High Priest has come.
> 
> (1 Timothy 2:5,6) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
> 
> Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
> Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
> Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
> Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
> Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
> Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
> Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
> Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
> Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
> 
> My point about this is that I read the text saying that the New Covenant is about a regenerate Church membership when the text isn’t about that but about how the Word of God is mediated and about how we have a better High Priest and Covenant now that the shadows are done away with. Does that make sense?
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/



David, please start to interact better with the other participants.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Taylor Sexton said:


> Ironically, the Baptist church at which I was a member for four years, and at which I interned, all while I was still a convinced Baptist, would not baptize somebody who said only this.



Why is that ironic? I would hope that NO church (now) would baptize anyone for that sort of confession.

I made it clear that there is a difference between a disciple of Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth before He was revealed to be the Christ and a disciple of Jesus Christ, Son of God after it was revealed that He was the Christ.

Did you actually read my post?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

PuritanCovenanter said:


> David, please start to interact better with the other participants.



Many have told him this before. He does not take heart the counsel of his brothers and sisters on here. I am not sure where the disconnect is. It degrades the threads for those that read through them with the earnest intentions of learning from them. It is getting to the point of becoming intolerable. I mean this with all love and respect. I truly do.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Infants can't be regenerated?


Exception, but not the norm.


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Many have told him this before. He does not take heart the counsel of his brothers and sisters on here. I am not sure where the disconnect is. It degrades the threads for those that read through them with the earnest intentions of learning from them. It is getting to the point of becoming intolerable. I mean this with all love and respect. I truly do.


My concern is that whenever I list scriptures, I seem to be shouted down, while the main prominent views of say infant baptism are given forth as if they are only way to view the position bring discussed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> My concern is that whenever I list scriptures, I seem to be shouted down, while the main prominent views of say infant baptism are given forth as if they are only way to view the position bring discussed.


David, You know I was a Reformed Baptist for many years and I dialogued with this board concerning the verses and contexts. I am not sure if I ever felt like I was shouted down. I did get in some heated debates and I think I did a pretty good job defending the RB position as I argued from a contextual and confessional stand point. I didn't just give one line answers saying the same thing over and over. I even discussed this passage from the RB position many years ago. Remember I saw discontinuity between the Covenants. Maybe you should go back in the archives and read some of the discussions. Mind you also that I believed as other RB's that there were stand alone Covenants such as the Mosaic Covenant. You need to learn how to discuss these things from good solid teaching. I read more than a few books and articles on the topics of Covenant Theology and Baptism. I was able to argue somewhat intelligently and back up my understanding of the texts being discussed. I didn't use Exclamation points behind one liner statements to try to get my points across.

When you just repeat one liner statements repeatedly without fully considering, reading, and responding to the thoughts of other posters it makes things confusing and doesn't advance the conversation. I am all for you David. Learn how to listen and interact with these guys. You may win some and you may prove to others that their positions are legit. Just stop repeating the one liner drive by's. They are not doing anyone any good.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Exception, but not the norm.


 how do u know whats God's norm?

So u agree that infants, sometimes can be regenerated.....this contradicts and flies in the face of so many of your posts; u see the issue, David? On one hand, u say one thing, emphatically (w/ exclamation points) and then digress by saying the direct opposite of your previous statement. As Randy has suggested (and myself as well a number of times), possibly if u would think before posting, refer to what u previously wrote, grow in grace, regroup and move ahead with the treatment and rationale u just saw in your own posts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> how do u know whats God's norm?
> 
> So u agree that infants, sometimes can be regenerated.....this contradicts and flies in the face os so many of your posts; u see the issue, David. On one hand, u say one thing, emphatically (w/ exclamation points) and then digress by saying the direct opposite of your previous statement. As Randy has suggested (and myself as well a number of times), possibly if u would think before posting, refer to what u previously wrote, grow in grace, regroup and move ahead with the treatment and rationale u just saw in your own posts.


I do not tie water baptism into equating one is within the community of faith.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> David, your are not interacting with the board members when you only restate what you think in one liner comments. You really aren't communicating with the other board members.
> 
> Let me just add another observation here. Remember, Jeremiah 32 follows Jeremiah 31 when the New Covenant is spoken of.
> 
> 
> Jer 32:37 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely:
> Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
> Jer 32:39 *And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:*
> Jer 32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
> 
> David, if you are not going to answer in a more appropriate way maybe you should learn to ask questions and try to understand what is being noted to you. instead of just popping off one liners, where you only repeat what you think, try to listen and understand.
> 
> Since you mention the New Covenant I will let you read something I discovered. I learned it from listening to Reverend Winzer when he participated on the PB.
> 
> 
> 
> David, please start to interact better with the other participants.


I used to see Jeremiah 31 as just being tied to future national Israel, but do see that promised NC to all the Israel of God today, saved Jews and Gentiles, and also applying towards saved Jews right at time of the Second Coming of Christ. seems to be a dual fulfillment, or maybe a partial to a full one?


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> David, You know I was a Reformed Baptist for many years and I dialogued with this board concerning the verses and contexts. I am not sure if I ever felt like I was shouted down. I did get in some heated debates and I think I did a pretty good job defending the RB position as I argued from a contextual and confessional stand point. I didn't just give one line answers saying the same thing over and over. I even discussed this passage from the RB position many years ago. Remember I saw discontinuity between the Covenants. Maybe you should go back in the archives and read some of the discussions. Mind you also that I believed as other RB's that there were stand alone Covenants such as the Mosaic Covenant. You need to learn how to discuss these things from good solid teaching. I read more than a few books and articles on the topics of Covenant Theology and Baptism. I was able to argue somewhat intelligently and back up my understanding of the texts being discussed. I didn't use Exclamation points behind one liner statements to try to get my points across.
> 
> When you just repeat one liner statements repeatedly without fully considering, reading, and responding to the thoughts of other posters it makes things confusing and doesn't advance the conversation. I am all for you David. Learn how to listen and interact with these guys. You may win some and you may prove to others that their positions are legit. Just stop repeating the one liner drive by's. They are not doing anyone any good.


Thank you for bring able to be respectful in your posts to me, as. I know that at times do not post what would be better clarification on my understanding of the scriptures. All of you keep rebuking in love, as I try to minimize that need here!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> I do not tie water baptism into equating one is within the community of faith.



In post 12 u say:


Dachaser said:


> I am just suggesting that Paul directly tied faith in Jesus to one now being water baptized, as that would be the clear reading of the text!



In post 67, u write:



Dachaser said:


> Water Baptism in the NT was the person testifying that they were now a covert and disciples of Jesus, and were now part of a local assembly of fellow believer's in Him.



U see any problems here?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> I used to see Jeremiah 31 as just being tied to future national Israel, but do see that promised NC to all the Israel of God today, saved Jews and Gentiles, and also applying towards saved Jews right at time of the Second Coming of Christ. seems to be a dual fulfillment, or maybe a partial to a full one?


This is my point David. You didn't comment on what I was trying to deal with in Jeremiah 31. The changing of the guard from learning from men (Priests as mediators) to Christ our one Priest and Mediator. You are not interacting with our discussions or posts. 

I am headed out to a Concert tonight. You all have a good one.


----------



## Taylor

Dachaser said:


> None are into the Community of Faith as in the NC until been born again.



Question begging...again.



SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I made it clear that there is a difference between a disciple of Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth before He was revealed to be the Christ and a disciple of Jesus Christ, Son of God after it was revealed that He was the Christ.
> 
> Did you actually read my post?



Yes, brother, I read your post. What I am saying is that your different treatment of Peter I surmise is due to an insufficient definition of what a disciple is according to Scripture, which others have pointed out, as well. Of course, we will just have to agree to disagree. I’m just pointing out how I see it.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> In post 12 u say:
> 
> 
> In post 67, u write:
> 
> 
> 
> U see any problems here?


No, as I see faith in Jesus as the entry way into the Community of Faith, as only those under the NC in a real sense are part of the Body of Christ, and water baptism more if confirming them into that local assembly.


----------



## Dachaser

Taylor Sexton said:


> Question begging...again.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, brother, I read your post. What I am saying is that your different treatment of Peter I surmise is due to an insufficient definition of what a disciple is according to Scripture, which others have pointed out, as well. Of course, we will just have to agree to disagree. I’m just pointing out how I see it.


Disciples required one to be recognizing and accepting the teachings of another, as Apostles were taught of Jesus, and the converts in turn by those apostles.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> how do u know whats God's norm?
> 
> So u agree that infants, sometimes can be regenerated.....this contradicts and flies in the face of so many of your posts; u see the issue, David? On one hand, u say one thing, emphatically (w/ exclamation points) and then digress by saying the direct opposite of your previous statement. As Randy has suggested (and myself as well a number of times), possibly if u would think before posting, refer to what u previously wrote, grow in grace, regroup and move ahead with the treatment and rationale u just saw in your own posts.


Infants can be regenerated by will of God, but apart from the water baptism on them, correct? God can do that to any infant He chooses apart from the water.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Infants can be regenerated by will of God, but apart from the water baptism on them, correct? God can do that to any infant He chooses apart from the water.



Yes, but many times, God uses the sacrament.

Ch 29 of the LBC states:

"Chapter 29
BAPTISM

29.1 *Baptism is* an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,* to be to the person baptized* a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, *of being grafted into him*,1 *of remission of sins*,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

of the WCF:
"I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, *of regeneration*,* of remission of sins*, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world."

VI. *The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time* wherein it is administered; *yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost*, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

In other words, God can, if He chooses, to regenerate, forgive sins, ingraft, etc, if He so wills.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Yes, but many times, God uses the sacrament.
> 
> Ch 29 of the LBC states:
> 
> "Chapter 29
> BAPTISM
> 
> 29.1 *Baptism is* an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,* to be to the person baptized* a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, *of being grafted into him*,1 *of remission of sins*,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."
> 
> of the WCF:
> "I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, *of regeneration*,* of remission of sins*, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world."
> 
> VI. *The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time* wherein it is administered; *yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost*, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.
> 
> In other words, God can, if He chooses, to regenerate, forgive sins, ingraft, etc, if He so wills.


Section 29 of the LBCF states it a bit differently.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Section 29 of the LBCF states it a bit differently.



A bit.... none the less, it still says, *of being ingrafted* (by baptism) and *remission of sins* (by baptism).


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> A bit.... none the less, it still says, *of being ingrafted* (by baptism) and *remission of sins* (by baptism).


Actually, states that just believer's in Jesus get water baptized, due to them already having sins forgiven/remitted. I do not hold to baptismal regeneration.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Actually, states that just believer's in Jesus get water baptized, due to them already having sins forgiven/remitted. I do not hold to baptismal regeneration.



That’s not what the LBC says. It says that baptism (the rite) is:



*Baptism is* :
1) ordained by Jesus Christ,* 
2) to be to the person baptized....
a)*a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection,
b)*of being grafted into him*,
c) *of remission of sins*,
d) and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

The above clearly shows that the operative word is ‘baptism’ and what it does. It says nothing of the person receiving the baptism.

* not tied to the moment (WCF)

U don’t believe God can and does, based on His good will and pleasure to save using the water of Baptism? What do u do with Peter’s statement that ‘ baptism now saves you’?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> That’s not what the LBC says. It says that baptism (the rite) is:
> 
> 
> 
> *Baptism is* :
> 1) ordained by Jesus Christ,*
> 2) to be to the person baptized....
> a)*a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection,
> b)*of being grafted into him*,
> c) *of remission of sins*,
> d) and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."
> 
> The above clearly shows that the operative word is ‘baptism’ and what it does. It says nothing of the person receiving the baptism.
> 
> * not tied to the moment (WCF)
> 
> U don’t believe God can and does, based on His good will and pleasure to save using the water of Baptism? What do u do with Peter’s statement that ‘ baptism now saves you’?


Baptism points towards Jesus himself as being what saves us, as baptism is the symbol of Jesus being the Ark that saves.


----------



## deleteduser99

Scott Bushey said:


> That’s not what the LBC says. It says that baptism (the rite) is:
> 
> 
> 
> *Baptism is* :
> 1) ordained by Jesus Christ,*
> 2) to be to the person baptized....
> a)*a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection,
> b)*of being grafted into him*,
> c) *of remission of sins*,
> d) and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."
> 
> The above clearly shows that the operative word is ‘baptism’ and what it does. It says nothing of the person receiving the baptism.
> 
> * not tied to the moment (WCF)
> 
> U don’t believe God can and does, based on His good will and pleasure to save using the water of Baptism? What do u do with Peter’s statement that ‘ baptism now saves you’?



A friend of mine once tried to get me on the purported language of presumptive regeneration in the WCF. All that was needed was to quote this back.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Harley said:


> A friend of mine once tried to get me on the purported language of presumptive regeneration in the WCF. All that was needed was to quote this back.



I believe we can (p)resume; But we cannot, (P)resume. *Not tied to the moment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Baptism points towards Jesus himself as being what saves us, as baptism is the symbol of Jesus being the Ark that saves.



Right....so think this through as u already have admitted earlier, that Christ can save infants. Can Christ save infants using the waters of baptism?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Right....so think this through as u already have admitted earlier, that Christ can save infants. Can Christ save infants using the waters of baptism?


No, as water baptism does not save anyone, but points us to Jesus who does.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> No, as water baptism does not save anyone, but points us to Jesus who does.



So, you disagree with the LBC of 1689, the WCF and the Apostle Peter?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> So, you disagree with the LBC of 1689, the WCF and the Apostle Peter?


Peter does NOT say the water baptism saves , but the one that we are baptized into does.The 1689 states that baptism itself does not save the sinner but faith in Christ does!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Peter does NOT say the water baptism saves , but the one that we are baptized into does.The 1689 states that baptism itself does not save the sinner but faith in Christ does!



If Christ can save infants, why can't he regenerate in baptism? U never answered the question.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, *eight souls were saved by water*. 21 *The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us* (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Pe 3:18–21.

Poole:
"_The like figure;_ Greek, the antitype. Twice this word occurs in Scripture; once Heb. 9:24, where it signifies simply a type, or exemplar, or representation; and here, where it implies either the likeness or correspondence of one type with another in signifying the same thing: so that here may be two types, the deliverance of Noah and his household in the flood, and baptism, whereof the former was a type of the latter, yet so as both represent the salvation of the church; in that as the waters of the flood lifting up the ark, and saving Noah’s family shut up in it, signified the salvation of the church; so likewise baptism signifies the salvation of those that are in the church (as in an ark) from that common destruction which involves the rest of the world:

Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 3 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 911.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> If Christ can save infants, why can't he regenerate in baptism? U never answered the question.
> 
> 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, *eight souls were saved by water*. 21 *The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us* (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Pe 3:18–21.
> 
> Poole:
> "_The like figure;_ Greek, the antitype. Twice this word occurs in Scripture; once Heb. 9:24, where it signifies simply a type, or exemplar, or representation; and here, where it implies either the likeness or correspondence of one type with another in signifying the same thing: so that here may be two types, the deliverance of Noah and his household in the flood, and baptism, whereof the former was a type of the latter, yet so as both represent the salvation of the church; in that as the waters of the flood lifting up the ark, and saving Noah’s family shut up in it, signified the salvation of the church; so likewise baptism signifies the salvation of those that are in the church (as in an ark) from that common destruction which involves the rest of the world:
> 
> Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 3 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 911.


Are you arguing for baptismal regeneration?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Are you arguing for baptismal regeneration?



By u asking that, it shows me that u don't understand the actual process.

The sign(baptism) and thing signified (salvation) are not one and the same. However, as I have shown in both confessions, it can be, if God so wills.

For example, how is it that both confessions say that in baptism, certain things occur, sometimes:

b)*of being grafted into him*,
c) *of remission of sins*,

Not everytime , i.e. 'not tied to the moment'. Meaning, God is not obligated to save a person during the baptism. But, He can, and does as He sees fit.

Does Christ forgive the sins of the unregenerate?

So, to answer directly; Baptismal regeneration is Reformed. BR, like Rome espouses, is aberrant.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> By u asking that, it shows me that u don't understand the actual process.
> 
> The sign(baptism) and thing signified (salvation) are not one and the same. However, as I have shown in both confessions, it can be, if God so wills.
> 
> For example, how is it that both confessions say that in baptism, certain things occur, sometimes:
> 
> b)*of being grafted into him*,
> c) *of remission of sins*,
> 
> Not everytime , i.e. 'not tied to the moment'. Meaning, God is not obligated to save a person during the baptism. But, He can, and does as He sees fit.
> 
> Does Christ forgive the sins of the unregenerate?
> 
> So, to answer directly; Baptismal regeneration is Reformed. BR, like Rome espouses, is aberrant.


Water Baptism not required for salvation,entry into body of Christ, but would be in obedience to Lord.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Water Baptism not required for salvation,entry into body of Christ, but would be in obedience to Lord.



David,
U need to answer my question: 'Does Christ forgive the sins of the unregenerate?'


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> U need to answer my question: 'Does Christ forgive the sins of the unregenerate?'


Jesus died for His own Elect. Sinners receive eternal life when they believe into Him to save them Spirit baptism is all important, not water baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Jesus died for His own Elect.



In light of what the LBC says above, does Christ forgive the sins of the unregenerate?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> In light of what the LBC says above, does Christ forgive the sins of the unregenerate?


Water baptism is a sign to the believer that He has indeed received remission of his dins by faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Water baptism is a sign to the believer that He has indeed received remission of his dins by faith in Jesus Christ.



Can u please answer the question!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Can u please answer the question!


Jesus did not die ior the sins of those who are still in their own sins. I do not understand what you are asking for here!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Jesus did not die ior the sins of those who are still in their own sins. I do not understand what you are asking for here!



Because, the LBC states:

29.1 *Baptism is* an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,* to be to the person baptized* a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, *of being grafted into him*,1 *of remission of sins*,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

If Christ didn't save people, as He so wills, when He wills, in baptism, how could a person be '*grafted into him*, and have *remission of sins?*


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Because, the LBC states:
> 
> 29.1 *Baptism is* an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,* to be to the person baptized* a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, *of being grafted into him*,1 *of remission of sins*,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."
> 
> If Christ didn't save people, as He so wills, when He wills, in baptism, how could a person be '*grafted into him*, and have *remission of sins?*


Water baptism reveals and shows one has been saved by Jesus before itd performed, not saved by it being performed.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Dachaser said:


> Water baptism reveals and shows one has been saved by Jesus before itd performed, not saved by it being performed.


Really? You feel comfortable saying that everyone that makes a confession to be baptized is truly saved and one of God's elect?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Water baptism reveals and shows one has been saved by Jesus before itd performed, not saved by it being performed.



U mean, like Ananias and his wife? Simon Magus? Demas?

No one who places the sign, know the actual state of any man. Consider Judas. Did Peter or the apostles know he was the son of perdition? The sign is simply placed based upon confession(when speaking of adults). Ask your own pastor. Tell him what u said here in this quote. He will, I promise, correct u. Your premise is based upon nothing more than presumption. The confession is more accurate in saying that those baptized, those who are of Christ, at whatever time God decrees, are united to Christ and their sins, forgiven-but not all baptized. Just showing of course, that upon baptism, again, if God so wills, He can use the sacrament and regenerate a man at that time.

oh, and u again didn't interact and answer my question:

"If Christ didn't save people, as He so wills, when He wills, in baptism, how could a person be '*grafted into him*, and have *remission of sins?"*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am closing this down. David is slow in understanding this. He has had a lot of questions thrown at him because of his many questions and statements. I will reopen this later. I have not taken this stance lightly. Please forgive me. David does not understand everything that is being thrown at him. It isn't because he is unintelligent or that anyone is intelligent. He has had a lot questions of doctrines handed to him that pertain to baptism and this doctrine. They are complex. I wish the Reformed Baptist Brothers on this forum would help build him up. I am not a Reformed Baptist. I know the situation. He is not able to deal with this as I was years ago. He is trying to learn like I was.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Really? You feel comfortable saying that everyone that makes a confession to be baptized is truly saved and one of God's elect?[/QUO
> 
> 
> Reformed Bookworm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You feel comfortable saying that everyone that makes a confession to be baptized is truly saved and one of God's elect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that we can know that God has saved us, by the witness of the Spirit and by us having a changed heart and mind towards Jesus.
Click to expand...


----------

