44jason
Puritan Board Freshman
Paul,
You ask me just to forget about your character attacks on me and continue to engage you. Why would you just ask me or anyone to overlook your behavior? Such emotional reactions to your opponent do you no favors, brother. But I do forgive you.
Now, let me see if I can appease your desire for me to have to type all night... Saturday night non the less... when it is easier for us just to listen to the debate. So I will give you time references for the MP3's. Fair enough?
MP3 #3
time: 13:00 = You admit that you do not know if who you are baptizing is elect. Gene at least tries to test the validity of someone's faith, even if by the minimal "profession." But your argument is, since neither of us can know for sure then don't fault me for baptizing infants -- God will sort it out.
time: 13:20 = You claim that infants are in the New Covenant based upon the Abrahamic Covanant. You continue through 15:45 and following to continue this argument by saying that infant baptism was in the Great Commission.
time: 18:20 = You again speak of your belief that all infants are in the New Covenant regardless of their spiritual condition.
time: 28:47 = Paul claims that the Great Commission is about baptizing disciples, but back around time: 15:45 he was arguing just the contrary. Namely, that the Great Commission was commanding us to baptize nations, even the unconverted.
time: 34:00 = Paul states that infants have both Adam as their federal head and the sign of the New Covenant. That baptized infants have both the sign of the New Covenant but have no mediator.
time: 38:00 = Paul states that if a child does not draw near to God then God has no obligation towards that child. Gene points out that this makes infant baptism MEANINGLESS.
time: 39:00 = Paul is asked that since Paul believes that infants are members of the visible church and are therefore valid candidates for baptism then why not communion? Paul says, "They cannot digest lamb chops." (He was serious.)
time: 40:30 = Paul states that Baby Dedications are a non-reformed practice done by Baptist. But Gene had already stated that such a practice is done in Baptist churches for traditional reasons not doctrinal reasons.
time 42:00 = Paul argues for baptizing children even though they are "enemies of God" because they aren't really enemies until they actually reject God. This is why I said that Paul argued for sort of an "age of accountability."
AND RICH L., you must be mistaken. Paul accused me of dishonesty. So your comments are misdirected.
You ask me just to forget about your character attacks on me and continue to engage you. Why would you just ask me or anyone to overlook your behavior? Such emotional reactions to your opponent do you no favors, brother. But I do forgive you.
Now, let me see if I can appease your desire for me to have to type all night... Saturday night non the less... when it is easier for us just to listen to the debate. So I will give you time references for the MP3's. Fair enough?
MP3 #3
time: 13:00 = You admit that you do not know if who you are baptizing is elect. Gene at least tries to test the validity of someone's faith, even if by the minimal "profession." But your argument is, since neither of us can know for sure then don't fault me for baptizing infants -- God will sort it out.
time: 13:20 = You claim that infants are in the New Covenant based upon the Abrahamic Covanant. You continue through 15:45 and following to continue this argument by saying that infant baptism was in the Great Commission.
time: 18:20 = You again speak of your belief that all infants are in the New Covenant regardless of their spiritual condition.
time: 28:47 = Paul claims that the Great Commission is about baptizing disciples, but back around time: 15:45 he was arguing just the contrary. Namely, that the Great Commission was commanding us to baptize nations, even the unconverted.
time: 34:00 = Paul states that infants have both Adam as their federal head and the sign of the New Covenant. That baptized infants have both the sign of the New Covenant but have no mediator.
time: 38:00 = Paul states that if a child does not draw near to God then God has no obligation towards that child. Gene points out that this makes infant baptism MEANINGLESS.
time: 39:00 = Paul is asked that since Paul believes that infants are members of the visible church and are therefore valid candidates for baptism then why not communion? Paul says, "They cannot digest lamb chops." (He was serious.)
time: 40:30 = Paul states that Baby Dedications are a non-reformed practice done by Baptist. But Gene had already stated that such a practice is done in Baptist churches for traditional reasons not doctrinal reasons.
time 42:00 = Paul argues for baptizing children even though they are "enemies of God" because they aren't really enemies until they actually reject God. This is why I said that Paul argued for sort of an "age of accountability."
AND RICH L., you must be mistaken. Paul accused me of dishonesty. So your comments are misdirected.
Last edited: