Search results

This would largely depend on the congregation. I'm a member of a OPC congregation which tends to be "more open" than most other OPC churches in regards to dress, worship style and communion. I suggest you meet with an elder/pastor or whatever church and ask. I have gone to some URC churches...

I said "argument" or whatever you wanna call it. In other words just using the same type or argumentation/notion/reasoning which is basically nothing but questioning my credibility with rhetoric and throwing it back at you.

Except I wasn't. I am chilled. Just throwing your "argument" or whatever you wanna call it right back at you.

Are you? Nice rhetoric.

Covenant Children mean that adults 17, 23, and 26 are not children. BTW we define covenant children by the OT requirements so you should know that the age is way passed that. Secondly everyone within the house hold who is able must accept the terms of the covenant whether it's the slave or...

Again there is a reason why we accept both modes....dohy. Frankly I want to see the scriptural evidence how you know that john the baptist only immersed and it's not you reading into the text...again.

Bro there does need to be a command, baptize means unite with water/wet, yo. And your analogy is fallacious it would be more comparing the word love, the word love can be used in different senses such as love between a mother and her child or sexual passionate love. The word baptism there is no...

Is this man part of your congragation? Or is it someone you just know from another church? If he is from your church the first step is to talk to an elder/pastor in your church. Secondly, although I don't know all the facts about this issue. Some people just like to get in others face and use...

We recognize that it's the water which matters not reading into the mode. There is no specific "only" immersion command for the mode you just read into the word. Although the OT does speak about sprinkling we realize that either mode works but it's the water which matters not trying to read into...

Ok?

It's a psudo dispensationalist view. They again are inconsistant, they claim the old covenant is void but fail to fully either take one side or the other. It's either a) all the OT covent promises are applied unless modified which one must deduce infant baptism and gods law or b) all of OT...

No it doesn't. You say 1 appled +1 apple = 2 apples (for baptism) but for peaches you say 1 peach + 1 peach = 3 ( for the lords supper) You can play all of these games you want but the logical implication is still the same arbitrary hermenutic. Only the reformed hermenutic stands to...

So since there is no scriptural example of women receiving communion u don't do either...dohy at baptist logic. BTW wheres the explicit command to only submurge individuals?

What do you mean citizen of Judea? Define it. Sorry to put more of a burden on you brother but I want to make sure I understand your point.

I actually sugggest you talk to these people in person so you can demonstrate that these individuals have preconcieved notions and show them the objective scripural response directly. 99 percent of people who are anticalvinist are against it because they are ignorant and are assuming a bunch of...

I've read similar claims before by baptist. You have any ebooks or something I don't have to spend money on? This isn't going to be another one of those books were baptist choose to side with heretics that randomly believed in some psudo credobaptism? Like my favorite Motanists.

Actually that's only partially true, we are not under the OT Abrahamic dispensation but the NT dispensation. So while we are the true fulfilled form of judaism we are not longer under that dispenastion and the signs and seals changed. Although I am not sure what what Mikey ment by his comment.

Arguments can get more complex but the logic is simple, what is the sign and seal of God's covenant? Baptism. Have children been excluded from the the new covenant...NO. Then we must infer that the sign and seal is applied to children. For example: Acts Chapter 2 2:37 Now when they heard...

Ive heard similar claims before guess it's as factual as baptist history. :P

Sorry you are right LAW is King....LEX REX. Countered the kings REX LEX. As far as burn the baptist...I don't know anything about that. If you have factual sources it would make an interesting read. I do think credobaptism is heresy (not damned) although I don't see how the law could be...