SteveR wrote: Agree edit: I noticed one of those attacking the WCF claimed infant baptism was in question. Infant Baptism was well established in the Reformed Churches prior to the WCF, the only disagreements were in the mechanics and if private baptisms were acceptable. It seems the enemies of the WCF only have lies and deception as their tools
CAB wrote: Moving this discussion to one of the proper threads.. You are the one heterodox, teaching Limited Penal Bloodless Atonement here for how many years? Now claiming to champion blood atonement, but still claiming it's penal, when it's not, and you've not even tried to defend it as penal. I have laid out my position clear as a bell on the 5 points of Calvinism, and so far you and I have only talked about the third point, your no-double-jeopardy bloodless penal atonement, the 3rd point of the TULIP. Anyone can go back and read my posts and see clearly where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to be subtle about my position at all. I've spoken clearly on all 5 points, and nobody has challenged me on any of what I've said. Why? Because my position is totally Biblical and irrefutable. For this I am hated and challenged by dirty tricks, name-calling, blowing smoke, and such other things. Yes, I do think you are some kind of paid agent on this board, and I have my reasons for thinking that, as you well know. Teen Christian, this is the proper thread to discuss doctrine, not the Pat Robertson thread.
Your false views have been answered time and again. You just can't acknowledge it.