John UK wrote:
The oft-quoted Mr Calvin has some very unusual beliefs concerning Colossians 2:12. In fact, the baptismal regeneration Mr Calvin espouses is now shown to get worse......there is more.

John UK wrote:
"Buried with him, in baptism. He [Paul] explains still more clearly the manner of spiritual circumcision -- because, being buried with Christ, we are partakers of his death. He expressly declares that we obtain this by means of baptism..." J.C.

Quote;
"bear in mind that outward circumcision is here compared with spiritual, just as a figure with the reality" JC

It is arbitrary to select one aspect [of our union with Christ, namely burial] and find in the language used to set it forth the essence of the mode of baptism. Such procedure is indefensible unless it can be carried through consistently. It cannot be carried through consistently here [since baptism by immersion does not and cannot visually reflect our being hung on the cross with Christ, which is as much an aspect of our union with Christ in the passage as our burial with him] and therefore it is arbitrary and inva1id

John UK wrote:
"buried with him in baptism"

Baptist philosophy of rite/ceremony began in 1521 by Anabaptist heretics who btw rejected the OT - Sound familiar?

Prior to 1521 nobody argued this point because everybody accepted effusion/sprinkle/covenant as Biblical doctrine.

Anabaptist ideology and practice invented in 1521 - But only began to be developed during the following centuries into what it has become today.

Immersion and total reliance upon verbal statement as means of baptism emerged in history as a religious rite with the Anabaptists in the 16th century, in their rebellion with the orthodox.

Sprinkle/effusion is the Biblical mode and Baptist redefining of words and rewrite of history does not change these recorded historic facts.

Pre 1521 history records effusion/sprinkle of babies in Covenant as being the orthodox mode for all Christians.

"Baptist" ideology was invented in 1521 before which "Baptist" separatists did not need to exist. Nobody saw the need.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Hardly

"Amyraut claimed that his views were in accordance with the Word of God, the theology of John Calvin and the Canons of Dordt (1618-1619), to which he as a French Reformed minister subscribed. This also was false as his critics, both then and now, have pointed out. Martin I. Klauber states, “The majority of Reformed theologians … rejected his system as the first step towards Arminianism” (“Theological Transition in Geneva,” in Carl R. Trueman and R. S. Clark [eds.], Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment [Great Britain: Paternoster, 1999], p. 258, n. 5). The orthodox in the French Reformed Church and outside it called for his discipline but the French synods failed to deal with the problem properly. The slide of his students, his disciples and the French Reformed Church further and further into Arminianism has been well documented" (Rev A.Stewart)

Jim Lincoln wrote:
1. While IHCC does all of its baptisms by immersion....

2. It is good that the FPC recognizes the falsehood of the Popish Baptism