SITE NOTICE | MORE..Photo Album Improvements! The photo albums feature has been improved for all members to now include the ability to upload multiple photos via drag-and-drop with our new Media Uploader tool! .. click for more info!
Folder wrote: Sixteen centuries of Covenant and baptism of the whole family regardless of human ability, - the seed or children of covenanted parents had been baptised according to the Word of God. This truth was never rescinded by Christ or the Apostles
Care to substantiate this claim by posting evidence of any INDISPUTABLE cases of baptism of unbelievers in the first 2 centuries? Including the unbelieving children of 'covenanted parents' if you like.
Folder wrote: The Baptists changing of the Greek definition of the word baptism, and their introduction of more water with all emphasis/onus laid alone on the mortal sought to change their methodology from the instructions of Scripture. To achieve this they have excluded God from Covenantal seed (Gen 17).
You sir are a shameless liar!
Would you like to reconsider this lie? Or shall we start posting on here every Presby who has conceded that baptism meant immersion and not sprinkling, including John Calvin?
SteveR wrote: It should be obvious to everyone here(at least those of us 80IQ and above)Â by now that the Infant Baptism debate is a draw with Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures neither command it or forbid it.
Just what we would expect from a Jesuit who places more value on the testimony of the church fathers than on the bible
SteveR wrote: Â Ive noticed that you take some liberties thinking it affirms your election....
Twisting what I said. It is a personal testimony. No one denies that someone could be mistaken in that testimony which is why we are called to make our election and calling sure.
John UK wrote: Well Watchman, I have asked a question, Observer has asked a question, and you have asked a question, and we'll none of us e'er get an answer to any one of them. Also not forgetting Bro Mike's excellent points.
These guys have an impassable mental block when it comes to the Bible which is why they retreat so quickly to cutting and pasting from their theological standards and authors.
Do they know nothing of the Bible? Clearly not if they cannot themselves argue purely from the Bible.
No way anyone could ever accuse them of being Bereans, eh?
SteveR wrote: AGAIN people Covenant doesnt always mean ELECT. Just like every person baptized with PLAIN water is NOT saved in Believer Baptism(unless you guys are foolish enough to think your water baptism actually saved you) all infants baptized are not all ELECT but are Covenant
As I said earlier the man hasn't a clue what the New Covenant is all about even though God spells out clearly that this is something new and that every member of the New Covenant would be circumcised in the heart by God himself!!
If this is the case then every member of the New Covenant will be born again and is an elect individual.
This guy could not think straight if his life depended on it.
And how ignorant that the man thinks that Baptists say that baptism saves. Baptism is a testimony to an inward work that God has already done for that individual and nothing more, which is why it can only be applied to genuine believers!
SteveR wrote: and that the New Covenant was for the ENTIRE HOUSE(which includes kids) of Israel Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. I know you guys are 2 standard deviations below the average spiritual IQ in Christendom, but I think you should at least be able to bring this debate to a draw. Once you answer the WCF proof texts point by point, you should get a draw.
A guy who lies all the time and is incapable of joined up thinking wants to judge this debate!
If Jer 31 applies to the whole house as defined by this prideful fool then all children born into Paedo houses would invariably be saved!! Are all the children born into Paedo houses born again?
If the answer is no, which clearly it is, then he has made God's word in Jer 31 a lie. Since God cannot lie I am on pretty good ground to say that the man has no idea what Jer 31 means!
Hugh wrote: WCF 28: 1. "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,a not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church,b but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,c of his ingrafting into Christ,d of regeneration,e of remission of sins,f and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life:g which sacrament is, by Christâ€™s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.h a. Mat 28:19. â€¢ b. 1 Cor 12:13. â€¢ c. Rom 4:11 with Col 2:11-12. â€¢ d. Rom 6:5; Gal 3:27. â€¢ e. Titus 3:5. â€¢ f. Mark 1:4. â€¢ g. Rom 6:3-4. â€¢ h. Mat 28:19-20. 4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,a but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.b a. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:37-38. â€¢ b. Gen 17:7, 9 with Gal 3:9, 14 and Col 2:11-12 and Acts 2:38-39 and Rom 4:11-12; Mat 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15; 1 Cor 7:14." Now don't forget to add to this the historic truth that the Baptist interpretation wasn't invented until 1521ff.
If you find yourself Biblically ignorant turn to the confession of faith!
These guys don't have a clue about the Bible! As far as they are concerned the Abrahamic covenant was the New Covenant but look at what God said would happen under the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8) and you will see that ONLY the spiritual aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant and THIS ONLY foreshadowed what would happen under the New Covenant. But how could a New Covenant have been announced in Jer 31 when the Abrahamic covenant was still in force if they are one and the same?!
It is because it foreshadowed the New Covenant that we are regarded as the seed of Abraham. The New Covenant ONLY embraces believers and NONE else!!
Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant because none received it without repentance and faith.
I like US's challenge for any PRESBY or other Paedo to find any explicit mention in the NT of an unbeliever being baptised. I bet they'll be running to their commentaries and systematic theologies so that they can cut and paste an answer.
These guys are like the Jews, they have a zeal without knowledge and most of them have no testimony of being born again. They believe that their baptism is what God regards and not a new nature!
Lurker wrote: Don't let Steve's feeble attempts to humiliate his opponents rile you up. The texts he quoted actually prove that all believers are pillars in the house of God, which house we are, and defeats the very point he tried to make.
Good morning brother, and thank you for your post and the point you made.
Hopefully, most people on this forum will have Steve figured out by now. He is a good for nothing who takes every opportunity to show his unregenerate nature and display his ignorance.
When one feels strongly for the truth as it is in Christ, any attack on that truth is an attack on Christ. It is difficult not to feel the pain or to turn the other cheek. Especially considering that this man is actively promoting the RCC cause and calling the RCC Whore the Bride of Christ!
As though this false church has not done enough damage we now have to endure people who nominally attach themselves to Protestantism and under this guise promote the cause of the Harlot.
If only he could understand that he is going to share the judgement of this Harlot.
SteveR wrote: Ouch...Horrible conclusion from 1 Tim 3:15 I know it makes you feel like a holy 'watchman', but 1 Timothy 3:15 is not the best choice of Scripture to utilize for JY. It is considered one of the Apostolic Succession Proof Texts. The Bishop of Rome relys on the pillar of Peter. Notice how PILLAR is a metaphor for specific persons in other parts of Scripture? (Being Biblical is important to you, right?) Otherwise you can try to make the argument that Timothy is that PILLAR which is difficult to do. Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall.....
Wow! Absolutely amazing ignorance.
...the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth...
How does anyone read this to make Timothy the pillar and ground of truth is beyond me, but apparently I am not being biblical
This RCC advocate doesn't even possess a grasp of basic grammar.
John UK wrote: Psalms 32:1-2 KJV 1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. David is speaking here about men "whose transgression is forgiven". Was he the only one in the OT whose sins were forgiven? Psalms 32:10 KJV 10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the LORD, mercy shall compass him about. Are you saying that David's contemporaries could not trust in the Lord and receive mercy in like manner as David? How do we know that this is "justification by faith without works"? Romans 4:6-7 KJV 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. If you take the blinkers off, you might see it.
The Psalter could only have been a personal devotional manual for David (Oops but not all the Psalms were penned by him!) if none of the Jews at worship could relate to it. If that is what it was, it could only have been written for the church age.
John Yurich USA wrote: If the Apostles and Nicene Creeds state "WE BELIEVE IN ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY SON OF GOD" then that means that the RCC believes in and worships the biblical and historical Jesus as God. Normal Evangelical Protestants state that the RCC has a false gospel but states the RCC worships the biblical and historical Jesus as God.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Rome does not teach the truths of the Bible despite the NT teaching that the church of the living God should be the pillar and ground of TRUTH
1 Timothy 3:15 ...that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, WHICH IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH.
She therefore teaches a false religion and is a false church.
Frank wrote: Hello Pilgrim and Luke 17:10! Watchman, of course your exegesis of James is right on. Thanks for providing it. Your question concerning SteveR might have been rhetorical, but I will add my 2 cents. SteveR is in my opinion an ambassador for Satan's church. I think he understands Catholicism, which is why I don't engage him anymore, because he continues to defend them. I will go to great lengths to help a seeker, or someone who is confused, but I think this fellow actually understands what we are saying. I have been enjoying your comments and like John UK and U.S., they have been a blessing to me.
Thank you brother. We have not conversed before, but I too have followed some of your postings and have been blessed.
I think virtually everyone on this board knows where Steve is coming from. His language and attitude make it very evident. I believe Observer has it right that this man is not converted and I think you are also right in that he is an ambassador for Satan's church.
SteveR wrote: I dont think any Church is 100% right, and they do have proof texts like this James 2:24 James 2:25
Dear Bro, I am sure you know this already but the espistle of James is not concerned with the issue of justification but what genuine faith looks like and produces. James' emphasis is summarised in James 1.22
"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves"
Those who say that they have faith but fail to do what God commands only deceive themselves!
So Steve's attempt to palliate the harm done by the teachings of the false church headed by ROME is quite unbelievable.
Genuine Faith leads to obedience and that is all that is meant.
It is no wonder he says that they have proof texts. Sure, because they do not understand what they read.
Is it any wonder that proof texters err so greatly?
John UK wrote: Ah, now you are getting to the heart of the matter - earthly blessings. Even Ishmael had some blessings from God, but none of them were spiritual. Grace is at the heart of spiritual blessings - and by grace we are saved.
That is right John, and THE SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT aspects of the New Covenant, as Lurker has pointed out, is that the New Covenant is purely Spiritual and therefore the members of this New Covenant all have spiritual life through faith in Christ.
This is so easy to demonstrate that anyone in the least familiar with their Bibles will find this to be true.
Look for instance at passages like Jer 31.31, Hebs 8.10,11 and see who the members of this covenant are!
Observer has already pointed out that Steve's comment that there was no change between covenants is contradicted by God's word in Hebs 8 and following. So, it is a particularly important that we get to grips with what these changes were.
John UK wrote: What do you reckon these supposed blessings are he keeps mentioning.
In the land of fancy, pretty much anything
To continue our study, If we consider Romans 4.11, 12 "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised."
Now the latter verse is interesting because it shows that even of those who were circumcised he was considered only a spiritual father to those who walk in the steps of that faith of Abraham!!
IOW he was never the spiritual head of all the circumcised!
What about the circumcised babes and the unsaved? Surely they must have received some blessings because of their connection to Abraham? Sure, but these were earthly blessings only, not spiritual.
In today's context how do Abraham's earthly blessings translate to the unsaved? You would have to travel to the land of fancy with Steve to find out.
SteveR wrote: Of course the YE is plural, it references those that Paul addresses that are IN CHRIST in Galatia with myself. Christ is the SEED we are the YE in him. JohnUk, ...The Baptism and/or AFFIRMATION doesnt save them, like your Believers Baptism doesnt save.
Hope you're having a blessed Lord's Day.
As I said in an earlier post, simple logic is beyond this hate filled individual who somehow has convinced himself that he is saved. I don't believe that there is any way that he can ever have been under a sound gospel ministry. There is no sensitivity to sin, none at all!
And you have your answer bro, that this "covenant" does absolutely nothing for his children and "they" (viz. the parents) have to add the children to the blessings that they have in the Lord's covenant", whatever that is supposed to mean!
John, you might also care to look at Galatians 3.9 "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham"
Now consider John, who is blessed because of their connection with Abraham? Only they which be of faith!! Where are the unsaved in the household? What no blessing for them? Surely God has got this wrong?
I don't expect this will concern him, as he's not interested in what God actually says.
Christ is the seed in the promise, but he is not the ONLY seed.
Galatians 3.29 And if ye be Christ's, then are YE ABRAHAM'S SEED, and heirs according to the promise.
Here, hopefully everyone will agree, the seed is a reference to the YE and therefore must refer to the many and not just one individual. It is nevertheless the same word that was used to describe Christ as the seed in the promise!
IMHO I don't think you are going to make any progress with him. He is not a student of God's word. He is a retailer of errors born of ignorance and malice.
John UK wrote: Watchman, I wish I had more space, but I am in firm agreement with your whole post!
Thanks John for your response. I was not expecting a response today. It must be very late your end!
Blessings to you and Goodnight.
PS. The Galatians verses omitted "whether you're grown up or a baby". I wonder why? When discussing categories of people who are visibly "in Christ" it seems a rather major omission, wouldn't you say?
Also why does it speak of them ALL being the children of God by faith in Christ. What happened to the covenant non elect?
To readers who may be following this thread, I have no wish to interact with SteveR, because he has already demonstrated how futile an exercise this would be, given his base attitude to posters on this board and his cavalier attitude to the Scriptures.
But just so that no one thinks I am evading his inane question regarding the one baptizing, Mike NY has answered it perfectly, hence the reason that I did not respond. Thanks Mike.
Can anyone please point me to NT texts dealing with the whole issue of Covenanted non-elect baptized Christians? Surely there must be some reference to these individuals if they existed then?
John UK wrote: I believe scripture teaches that no-one should be baptised until they are "in Christ"...
Having followed this man's sad exchanges with Observer, I have to say that his inability to process the simplest of truths leads me to believe that he is in utter darkness.
You will have noticed how quickly he backed off a train of thought once Observer had HIM establish that Abraham's children were those who had faith. SteveR even quoted Gal 3.26-29
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Look at the logic
-Children of God by faith -Baptized into Christ -Race does not matter -Status does not matter -Gender does not matter -If you are Christ's then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise
So are the Children of God by faith the same at the Baptized? Or are there 2 camps being referred to? If they are one and the same, what happened to those who don't have faith but have been baptized?