Is that an answer to the question I asked?
-
-
Replying to @pastorErogers @HacimMb
I deny your ad hoc framework, where the Scripture needs to explicitly teach infant baptism. It doesn't explicitly teach baptism of the mentally handicapped, but you'd want to affirm that. Because you're inconsistent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The covenant has always included infants since circumcision - ergo, the Scripture teaches infant baptism. That is what the Church has understood. You deny that with your novel Baptist categories, I get that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Let's be honest, there isn't any explicit support for infant baptism. None. Zip. Zero. There is explicit support for dreams, visions, gifts. Agreed?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pastorErogers @HacimMb
Apart from household baptisms and the fact that Baptism into the covenant is circumcision? Sure, we don't see babies explicitly mentioned, at a time when the focus is entirely on adult converts. Shocking. No handicapped either. 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Regarding dreams, visions, gifts etc. There is no explicit support for their continuation, or their ceasing, from the text. All you have are inferences, as we all do. But I also have the Fathers to look to, which helps. Anyhow. 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's simply not true. We are told they are to be expected in the last days, that his gifts are without repentance, and that they only end when we see Jesus face to face. At least you admit there is no explicit support of infant baptism.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So again, if the Bible explicitly affirms and demonstrates something, it should be believed. No question about it. If it is NOT explicit (as you have admitted is the case with infant baptism) then we don't know if it true. But one should sooner accept dreams, visions, gifts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pastorErogers @HacimMb
No, I didn't say there is no explicit support. There's explicit support in the nature of the covenant. In summary, its validity is so explicit & obvious that barely anyone prior to the Anabaptists argued against it. Apparently they're wiser than 1500 years of Fathers & Reformers.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That isn't explicit support, it is inferred by you. It is never mentioned so by definition (as that is what "explicit" means) there can be no explicit support. Only vague connections assumed by those who wish it true.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No, saying that Baptism is circumcision is an explicit point recognized by the Apostles' successors and even Reformers. I'm not the one out by himself under a tree with his Bible inferring things about Scripture. I get that you don't want to see it like that, that's up to you.
-
-
Like I said, you seem to have an authority beyond Scripture. I don't.
#SolaScriptura1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pastorErogers @HacimMb
You can assume that and you're free to do so. Its just sad to see that you think you know better than the Reformed men who originated that phrase. Take care, brother and God bless.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.