I have absolutely no problem with infant baptism
so long as their first words are: “I repent of my sins and trust in Jesus Christ alone.”



-
-
Replying to @NatePickowicz
I gladly baptize infants. Spiritual infants, to be sure, but infants. :)
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @JT_Richards @NatePickowicz
What's the difference, really? It is God who supernaturally raises both to life.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HacimMb @NatePickowicz
Do you believe all baptized babies have been raised to life? If not, there is the difference.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Exactly!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No more than all circumcised were. The sign is visible, regeneration is not - no where are we told to look for signs of regeneration before applying the sign to initiates in the church.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The promises of the new covenant are that all in it know God. Our point is if baptism is a sign of NC, baptism Should end n Salvation 100% of the time. Those who heard the word & believed are commanded to be baptized they will be confessing regeneration & desiring to be baptized
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Signs are not what they signify, ergo baptism does not, in itself, regenerate. It is a sign of God's promise, which still must be believed whether applied to an adult or child. Circumcision didn't actually sanctify spiritually, nor does baptism.
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.