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.”



-
-
Where does the Bible say it is the new covenant manifestation of circumcision?
-
It's not really a topic I know how to summarize in 240 characters, so for better or for worse, here is a link :)https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/infant-baptism/ …
-
Baptism is an outward sign of the circumcision of the heart. Colossians 2:11-12 clearly state that we are raised by faith, and baptism is simply a way we display that. Baptism does not save, faith in Christ does.pic.twitter.com/kTNK0n9Y7I
-
Neither I, nor anyone that I'm aware of, thinks Baptism saves. Clearly there are many hypocrites of all ages who are Baptized and take the Lord's Supper too.
-
There are also many Christians who were never baptized or took the Lord's Supper, yet they are with the Father now.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thinking this thread will now be fun to follow.

-
Couldn't help myself

-
LOL that last line

-
It's true, yet enhances the awkwardness just enough to be entertaining.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant; it is not for unbelievers according to scripture. Luke 22:20 "And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."
-
You're mixing baptism and the Lord's Supper. Those are two completely separate sacraments.
-
This verse clearly illustrates WHO the new covenant is for and with, 'you' (the elect). Therfore it would be in error to administer the sign of that covenant to those who aren't part of it.
-
-
You glossed over something that everyone making this argument glosses over; you didn't highlight 'repent and'. You have posted the verse that EXACTLY illustrates Nate's point. How can infants repent? Also, does 'children' mean 'baby' or 'offspring'? Only one is consistent.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
If baptism replaces circumcision, Paul's letter to the Galatians should have been a lot shorter...
-
No, not at all.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Owned.
-
You mean a sign & seal of justification by faith can be applied to infants (Romans 4:11)?
-
I’ll stick with the language of the confession for the purpose of precision.pic.twitter.com/3QClOGKJNS
-
A venerable statement indeed! I take issue with it in some of its NC shortsightedness, but it undoubtedly warms my heart still in many ways in its clear affection for Christ’s Gospel. I find much more warming, however, articles XXXIX & XL here below from the divines in 1644-pic.twitter.com/ALIB7vaYN7
-
I find much more warming the words of Peter, "'Repent and be baptized *every one of you*...For the promise is for you and for your children...'" —Acts 2:38-39 ESV I can't but notice that he didn't say, "every one of you except the infants," but reconfirmed the covenant pattern.
-
Yeah, I guess it’s true he didn’t “reconfirm” your much later developed presupposition. Odd. The promises are said to be for all who believe. That’s consistent. All who the Lord will “call” by faith.
-
So then, you're saying that Peter was wrong when he said that every one of them should be baptized because the promise was for both them and their children and all whom the Lord sovereignly calls to Himself by way of election.
-
You guys are amazing. Keep going. I'm enjoying all the angles, but rooting for Ron on this one.pic.twitter.com/GEmBrpTcAU
- 3 more replies
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.