2) understand, nor profess Christ as Savior. If infant baptism is important an special, then why is there no infant baptism described in the NT? There are so many adults baptized who upon hearing the gospel/repent then are baptized. You have no proff of your doctrine.
-
-
Replying to @chitlnz48 @NewGeneva
"You have no proff of your doctrine." "I will be God to you and your children." "The promise is for you and your children, and all who are far off" There's ample proof, so long as you don't limit God's words to the New Testament alone.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HacimMb @NewGeneva
Concerning the call. Thats context of Peters message. I never said adult children, my 7yo. Professed her faith in Christ. Tell me, why did Phillip baptize the Eunuch? What did Phillip ask him before baptism?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chitlnz48 @NewGeneva
Pointing to adult conversions and baptism in no way detracts from the clear statements of God to his covenant people over the entire course of redemptive history - adult converts were always required to repent and believe.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HacimMb @NewGeneva
Point me to an infant conversion and baptism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chitlnz48 @NewGeneva
I don't have to - we have God's command time and again throughout Scripture to include infants and children in the covenant rite. Show me one example where God says to stop.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HacimMb @NewGeneva
You have to interject infant in the words children, and household. You have no textual proof of infants being baptized. I stand on Gods word that demonstrates gospel preaching/repentance/profession of faith. I don't believe I have sed it does not extend to children. No infants
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chitlnz48 @NewGeneva
So, to clarify, it's your position that "children" only means adult children or those that can make a verbal profession? Does it mean that in Genesis? I have provided textual proof of God including infants in his covenant promises throughout Scripture, you dismiss it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HacimMb @NewGeneva
And your only evidence that infants are baptized is scriptures yourself described as, "alluded" to infants being baptized. Infant baptism for your doctrine is based on supposing maybe there was an infant there, somewhere.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chitlnz48 @NewGeneva
But whatever, it's just God's command, not like he takes it seriously.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The Jews that had been circumcised, when converted to Christ were baptized. Timothy was circumcised after he had been baptized. If baptism is the substitute for circumcision, where is the fact stated?
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.