Chapter and verse please.
-
-
You claimed that God never hunted a person for not baptizing their kids, but you never proved they didn’t baptize their kids. You beat the burden of proof.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You sir made the connection between Moses and Zipporah, not me. And I don’t need to prove what’s not there. the burden is on the one inserting assertions, you.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The cnxn between Moses and Zipporah shows that the sign of covenant initiation (circumcision and then baptism) ought be applied to the household.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
No sir, it does not. Give me that from the Apostles. Circumcision was a sign. That to which it pointed was regeneration. Which the elect alone have. It pointed to the washing of the Holy Spirit; not to other signs.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Circumcision was given to Abraham, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes sir
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And Abraham knew God in the same way we do, right? By grace through faith?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
He was saved by grace through faith, yes sir. Gen 15:6, etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
(I’m saying so to account for WHY I see things this way - not expecting you to drop your books like you have never realized this was the infant Baptist’s view before)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Just curious - in the OT only the boys were circumcised. So, how can baptism be the new circumcision if women were never included?
Honest question 
-
-
Replying to @lapropella @Biblecia and
The administration has changed. In the same way it is now by washing with water not the cutting of flesh.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
