Featured Open Baptists & Paedobaptism

The answer would be can be saved, but not able to be a member of that local assembly!
Have you read any 1689 Federalism theology works?

 

Yes. Did i write anything contrary to 1689 fed?

Take a look at Reformed Baptist Seminary, you can audit courses for free.

 

Symbols matter. God gave the symbol for a reason, to be used in a particular way and by certain people. So, yes it is important.

 

Does God ever say this? Did the early church ever say this?

 

Padeo baptist support their position because of such folly.

 

Again, does the Bible give a rule on "proper" immersion? In my reading, I don't see a hard and fast rule. I see that there is an argument for a regulative view and a normative view. I simply err on the side of extending grace.

 

And that purpose is a public proclamation of one's salvation & committment to Jesus.

 

It was impossible for him to be baptized, but not for me, eventually. It would be folly & DARING GOD if one were to be baptized outdoors in below-freezing temps, for both baptizer & baptizee.

 

I don't know if he's a Baptist or not, but he certainly believes in regenerational baptism. I simply use that name for such believers.

 

dude seems to be a baptist, but whatever he is, he certainly believes a false doctrine.

 

The issue is that you believe that paedobaptism is legitimate baptism, that the infants are actually in the covenant of grace. This is opposed to Baptist beliefs. Are the unrepentant, unregenerate, those without faith part of the Covernant of Grace? Should the unrepentant, unregenerate and those without faith be given the covenant sign? Baptists say No! The Presbyterians say yes.

The Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant, the Covenant which was inaugerated by the shedding of the precious blood of Chrsit. Only those who are in Christ are in the Covenant. There is no second baptism as you keep stating, so of course you won't find scripture arguing for that.

Baptism is a hill worth dying over.

Why do you believe that faith and repentance is irrelevant to the legitimacy of Baptism? Presbyterians seperate salvation with the Church (which is the body of Christ), thus unregenerate, unsaved peope are in and are the body of Christ. I would say that scripture is clear about who is in the covenant and thus only those in covenant should recieve the covenant sign.

Are there any examples where baptism was given without a profession of faith? Where do you find even a hint that unbelieving infants should or are baptised in scripture? Where in scripture does it teach that circumcision equals baptism? Presbyterians needed to make a baptism the same substance as circumcision because they did not have any teaching from the new which justified their theology.

If a infant was "baptised" but then rejected the Church/the faith but then a few years later was converted. Would this person need to be "re-baptised"?

Have you studied Reformed Baptist theology? because by the sound of it you've read alot of presbyterian theology.

 

For the most part, Presbyterians do not immerse aka to actually baptize.

 

this is also true

 

No, was just curious how you view Baptist theology regarding Dispy vrs Covenant theology?

 

You both are right on this, as while spirit Baptism all important, symbolism does matter!

 

The NT view also links water baptism to one already having been saved in Christ, hard to believe babies can do that!

 

No Baptist should believe in that though!

 

Any who have been saved have been part of the NC, as we must accept that the Old Covenant saved none, as those who were really saved were even back then under New Covenant of grace!

 

The big disagreement is just how new was the new Covenant? Brand new as baptists hold, or else updated and modified OC?