Mine was all the 400lb women charging towards it.

mine was Calvin actually guarding it for really against brigands. cant remember where (Geneva i guess)

Should just have a sniper hidden in the rafters.

@VDMA LCMS by your logic, Jesus is liar. Did or did not the thief on the cross go to paradise? It's FAITH ALONE! I get SO SICK of you works-based people! You are liars, prideful and sinful!

@VDMA LCMS i'm not gentle with proud, false teaching. "Law to the proud, grace to the humble". Remove your heretical lies about my Savior if you want cuddle time. Until then, expect a fight every time you lie.

@VDMA LCMS i don't respond (or even read) to people who write several paragraphs. Make a point and move on. 100% of the time-long comments are human-centered and tripe. I quit bothering with the proud and simple minds who are not actually seeking Truth.

@VDMA LCMS i'm done with you...ur a brick wall.

Amen! I had the same thought about false converts. I’ve met many an apostate Baptist. In Baptist thinking, if a person makes a false profession and then comes to genuine faith later on in life, they are to be baptized again. I know many people who have been baptized multiple times. My father was baptized as a child in the Methodist church and then twice in the Baptist church. I have concerns over this practice. One of which is the lack of biblical warrant for such a practice. As a former Baptist turned Presbyterian, these are conversations I’ve had to have with my family members as we prepare to baptize our little boy.

​@Mark OnTheBlueRidge _"The pedobaptist believes that baptism performs some spiritual action on the recipient. It does something (whatever that something is) that has to do with salvation."_ Yes it does. What exactly it does depends on exactly which group you are talking about of course. _"Therefore, a person who is baptized but never becomes saved is a problem for them. Something spiritual was definitely accomplished, but it didn't work. Dud round, I guess."_ This only applies if the ceremony of water baptism has a positive causative effect on the salvation of the person receiving it. If there is some meaning to it for the reprobate, then it doesn't work. I think this line could be developed into an argument against the Roman view and possibly the Lutheran view (though I think they make distinctions in their confessions that would need to be accounted for). The Reformed confessions leave enough room for differences of opinion, so your objection would only situationally work depending on who you were talking to. The Westminster Standards are silent on the meaning for the unregenerate, but it clearly states that the water ceremony itself does not save: WCF 28.5: "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." The previous chapter also gives some clarification about the sacraments that should be kept in mind. 27.2 There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. 27.3 The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. Taken together, it is fine to speak of regeneration in terms of baptism or baptism in terms of regeneration (the Bible does so after all), still one shouldn't confuse the mere ceremony of getting wet with the working of the spirit. The Lutheran Book of Concord in the Large Catechism makes this point rather vividly, calling baptism separated from the Word a 'bath-keeper's baptism' and that 'the water is the same as that with which the servant cooks'. My own private take is that baptism is quite meaningful for the unregenerate. Both Paul and Peter relate Baptism to death and life. In Romans 6: 3,4, Paul speaks of being buried through 'baptism unto death' and raised up with Christ to have a new life. It seems to me Baptism represents the death we all deserve for our sins just as much as it shows our need for a savior to raise us up from the grave. Those who are not regenerated demonstrate the sign of baptism through a death without a savior and remain under the waters of judgement. Peter goes further and ties Baptism with the flood in 1 Pe 3: 20-22. Thus as the flood was judgement on the reprobate, baptism on the reprobate shows their right judgement for their sins and their rejection of the savior. So there is always a somber truth of our sin and condemnation that is conveyed in every baptism just as much as a promise of salvation and life for those who are in Christ. On the other hand, Baptists seem to strip down the meaning of Baptism so much that it does nothing at all. There is no spiritual reason to do it, it's just some checkmark to get to prove you are a Christian. And yet despite the meaninglessness of it, they seem to insist that it is the single most important thing to do, even getting baptized multiple times. I don't really understand the Baptist thinking on Baptism. _"Both sides recognize the existence of false professors. I can't see how it's a problem for a credobaptist."_ The problem is that they think it is important to only baptize true believers (even though it doesn't do anything) and take offense at the idea of baptizing the whole household of believers, yet they can't even meet their own standard. In my view, the Biblical model of household baptism fits in with the covenant nature of the promise being for the professing head and those under their authority; and given that the sign applies whether saved or reprobate, it doesn't matter if their baptized children (or others under their household) never believe, baptism still meaningfully applies.

@Mark OnTheBlueRidge _"The standard is to baptize only believer, yes, but in saying so they fully recognize that it is possible to be mistaken in that ("the Lord knoweth them that are His), and so the fact that a false professor may be baptized is not problematic."_ That makes sense as far as it goes. The bit that seems off to me is holding to all of: 1) It is super important to baptize believers 2) It is super important to not baptize unbelievers 3) Baptism doesn't do anything / it is a mere profession of faith

@That Lutheran Guy _"Baptismal regeneration is the Bible historic view of baptism once delivered to the saints."_ As a Westminster Confession holding Presbyterian, I agree with that statement. WCF 27.2 "There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." Luther's Large Catechism brilliantly distinguishes between a mere "bath-keeper's baptism" that is absent of the Word and repentance, and the baptism that saves as found in the Bible. The difference between the confessional (non-Baptist) Reformed and Lutherans, as I see it, is that you like to speak in terms of the 'sign' and we like to speak in terms of the 'thing signified'. Both are fine according to my confession. Sadly, too many Lutherans don't seem to make the distinction their own Book of Concord makes to distinguish between the mere water ceremony and the work of God that is sometimes called Baptism in the Bible and seem to believe that the water ceremony itself is what saves. Even when they do understand, they leave the impression that they don't. We have the opposite problem where we get so used to speaking in terms of the thing signified we forget how the Bible is perfectly willing to blur the language. In both cases, our respective confessions help avoid the tendencies each of us face to go too far and leave the boundary of sound doctrine.

@That Lutheran Guy _"The problem with teachings form Calvin and Zwingli..."_ Why in the world would you lump Calvin and Zwingli's views on the sacraments together? They are completely opposite. How dishonest! Here is a Lutheran Quarterly article from 1888 just so you know who is peddling revisionist nonsense and who is representing a side Lutherans used to acknowledge. books.google.com/books?id=tQtIAQAAMAAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA355&dq=%22Christopher+Pezel%22+%22This+is+certainly+a+learned+and+pious+man%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Christopher%20Pezel%22%20%22This%20is%20certainly%20a%20learned%20and%20pious%20man%22&f=false "[Regarding Calvin's view of the Lord's supper] These views of Calvin as expressed in the _Institutio_ and in the _Confessio_ were so acceptable at Wittenberg that Luther in a letter (Oct. 14, 1539) to Bucer, his "most dear brother in Christ," commands: "You will salute reverently Drs. John Sturm and John Calvin, whose books I have read with great delight." Melanchthon also wrote: "Luther and Pomeranus have sent salutations to Calvin and Sturm. Calvin has come into high favor." This so surprised and gratified Calvin that he wrote to Farel (Nov. 20, 1539): "Now consider seriously what I have said there about the Eucharist; think of the ingenuousness of Luther: it will now be easy for you to see how unreasonable are those who so obstinately dissent from him." And Christopher Pezel relates the following anecdote of Luther: On reading the _De Coena Domini_ which had been sent him by Moritz Golsch, a Wittenerg bookseller, he explaimed: "Moritz, this is certainly a learned and pious man, with whom I could at the very beginning have settled the whole matter of this strife. I confess for my part that if the opposite party had acted in this way we would have been agreed at the outset. For had Oecolampadius and Zwingli expressed themselves thus we would never have fallen into such prolix controversy."" The footnote for this Luther quote notes: "This speech is nowhere recorded in any of Luther's writings hitherto discovered but it is accepted as historically true by such Reformed as Hospinian, Henry, Gieseler _et al_ and as at least expressing the true sentiment of Luther it is accepted by such Lutherans as Dr.. Julius Muller and Dr. C. F. Schaeffer. And not less did Calvin believe himself to be in essential harmony with Luther." It goes on to quote Calvin to that effect. It amuses me (though doesn't surprise me given the trajectory the two denominations have taken since the reformation) that in this thread, the Reformed guy is defending the confessional Lutheran view, and the "Lutheran" is defending the Roman view. And it is rather amazing how you can ramble on about how unbiblical my view without showing any understanding whatsoever of what my view is or even trying to define it explicitly from my confessions. You seem to just want to be contrarian rather than truthful. _" Presbyterians and Baptist are non historic heterodox churches."_ Those Catholics you are defending would say the same about Lutherans. So what? Luther and Calvin spent great effort showing how their understanding was found in the Church fathers and wasn't some new teaching and that it was the Roman church that had strayed from the historic church. I'm pretty convinced by their case, but if you want to return to Rome, I won't stop you. And the Reformed view of the sacraments is very different from the Baptist view. The baptist view is closer to Zwingli's view, whereas the Reformed view is in line with Luther and Calvin.

He isn't wrong here though. Show me where a baby gets baptized in the New Testament. I'll wait.

​@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 show me where a 21 year old gets baptized in scripture

@@bigtobacco1098 What a dumb question. A 21 year old is an adult and adults are repeatedly baptized in the NT. If you claim to follow the regulative principle you have failed miserably with being consistent with it on infant baptism 🤡

@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 in the households/families

@@bigtobacco1098 All the people baptized had faith. If an infant has faith he/she can be baptized.

the baptists are the ones dividing on this lol and adding the requirement of "immersion only" like the 1689 says

Gen 17 is the OT reference. It's a very clear passage about who receives the covenant sign: the believer, their children, and all other members under the believer's authority, so not just relatives, but any servants, even servants from far off lands. Peter repeats this same formula in Acts 2 as you note. Honestly, I think the real issue is that Baptists tend to assume a disconnect or disharmony between the OT and NT instead of seeing it as one continuous story with once central theme of one salvation in Christ for all people of all times. So it's pretty meaningless to them when the NT authors constantly cites the OT to support their teachings, that doesn't prove that the OT as a whole still matters, it just means that the particular passage still matters.

Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. What is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, The term "New Covenant" is not found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, or in the 1689 LBCF. We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in Hebrews 12:22-24.

Paul is speaking to Hebrews everywhere of any time. He doesn’t specify a time period which these apostasy versus would be applicable. So we’d have to maintain that they’re still applicable to people today, right?

If you watch his debates where he makes the argument, he makes a reasonable case for that assertion. It's not 'crazy'.

R.C. April jr would disagree. His church did exercise these two ordinances.

Could someone point to or post (or both!) White's argument for why paedobaptism and credocommunion are inconsistent? I've heard lay baptists on the internet make the claim, but they end up taking verses exclusively about communion and applying them to baptism such that I could use the same form of argument to show we should baptize by eating bread and wine. I expect White to have a much more thoughtful argument than a layperson.

I am not sure they are entirely inconsistent but then again I tend toward encouraging participation of baptized children in the supper whenever they are able and desire to.

its a common baptist ploy, they truly believe that both sacraments serve basically the same purpose, a sign of a believers faith/repentance

I'm a member of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia, think Dutch Reformed in Australia, and I've been recently searching the scriptures on the nature of baptism and the new covenant in scripture. I just read through our form for baptism in our liturgy, and I've had the same thought. This stuff that we believe about baptism is really amazing, but to apply it to infants, as we do, assumes that the child is regenerate. I am really starting to believe that the view of baptism that I have had growing up is not what scripture teaches, but it's a tradition that was formed after Dutch people got scared of becoming "those crazy baptists".

​@@HartyBiker From my perspective, it makes a lot of sense to baptized regardless of age. As a Confessional Reformed (WCF) believer, I don't think salvation is the work of any human, but the work of God. So in baptizing the household without concern about the works of the recipient, I proclaim that gospel to all the recipients. The infant's works did not save them, God's work is what saves. I don't view baptism as the mere ordinance; it isn't merely getting wet in a ceremony. It is a sacrament, and God is doing something in baptism that isn't tied to the works of man in baptism or that moment of time, but is done by the Spirit in his own time and way.

No, the pattern is that when one comes to believe, all those in the house under his authority as head of household are given the sign of the covenant. This was the practice since Gen 17 and was reaffirmed by Peter in Acts 2, and we can see that put in practice throughout Acts. Notice, age isn't the issue, it is the status as a member of the household under a believing head.

Solo scriptura* not sola

@@reformedgabrielgay

Professor ... some are believers

OIKOS covenant

Isnt* necessary for salvation? Thief on the cross?

@@franckiewicz0831 1. Jesus specifically told him he would be saved. 2. It was physically impossible for him to get baptized. 3. Baptism wasn’t instituted in the way it is today until Jesus ascension when he told the apostles to baptize people.

@@colepriceguitar1153You just proved it isn’t necessary for salvation in point 2

You really want to base your entire soteriology based off of one extremely rare situation where an exception might be made?

@@colepriceguitar1153 I think the idea is, what you see as an exception to the rule we see as consistent with the norm for salvation.

it's both the same thing, like Pedophilia is also Paedophilia since seeing Pedobaptism prolly made you think of that word.

Cornelius proves you wrong.

@@urawesome4670who the hell is Cornelius?

Physical sign to indicate the spiritual truth of salvation.

From the advent of the early church, people, groups, and whole churchs were in heresy or heterodox. Half of the epistle of the New Testament are correcting teaching and admonishing. Of course some of these false teachings persisted from the beginning

Prove it.

@@douglasmcnay644 if you do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man you have no life in you

No one here believes that.

@@thomasthellamas9886 James white says it’s not sacerdotal

@@spiderb3367 Yeah that’s what I’m saying. No one here, ie the Reformed world, believes in saceradotalism

Grow n d Grace n Knowledge of Jesus. By your definition of just believe...then anyone faith is true...from Watch Tower to Mormons. They all believe n Jesus....Right?

@@gordonreed2736 Absolutely not. God can save whomever he chooses regardless of the general terms laid out in the New Testament. But baptism must be by immersion, believing and confessing that Jesus Christ is the son of God, repenting of sins, and living in the Spirit is the way to Heaven. Jesus said, Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who does the will of my father which is in heaven. Other references: Acts 2:38, Romans 9: verses 9-10, I Peter 3:20-21, Mark 16:16. Many other verses.

'Simple gospel' is not the same thing as throwing out large chunks of what Scripture has to say, because you've deemed it 'theological mumbo jumbo' and 'junk' that 'God'll sort out'. The simplicity of the Good News is not the same thing as dumbing it down lest we risk falling into the dreadful trap of actually having cause to think about something for more than 5 seconds.

@@daveb9342 Incidentally, in addition to this, you've already contradicted your own position. The 'simple gospel' in your view is 'believe, faith, be baptized, trust in Him'. Yet, only one comment later, you've now added confessing Christ as the Son of God, repentance, and 'living in the Spirit' and doing the will of the Father. You also reference Acts, Romans, 1st Peter, Mark. But, Dave... maybe I just find that all theological mumbo jumbo! Surely the Gospel is simple and God will sort out the rest!

@@Mic1904 Be my guest! No contradiction. No more so than all the verses that mention belief to saved without mention of baptism, confessing Christ, repentance, etc.